Notices
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 101 to 200 of 217
Like Tree26Likes

Thread: SPLIT : Farsight's Comments

  1. #101  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    KLW's second principle: the constancy of the laws of physics, both with respect to different observers moving relative to each other
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    "Laws of physics" is just a concise way of describing in general terms the outcomes of all physics experiments. The second postulate basically says that observers who are in motion relative to each other will obtain the same results for the same physics experiments that they perform. By accepting Galilean relativity, you are accepting the second postulate of special relativity.
    100% False because Galilean Relativity leads to radically opposed conclusions to SR. SR leads to logical paradoxes because SR is based upon TD&LC - the perverted heart of the Einsteinian system; Galilean Relativity is not. Your 'second postulate' is a perversion of science to prop up a predetermined false outcome and to hide the logical paradoxes emerging from SR.

    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    However, the converse is not true because the second postulate special relativity can be considered to include the constancy of the speed of light in a vacuum, whereas the constancy of the speed of light in a vacuum conflicts with Galilean relativity. In other words, by accepting the constancy of the speed of light in a vacuum and Galilean relativity to the extent that they are compatible, you are agreeing with special relativity, whether you like it or not. To do otherwise is inconsistent.
    Your second highlighted statement, underlined (along with the nonsense you claim from it) is also false since you work from ideas of Galileo's & Newton's day & presume that light is a point-particle. Light has a more complicated structure - the Doppler Ensemble Theory shows it - and is this more complicated structure that interacts with Galilean Relativity to explain the Doppler Effect and the non-existence of phenomena claimed by Einstein i.e. TD&LC.

    Yours is merely a deceitful attempt to twist the term Galilean Relativity into being identical with SR - paralleling Einstein's own deceitful phrase "Principle of Relativity", trying to smuggle his own nonsense into Galilean Relativity in order to have them considered one & the same. (Sounds like the activities of the Humanist Societies in Australia & Britain, though there in the realm of philosophy).

    Even Einstein admitted that Galilean Relativity could be maintained but that then:
    Big Al Einstein, Relativity ch. VI p. 19: The Law of the propagation of light in vacuo would then have to be replaced by a more complicated law conformable to the [Galilean] Principle of Relativity.
    The Doppler Ensemble Theory is this very 'More Complicated Law'.

    TFOLZO
    Last edited by TFOLZO; 08-25-2014 at 04:59 AM.
     

  2. #102  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    861
    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry Nightingale View Post
    In modern physics (at least to me) there seems to be a concerted effort to "Prove reality wrong, as well as Einstein's GR"...why else is billions of dollars being poured into LHC's and "super-colliders" that prove nothing more than the "truth of reality?"
    The way I see it, it is about our desire to understand the nature of reality at ever-increasing energy scales. In the beginning of subatomic particle research, observations of cosmic particles have provided us with a glimpse that reality is indeed "interesting" at high energy. Particle accelerators were then developed as a controlled method of exploring the high energy realm. It's only natural that we construct theories to represent our understanding of the nature of reality, and that we put these theories to the test in order to verify our understanding of reality against reality itself.
    Gerry Nightingale likes this.
    A tensor equation that is valid in any coordinate system is valid in every coordinate system.
     

  3. #103  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    861
    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO View Post
    The emission of light is not conditional on whether the light will ever be absorbed.
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    Do you have any observational evidence to back this statement?
    Easy! The sky is black at night with only occasional stars & galaxies and plenty of dark space in between.
    The night sky may appear to have plenty of dark space in between the occasional points of light when viewed with the naked eye, but when viewed with powerful telescopes, the dark spaces reveal themselves to be filled with very distant galaxies. In pretty much any direction one points, there will be an object.


    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO View Post
    Furthermore, there is no evidence to the contrary
    I didn't make the claim. I simply challenged the statement that you made without evidence.


    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO View Post
    that light has to have a future site of absorption before it is emitted (how could nature 'police' such a thing?)
    The same way the correlations of quantum entanglement are 'policed': by excluding from existence the entire spacetimes that violate the relevant principle.
    A tensor equation that is valid in any coordinate system is valid in every coordinate system.
     

  4. #104  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    861
    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    By accepting Galilean relativity, you are accepting the second postulate of special relativity.
    100% False because Galilean Relativity leads to radically opposed conclusions to SR.
    It is not false because the second postulate of special relativity was expressed by Galileo himself. It forms the basis of Newtonian mechanics. Einstein's statement of it was only a reaffirmation... it had been accepted for centuries. It is the first postulate that distinguishes Einstein's relativity from Galileo's relativity, not the second postulate.


    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO View Post
    SR leads to logical paradoxes
    This statement indicates that you do not properly understand special relativity because a proper understanding of special relativity makes it crystal clear that there are no paradoxes. By describing reality in terms of a four-dimensional Minkowskian spacetime, time dilation and length contraction are easily understood. Bear in mind that because the mathematical description can be constructed, there are no paradoxes (which would prevent the existence of such a description).


    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    whereas the constancy of the speed of light in a vacuum conflicts with Galilean relativity.
    Your second highlighted statement, underlined (along with the nonsense you claim from it) is also false since you work from ideas of Galileo's & Newton's day & presume that light is a point-particle. Light has a more complicated structure
    My statement makes no assumption about the structure of light. The only property of light that is used is its speed. It's worth noting that the Lorentz transformations were originally derived as the transformations under which Maxwell's equations are invariant. Maxwell's equations don't treat light as particles.


    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO View Post
    Yours is merely a deceitful attempt to twist the term Galilean Relativity into being identical with SR
    Nonsense. It is to point out that the principle of relativity is not exclusively about Einstein's theory. Galilean relativity is demonstrably inadequate in comparison to special relativity.
    A tensor equation that is valid in any coordinate system is valid in every coordinate system.
     

  5. #105  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    997
    TFOLZO, I wouldn't worry about the causality. Zero proper time elapses between emission and absorption in the photon's "frame of reference".
     

  6. #106  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    KLW: The night sky may appear to have plenty of dark space in between the occasional points of light when viewed with the naked eye, but when viewed with powerful telescopes, the dark spaces reveal themselves to be filled with very distant galaxies. In pretty much any direction one points, there will be an object.

    By no means does that mean that all the light is 'tagged' for absorption. Much of the light passes beyond the Hubble distance - and that is what matters.

    that light has to have a future site of absorption before it is emitted (how could nature 'police' such a thing?)
    The same way the correlations of quantum entanglement are 'policed': by excluding from existence the entire spacetimes that violate the relevant principle.

    Your answer is Einsteinian BS only. Spacetime is an ideological construct only. Quantum entanglement is a specific process, not one "attached to the whole universe at once." There is NO requirement for light to have a future absorption point 'tagged' before it is emitted. Such a claim is merely Parmenidean presumption, the presumption of a block universe, an Einsteinian prejudice that does not require to be obeyed.

    TFOLZO
     

  7. #107  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    The causality is vital. Time does NOT stop for a moving photon. Quite the opposite: a photon ages as it moves, as time passes.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jilan View Post
    TFOLZO, I wouldn't worry about the causality. Zero proper time elapses between emission and absorption in the photon's "frame of reference".
    When you read Doppler Ensemble Theory (DET) here you will find that there is NO photon frame of reference. The photon has all wavelengths so can be potentially detected at any observer speed, so long as the observer is in the correct position.

    TFOLZO
     

  8. #108  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    KJW: By accepting Galilean relativity, you are accepting the second postulate of special relativity.

    TFOLZO: 100% False because Galilean Relativity leads to radically opposed conclusions to SR.

    It is not false because the second postulate of special relativity was expressed by Galileo himself. It forms the basis of Newtonian mechanics. Einstein's statement of it was only a reaffirmation... it had been accepted for centuries. It is the first postulate that distinguishes Einstein's relativity from Galileo's relativity, not the second postulate.


    Your reply is total BS. Galileo did not state that 'second postulate' - you are only trying to force Einstein's BS upon him. Galilean relativity is fundamentally opposed to Einstein's because Galileo's is not full of the TD&LC crap which is essential to Einstein's SR-BS. Galileo realizes the fundamental ontological separation of space & matter - since he well knows Greek materialism, i.e. Democritus & Epicurus. Einstein denies even Democritus when he tries to claim that space & matter together comprise some primeval 'stuff' (Spinoza's 'substance').

    You only want to misrepresent Galilean relativity as applying to point-particle fantasies of light. Light is more complicated in its structure - as intelligent physicists saw in Einstein's time - Walter Ritz notably. Einstein is utter BS and needs to be discarded from genuine science once & for all.

    What you call the 'second postulate' is meaningless slops. Laws change & vary so are NOT fixed for all time - even physical laws, since they had to evolve from more fundamental states of matter. The nature of light is denied by your meaningless slops. The answer lies in the NEW law of light - the Doppler Ensemble Theory (DET).

    TFOLZO
     

  9. #109  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    More BS from KLW concerning Einstein's agnosticism about the structure of light.

    KLW: My statement makes no assumption about the structure of light. The only property of light that is used is its speed. It's worth noting that the Lorentz transformations were originally derived as the transformations under which Maxwell's equations are invariant. Maxwell's equations don't treat light as particles.

    That's right. All you & Einstein use is the speed of light - to derive ridiculous notions of TD&LC then say that the universe is bizarre so reduce it to Minkowski Muddlegrams. You don't consider light's deeper quantum structure.

    Lorentz Transformations are a misapplication of the Voigt Doppler Equations, misapplying the equations to lengths & times instead of to light.

    It is to point out that the principle of relativity is not exclusively about Einstein's theory. Galilean relativity is demonstrably inadequate in comparison to special relativity.

    False, because Galilean Relativity does NOT lead to mutual TD&LC & the resulting logical paradoxes. Proof positive that Galilean Relativity is the correct answer - the ONLY correct answer. All it needs is supplementation by a "more complicated law on the nature of light" - not the SR-BS.

    TFOLZO
     

  10. #110  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    341
    In reply to TFOLZO, re: your #108 & #109 posts.

    Cheers!

    (1) There is and never was any "Galilean Relativity" so cease trying to establish there is..."G's writings are observations, not quantum theory, and you know it! You are promulgating bs yourself

    when you write of 500yr.old "observations and conclusions" AS IF they were the "final definitions of reality". (the Han empire's researchers wrote ALL of these things down and more, at least

    1k years prior to "G"...I know that YOU know this, so don't be cute and say you've never seen or heard of it!)

    (2) By denying Lorentz' implications...you are, in effect, denying your own DET theory (devolve emission back to source, and you'll see it...I know you're not stupid!) You cannot have a

    circumstance that is valid where "one postulate denies the other"...this is in regard to "relativistic speeds and matter" where >>>expansion<<< occurs...YOU CANNOT DENY THIS and you know

    it! (under EMc2, a "rod" would radiate "out" energy until the atoms of the rod become so distant from each other there is no longer any emission...the atoms are now in a rest-state, but there

    is longer any "rod"...it vanished as a "thing of self" but ALL of it's atoms are still present in the Universe, as per Relativity)

    When a Star supposedly "dies", this is the same process! ALL of the atoms are still "present" with respect to the continuum of the Universe...nothing was "annihilated" by the manifestation

    of energy! (show me a "void of nothing" where a Star "used to be"...this is the real bs!)

    (3) Hey! Guess what? Not only is modern QM light theory wrong, SO IS DET!!!

    QM and DET both have a common denominator..."magic particles" that can do anything EXCEPT PROVE THEY EXIST! The only mistake, or rather a mistaken impression, that A.E. made was

    "discrete packets of energy"...to be fair, so has EVERYONE else who has ever lived and observed light or electricity or magnetism. They ALL ascribe to "particle emission" w/ regard to

    to manifestation...except there are not and never were any "magic particles" being "emitted" from a source.

    ......

    There is no "speed of light" because "light is not MOVING " in any conventional meaning of movement...convert "speed" to "frequency" and then the error is eliminated, because particle

    transit is no longer necessary!

    (more later...my cookie "allotment' will not give me time to post any decent responses)

    (Thanks for reading!)
     

  11. #111  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    861
    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO View Post
    KJW: The night sky may appear to have plenty of dark space in between the occasional points of light when viewed with the naked eye, but when viewed with powerful telescopes, the dark spaces reveal themselves to be filled with very distant galaxies. In pretty much any direction one points, there will be an object.

    By no means does that mean that all the light is 'tagged' for absorption.
    As I said before, I didn't claim that it does. I am merely challenging your ability to justify the statement that you made.


    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO View Post
    Much of the light passes beyond the Hubble distance
    Evidence? I mean really... how the heck could you even know this?


    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO View Post
    Spacetime is an ideological construct only.
    Are you suggesting there isn't four dimensions in physical reality?


    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO View Post
    There is NO requirement for light to have a future absorption point 'tagged' before it is emitted.
    Again... evidence? Is there a requirement that all light that is absorbed to have been emitted by some emitter in the past?
    A tensor equation that is valid in any coordinate system is valid in every coordinate system.
     

  12. #112  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    861
    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO View Post
    KJW: By accepting Galilean relativity, you are accepting the second postulate of special relativity.

    TFOLZO: 100% False because Galilean Relativity leads to radically opposed conclusions to SR.

    KJW: It is not false because the second postulate of special relativity was expressed by Galileo himself. It forms the basis of Newtonian mechanics. Einstein's statement of it was only a reaffirmation... it had been accepted for centuries. It is the first postulate that distinguishes Einstein's relativity from Galileo's relativity, not the second postulate.


    Your reply is total BS. Galileo did not state that 'second postulate'
    Galileo's ship


    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO View Post
    Laws change & vary so are NOT fixed for all time - even physical laws
    What physical laws are you referring to that have changed?
    A tensor equation that is valid in any coordinate system is valid in every coordinate system.
     

  13. #113  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    861
    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO View Post
    More BS from KLW concerning Einstein's agnosticism about the structure of light.

    KLW: My statement makes no assumption about the structure of light. The only property of light that is used is its speed. It's worth noting that the Lorentz transformations were originally derived as the transformations under which Maxwell's equations are invariant. Maxwell's equations don't treat light as particles.

    That's right. All you & Einstein use is the speed of light - to derive ridiculous notions of TD&LC then say that the universe is bizarre so reduce it to Minkowski Muddlegrams. You don't consider light's deeper quantum structure.
    You don't have much experience or knowledge of mathematics, do you? You appear not to appreciate that if one derives something with a minimum set of assumptions, then that is a good thing, and that adding more to the minimum set won't change what was already derived from that minimum set.


    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO View Post
    Lorentz Transformations are a misapplication of the Voigt Doppler Equations, misapplying the equations to lengths & times instead of to light.
    Lorentz transformations are coordinate transformations. They are special (compared to other coordinate transformations) because they leave the Minkowskian metric invariant.


    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO View Post
    Galilean Relativity does NOT lead to mutual TD&LC & the resulting logical paradoxes.
    There are no paradoxes in special relativity.


    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO View Post
    All it needs is supplementation by a "more complicated law on the nature of light"
    Relativity does not depend on the nature of light. In fact, relativity isn't really about light at all... it is about space and time.
    A tensor equation that is valid in any coordinate system is valid in every coordinate system.
     

  14. #114  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    341
    In further addendum to my #110 post.

    So...what do I mean "light isn't experiencing any physical transit as a "pseudo-particle" state...it must surely have some semblance of physicality! After all. it's there, and we know beyond

    any question its there! It is a "proof of self!!!"

    ......

    "Light" is there, alright...in any FoR, it is "there" and it is "constant", and this is what led me to re-thinking emission theory. Emission theory, at it's center, maintains that some or all

    of an atom's orbitals are subject to transformative states, i.e., "emitted from it's orbital rest-state and transformed into a "charged" energy-state (photon) that is no longer subject to "normal"

    particle functions, such as degradation of velocity or loss of energy until it is absorbed by a media". In plain terminology...a "magic particle".

    The direct implication of this concept is that it involves the destruction of an atom as a "complete self" and ultimately implies that an atom will be, under the right stressors, annihilated.

    To me, this denies both the reality of the Universe as well as any concept of the physical matter of a Star being able to exist for more than a few moments of time...fission and fusion would

    reduce the mass of ANY Star into an inert state-of-condition in seconds at best! I have read the explanations of "well, the totality of the mass is so great that only small portions at any point

    are being annihilated, so the duration of a given mass's "life-span of emission" capability is extended into billions of years, not seconds! And you are also ignoring fusion states, which also

    emit energy" and so on. (sounds like a very effective rebuttal, yes?)

    Here is my answer to such a doctrine of the "chain of events" regarding "how emission from a source, such as a Star, actually occurs"...If the "totality" of a given mass is involved w/converting

    matter into energy...then ALL OF THE MASS is pro-actively involved, not just assigned portions of it! I.E., ALL of the matter/mass is being subjected to the same time-line at any given FoR,

    and this means ALL OF THE MASS in-toto is being converted every instant at "c"...I cannot see any validation for the idea of a continuity of function that would "last for billions of years".

    This scenario of emission is a virtual analogy to stating that "ATOMS ARE TINY BITS OF FIREWOOD". The grandiose claims of QM are reduced to "Paleolithic observations" of fire and

    extrapolating those observations as the "true state of how atoms emit energy". Truly a "Grand Illusion" of reality.

    ......

    So now, what do I offer as a counter to the doctrine of "particle emission?"

    My answer is "matter is actualizing the potential of energy" in-place at the source. How? By the mechanisms of "frictional density factors" at a molecular and atom level.

    The causation is gravity itself...the greater the amount of matter-in-place, the greater the amount of energy being manifested in-place. The frictional density factor, or (Fdf), is the "key that

    unlocks the door" of energy. The (Fdf) enables the continuum metric of energy to become manifest IN-PLACE as (Fdf) creates a foreign "signal" that is not present until friction occurs.

    The "signal" is creating a "push" with regard to the continuum of energy...there is no "where" for the signal to "fit" and continuum of potential reacts by "pushing back"...this "pushing back" is

    the manifestation of energy in all it's forms, including nuclear energy...there is never any "transit' involved as the manifestation always occurs "in-place".


    (Thanks for reading!)
     

  15. #115  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    Spacetime is an ideological construct only.
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    Are you suggesting there isn't four dimensions in physical reality?
    There are 3 dimension of space & one of time. That is NOT spacetime which has 4-D of BS only!
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    Is there a requirement that all light that is absorbed to have been emitted by some emitter in the past?

    If a photon wasn't emitted where else would it come from? Presumably you mean 'created' in the Big Bang or in the mind of god!

    No wonder the energy crisis growing exponentially - modern physics avoids the issue, preferring to speculate on SR-based drivel!

    TFOLZO
     

  16. #116  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    In reply to TFOLZO, re: your #108 & #109 posts.

    Cheers!

    (1) There is and never was any "Galilean Relativity" so cease trying to establish there is..."G's writings are observations, not quantum theory, and you know it! You are promulgating bs yourself

    when you write of 500yr.old "observations and conclusions" AS IF they were the "final definitions of reality". (the Han empire's researchers wrote ALL of these things down and more, at least

    1k years prior to "G"...I know that YOU know this, so don't be cute and say you've never seen or heard of it!)

    The highlighted claim is nonsense GerryN since Galilean Relativity was recognized even by Einstein. That "all motion is relative" is the way the world works. In this sense yes, Galilean Relativity is indeed the final answer here, since in this way, BS such as SR & its TD&LC is avoided.

    (2) By denying Lorentz' implications...you are, in effect, denying your own DET theory (devolve emission back to source, and you'll see it...I know you're not stupid!) You cannot have a

    circumstance that is valid where "one postulate denies the other"...this is in regard to "relativistic speeds and matter" where >>>expansion<<< occurs...YOU CANNOT DENY THIS and you know

    it! (under EMc2, a "rod" would radiate "out" energy until the atoms of the rod become so distant from each other there is no longer any emission...the atoms are now in a rest-state, but there

    is longer any "rod"...it vanished as a "thing of self" but ALL of it's atoms are still present in the Universe, as per Relativity)

    When a Star supposedly "dies", this is the same process! ALL of the atoms are still "present" with respect to the continuum of the Universe...nothing was "annihilated" by the manifestation

    of energy! (show me a "void of nothing" where a Star "used to be"...this is the real bs!)

    I have no idea what you mean by "denying Lorentz' implications". If you mean denying the applicability of Lorentz Transformations to space & time, that is so, because the equations (the Voigt Doppler equations) are applicable to light, not space & time. IOW TD&LC are nonsensical concepts leading only to logical paradoxes.

    (3) Hey! Guess what? Not only is modern QM light theory wrong, SO IS DET!!!

    QM and DET both have a common denominator..."magic particles" that can do anything EXCEPT PROVE THEY EXIST! The only mistake, or rather a mistaken impression, that A.E. made was

    "discrete packets of energy"...to be fair, so has EVERYONE else who has ever lived and observed light or electricity or magnetism. They ALL ascribe to "particle emission" w/ regard to

    to manifestation...except there are not and never were any "magic particles" being "emitted" from a source.

    ......Quantum theory cannot be denied in the way you fantasize, since "magic particles" can't be replaced with point-particles which latter are effectively nothing at all.

    There is no "speed of light" because "light is not MOVING " in any conventional meaning of movement...convert "speed" to "frequency" and then the error is eliminated, because particle

    transit is no longer necessary!

    (more later...my cookie "allotment' will not give me time to post any decent responses)

    (Thanks for reading!)[/QUOTE]
    Doppler Ensemble Theory (DET) is NOT a case of "Particle Transit" but the projection of the photon in space - and it evolves over time, any two wavelength-members of the photon separating ever-further from each other. So light does move, internally & externally - but as you say "frequency" is a better measure than "speed"!

    TFOLZO
     

  17. #117  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    In further addendum to my #110 post.

    So...what do I mean "light isn't experiencing any physical transit as a "pseudo-particle" state...it must surely have some semblance of physicality! After all. it's there, and we know beyond

    any question its there! It is a "proof of self!!!"

    ......

    "Light" is there, alright...in any FoR, it is "there" and it is "constant", and this is what led me to re-thinking emission theory. Emission theory, at it's center, maintains that some or all

    of an atom's orbitals are subject to transformative states, i.e., "emitted from it's orbital rest-state and transformed into a "charged" energy-state (photon) that is no longer subject to "normal"

    particle functions, such as degradation of velocity or loss of energy until it is absorbed by a media". In plain terminology...a "magic particle".

    The direct implication of this concept is that it involves the destruction of an atom as a "complete self" and ultimately implies that an atom will be, under the right stressors, annihilated.

    Most light emission & absorption does not result in the destruction of atoms but in transmutation - the formation of one element from another, e.g. He from H in stars.

    To me, this denies both the reality of the Universe as well as any concept of the physical matter of a Star being able to exist for more than a few moments of time...fission and fusion would

    reduce the mass of ANY Star into an inert state-of-condition in seconds at best! I have read the explanations of "well, the totality of the mass is so great that only small portions at any point

    are being annihilated, so the duration of a given mass's "life-span of emission" capability is extended into billions of years, not seconds! And you are also ignoring fusion states, which also

    emit energy" and so on. (sounds like a very effective rebuttal, yes?)

    Energy is merely another measure of matter, as is mass. Matter changes its form, it does not disappear in any ontological sense.

    Here is my answer to such a doctrine of the "chain of events" regarding "how emission from a source, such as a Star, actually occurs"...If the "totality" of a given mass is involved w/converting

    matter into energy...then ALL OF THE MASS is pro-actively involved, not just assigned portions of it! I.E., ALL of the matter/mass is being subjected to the same time-line at any given FoR,

    and this means ALL OF THE MASS in-toto is being converted every instant at "c"...I cannot see any validation for the idea of a continuity of function that would "last for billions of years".

    But this happens nevertheless e.g. the fact that stars last billions of years.

    This scenario of emission is a virtual analogy to stating that "ATOMS ARE TINY BITS OF FIREWOOD". The grandiose claims of QM are reduced to "Paleolithic observations" of fire and

    extrapolating those observations as the "true state of how atoms emit energy". Truly a "Grand Illusion" of reality.

    ......

    So now, what do I offer as a counter to the doctrine of "particle emission?"

    My answer is "matter is actualizing the potential of energy" in-place at the source. How? By the mechanisms of "frictional density factors" at a molecular and atom level.

    The causation is gravity itself...the greater the amount of matter-in-place, the greater the amount of energy being manifested in-place. The frictional density factor, or (Fdf), is the "key that

    unlocks the door" of energy. The (Fdf) enables the continuum metric of energy to become manifest IN-PLACE as (Fdf) creates a foreign "signal" that is not present until friction occurs.

    The "signal" is creating a "push" with regard to the continuum of energy...there is no "where" for the signal to "fit" and continuum of potential reacts by "pushing back"...this "pushing back" is

    the manifestation of energy in all it's forms, including nuclear energy...there is never any "transit' involved as the manifestation always occurs "in-place".


    (Thanks for reading!)

    Cannot comment on the latter part due to heavy use of jargon unfamiliar to me.

    TFOLZO
     

  18. #118  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    341
    In reply to TFOLZO, re: your #117 post.

    Which word or combination of words do you consider "jargon"...which words in English did you not understand? (I wrote this as "plain Jane" as is possible..."unfamiliar" my a$$)

    You need time to consider it? Okay then, just say that instead...instead of "I don't understand what you mean".

    ......

    Did I say Stars DO NOT "last for billions of years?" No! I explained how they can...since nothing is being annihilated at all!

    Think hard on the chain-of-events, "T"..."fusion", while an actual occurrence cannot possibly "explain" the amount of energy of energy being manifested by our own Sun, never mind the

    the Stars in the rest of the Universe! (this formed the basis of "dark matter/dark energy" suppositions in the model Universe..."where is all this energy coming from, because there is insufficient

    real matter to account for it") No one denies that fission is occurring...yet there is only evasive, non-explanatory calculus theory to account for "why is all the matter NOT gone in a few

    moments, if fission is a constant factor?" (Fusion is a clever side-step answer...it affirms energy is being manifested, but doesn't explain the "how" of emission, just more "magic")

    ......

    Let me ask you, TFOLZO, because I know you will think before you answer, and not quote more "doctrine to me.

    Do you agree that "fission" is an ongoing process w/ regard to our Sun? Yes or No.

    If you agree that "Yes, fission is occurring" would you further accept that fission is an ongoing process? Yes or No.

    Then the issue becomes somewhat ambiguous, as it involves the totality of the Sun's mass...would you be willing to agree that ALL of the Sun's contiguous mass is undergoing a "fission"

    process? (of course you can mandate that "only some portions at any given instance of FoR are experiencing "fission") Yes or No.

    If only some portions are undergoing fission at any given instant...what figure would you be willing to assign to it? In terms of percentage...say it is less than 1% per cubic mile, or some

    other figure (I'm not certain this figure is correct) Whatever figure you are willing to accept as valid.

    ......

    Once again...I never stated or denied the fusion process of H into He. The part of this I DO deny is that "photons' as "discrete packets of energy" were emitted by the fusion process.

    ......

    I hope I am NOT writing "nonsense", "T"...with regard to "Galileo's observations!" I know I'm not! The observations of "action/reaction" as correlational values have been known for thousands

    of years! There are "self-evident" and did not require Galileo to write them up, or Einstein, or anyone else! Why do you insist that "nothing much of value" occurred prior to Galileo???

    If you need proof there was a vast body of sophisticated knowledge long before Galileo...you need look no further than the span of a "Roman Arch" such as the Hagia Sophia from the

    third century AD...it would require more knowledge of vectors and tangential geometry than anything in Egypt! (think of what "might have been" if bubonic plague had not killed off the

    genius as well as the idiot...and created the unshakeable strangle-hold of the Churches that dominate to this day)

    ......

    I see there are areas where we agree, as well as disagree...and that's as it should be! Nothing like discord to "stir the pot". (I tend to "agree" somewhat w/ your "DET", but where we part

    is w/ particle theory...I have very little faith in "magic particles")

    (Thanks for reading!) Cheerio! ps...if Jilan says I'm full of crap, you should listen! She's much smarter than she lets on!
     

  19. #119  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    861
    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO View Post
    Spacetime is an ideological construct only.

    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    Are you suggesting there isn't four dimensions in physical reality?

    There are 3 dimension of space & one of time.
    And simple arithmetic says that 3 + 1 = 4

    If ordinary three-dimensional space has a metric, then why not the four dimensions of space and time?


    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    Is there a requirement that all light that is absorbed to have been emitted by some emitter in the past?
    If a photon wasn't emitted where else would it come from?
    Perhaps the same place that a photon that is never absorbed goes. The point is that emission and absorption are the time-reverse of each other so that a photon that is absorbed but never emitted is the time-reverse of a photon that is emitted but never absorbed. The principle of microscopic reversibility suggests that both should exist or neither.
    A tensor equation that is valid in any coordinate system is valid in every coordinate system.
     

  20. #120  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    And simple arithmetic says that 3 + 1 = 4

    If ordinary three-dimensional space has a metric, then why not the four dimensions of space and time?

    Because space & time are not related thru the square root of minus one but differ qualitatively, not merely quantitatively. There are no such things as TD&LC nor spacetime.


    Perhaps the same place that a photon that is never absorbed goes. The point is that emission and absorption are the time-reverse of each other so that a photon that is absorbed but never emitted is the time-reverse of a photon that is emitted but never absorbed. The principle of microscopic reversibility suggests that both should exist or neither.

    Your "principle of microscopic reversibility" is BS - it denies the 2nd law of thermodynamics so is yet another of those Einstein theoretical pieces of schlock.

    TFOLZO
     

  21. #121  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    In reply to TFOLZO, re: your #117 post.

    Which word or combination of words do you consider "jargon"...which words in English did you not understand? (I wrote this as "plain Jane" as is possible..."unfamiliar" my a$$)

    You need time to consider it? Okay then, just say that instead...instead of "I don't understand what you mean".

    ......For example, the term "frictional density factor" which implies to me that the particle involved is decaying because it is unstable.

    Did I say Stars DO NOT "last for billions of years?" No! I explained how they can...since nothing is being annihilated at all!

    Think hard on the chain-of-events, "T"..."fusion", while an actual occurrence cannot possibly "explain" the amount of energy of energy being manifested by our own Sun, never mind the

    the Stars in the rest of the Universe! (this formed the basis of "dark matter/dark energy" suppositions in the model Universe..."where is all this energy coming from, because there is insufficient

    real matter to account for it") No one denies that fission is occurring...yet there is only evasive, non-explanatory calculus theory to account for "why is all the matter NOT gone in a few

    moments, if fission is a constant factor?" (Fusion is a clever side-step answer...it affirms energy is being manifested, but doesn't explain the "how" of emission, just more "magic")

    ......In stars the transmutation is primarily fusion, though some fission of heavier products like Li, Be & B occur.

    Let me ask you, TFOLZO, because I know you will think before you answer, and not quote more "doctrine to me.

    Do you agree that "fission" is an ongoing process w/ regard to our Sun? Yes or No.

    If you agree that "Yes, fission is occurring" would you further accept that fission is an ongoing process? Yes or No.

    Certainly, but it is minor and secondary to the primary fusion of H into He.

    Then the issue becomes somewhat ambiguous, as it involves the totality of the Sun's mass...would you be willing to agree that ALL of the Sun's contiguous mass is undergoing a "fission"

    process? (of course you can mandate that "only some portions at any given instance of FoR are experiencing "fission") Yes or No.

    No because at any one moment only a very tiny portion of the sun's mass is undergoing fission - and not much more undergoing fusion!

    If only some portions are undergoing fission at any given instant...what figure would you be willing to assign to it? In terms of percentage...say it is less than 1% per cubic mile, or some

    other figure (I'm not certain this figure is correct) Whatever figure you are willing to accept as valid.

    ......In the center of the sun about 0.00000001% I imagine. Just under the photosphere the figure would essentially be 0.

    Once again...I never stated or denied the fusion process of H into He. The part of this I DO deny is that "photons' as "discrete packets of energy" were emitted by the fusion process.

    ......Fusion does emit gamma rays at specific energies but as the nuclei are moving so fast an observer would not find the emitted energy to be that fixed in wavelength.

    I hope I am NOT writing "nonsense", "T"...with regard to "Galileo's observations!" I know I'm not! The observations of "action/reaction" as correlational values have been known for thousands

    of years! There are "self-evident" and did not require Galileo to write them up, or Einstein, or anyone else! Why do you insist that "nothing much of value" occurred prior to Galileo???

    In the West that was because of Christendom. But Aristotelianism, preaching the Universe as a harmonious whole, was adopted by Thomas Aquinas and threatened to take over the Church. The Church revolted by condemning Aristotle - in that way opening the path to Galileo, who was also grateful to his forebears for helping find the way e.g. Bruno, Roger Bacon, John of Holywood etc.

    If you need proof there was a vast body of sophisticated knowledge long before Galileo...you need look no further than the span of a "Roman Arch" such as the Hagia Sophia from the

    third century AD...it would require more knowledge of vectors and tangential geometry than anything in Egypt! (think of what "might have been" if bubonic plague had not killed off the

    genius as well as the idiot...and created the unshakeable strangle-hold of the Churches that dominate to this day)

    ......One thing so much used in the West today (even by Einstein) did NOT exist then - that was algebra, and it came from the Islamic World!

    I see there are areas where we agree, as well as disagree...and that's as it should be! Nothing like discord to "stir the pot". (I tend to "agree" somewhat w/ your "DET", but where we part

    is w/ particle theory...I have very little faith in "magic particles")

    (Thanks for reading!) Cheerio! ps...if Jilan says I'm full of crap, you should listen! She's much smarter than she lets on!

    Is Jilan really a she?? "Magic particles" of some sort are needed to make things work though!

    Thanks for writing

    TFOLZO

    Edited in bold to correct bad spelling error.
    Last edited by TFOLZO; 08-26-2014 at 04:39 PM. Reason: Spelling
     

  22. #122  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by PhysBang View Post
    A quick note about Farsight: he is right now and always has been free to produce the equations that govern his theory. That he has not in the past and is not doing so now is a sign that he has never planned to produce evidence in the sense that physicists have been producing for centuries.

    Farsight is clearly a con artist.
    WTF? Can somebody please moderate such anonymous abusive libellous accusations?
     

  23. #123  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    280
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    WTF? Can somebody please moderate such anonymous abusive libellous accusations?
    Ah, yes, you would rather threaten litigation than deliver equations. And so you prove me correct. That's why you get banned and restricted.
     

  24. #124  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    There is evidence that decay rates of certain radioactive elements...
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    Galileo's ship

    What physical laws are you referring to that have changed?
    ...change during solar flares, while other decay rates change according to the position of the earth's orbit around the sun.

    The averaged decay rate we know is only an approximation so new laws will be established to indicate the decay rates more accurately. IOW the decay rates of elements, though different for each specie, do change as they are affected by outside phenomena - they are NOT fixed for eternity. This also indicates that in deep space, the decay rates will be even more variable, hence a new field is opening in physics as decay rates are better understood.

    Galileo's ship indicates relative motion only - he does NOT indicate TD&LC therefore his observations cannot be squared with SR-BS!

    TFOLZO
     

  25. #125  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    341
    In reply to TFOLZO, re: your #121 post.

    (1) "Frictional density factor" or (Fdf) refers to the actual physical contact point(s) of molecules, as well as atoms. In the case of atom friction, it is likely that infringement upon a "sphere of

    influence" is enough to initiate a response, as it is possible that an electromagnetic field is present w/ regard to individual atoms, and thus an actual "physical" contact may not be necessary

    to initiate a response (such as an instability of electron orbits of each respective atom) I should have made this clear, and I didn't...my fault.

    (2)With regard to the "fission" question...it is of little overall difference "how many decimal points to the right" you wish to assign the process of actual fission...the fission is occurring at a

    constant rate, and by it's nature it is occurring at "c". Extrapolate "fission as a constant vs. time vs. totality of mass" and the Star would not remain a Star for long! It is irrelevant "how much

    is the totality of the mass?" when it's substance is being annihilated at virtual lightspeed!!! Think it through, "T"...! How long could our Sun remain a Sun...if portions of it's actual matter are

    being destroyed? How long before "fusion" would cease as there is no longer enough mass to initiate fusion? Is a mass-loss of 10% enough...20%? 30%?

    When you examine a FoR for fission characteristics per ton of matter...how long before reduction of matter per ton would cause fission to cease? How much loss can be tolerated? If fission

    ceases...what then of fusion? (I thought about this for years, "T"...this was no sudden "epiphany", no "glorious vision"...just logic)

    (3) Are you serious w/ the algebra? It didn't exist until apprx. 1200 AD.? Then someone forgot to tell the architects of Rome that "you don't know x,y,and z, and therefore you cannot

    build a "flying buttress" Arch!!! C'mon, "T"...you cannot "deny" structures that STILL EXIST and are "proof-positive" of highly skilled mathematical formulas, a thousand years previous to

    writings that codify algebra! (this is the kind of answer I expect from xox..."they didn't understand calculus theory!" so therefore they couldn't have built it! It was aliens!?!?)

    (Thanks for reading!)
     

  26. #126  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    157
    I didn't attempt to read posts 121 or 125 because of the layouts.
     

  27. #127  
    Senior Member Boing3000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    194
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight
    WTF? Can somebody please moderate such anonymous abusive libellous accusations?
    I see that as a great praise of you artisic performance. And I agree. There is no accusation but a recognition of your magnificent style at dodging logic or reality.

    Kudos Farsight, you even have a thread devoted to you. Isn't that a proof of success ?
    Even if your show is quite ephermeral, I have enjoyed it. Thank you
     

  28. #128  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    In reply to TFOLZO, re: your #121 post.

    (1) "Frictional density factor" or (Fdf) refers to the actual physical contact point(s) of molecules, as well as atoms. In the case of atom friction, it is likely that infringement upon a "sphere of

    influence" is enough to initiate a response, as it is possible that an electromagnetic field is present w/ regard to individual atoms, and thus an actual "physical" contact may not be necessary

    to initiate a response (such as an instability of electron orbits of each respective atom) I should have made this clear, and I didn't...my fault.

    To apply friction to quantum level phenomena implies that subatomic particles etc. are all eternally decaying - for which we have no evidence. Experiments shows that protons & electrons are stable under conditions experienced by humans. Only in nuclear reactors etc. are things different. Therefore applying friction to quantum phenomena is not appropriate unless we find evidence of friction e.g. unexplained excess heat emission.

    (2)With regard to the "fission" question...it is of little overall difference "how many decimal points to the right" you wish to assign the process of actual fission...the fission is occurring at a

    constant rate, and by it's nature it is occurring at "c". Extrapolate "fission as a constant vs. time vs. totality of mass" and the Star would not remain a Star for long! It is irrelevant "how much

    is the totality of the mass?" when it's substance is being annihilated at virtual lightspeed!!!

    Nuclear fission or fusion in stars could only be 'occurring at "c"' - whatever that means - if you mean that subatomic particles have an angular velocity of c, so that they interact with one another. The rates of fission & fusion vary depending on the conditions - hence fission rates for different stars are different, and may not be continuous for some stars e.g. Classical Cepheids.

    Think it through, "T"...! How long could our Sun remain a Sun...if portions of it's actual matter are

    being destroyed? How long before "fusion" would cease as there is no longer enough mass to initiate fusion? Is a mass-loss of 10% enough...20%? 30%?

    About 5,000,000,000 years to convert the H into He - the Sun gradually warming during that time since heavier elements serve to 'blanket' the core of the Sun.

    When you examine a FoR for fission characteristics per ton of matter...how long before reduction of matter per ton would cause fission to cease? How much loss can be tolerated? If fission

    ceases...what then of fusion? (I thought about this for years, "T"...this was no sudden "epiphany", no "glorious vision"...just logic)

    What is the need for a particular FoR for considering fission & fusion? The outcome is the same whatever the relative speed of the observer - & depends on the local condition of the material undergoing fission or fusion.

    (3) Are you serious w/ the algebra? It didn't exist until apprx. 1200 AD.? Then someone forgot to tell the architects of Rome that "you don't know x,y,and z, and therefore you cannot

    build a "flying buttress" Arch!!! C'mon, "T"...you cannot "deny" structures that STILL EXIST and are "proof-positive" of highly skilled mathematical formulas, a thousand years previous to

    writings that codify algebra!

    No, Roman architects did not have algebra. You can see this revealed in the Archimedes Palimpsest, showing that Western civilization at that time used geometric figures to make calculations. Building was largely trial & error - flying buttresses also precede the use of algebra, and many flying buttress Gothic structures collapsed until the technique perfected.


    (this is the kind of answer I expect from xox..."they didn't understand calculus theory!" so therefore they couldn't have built it! It was aliens!?!?)

    (Thanks for reading!)

    I can't explain the 0x0 cube's reasoning, but he is at liberty to believe Erich von Danken.

    TFOLZO
     

  29. #129  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    157
    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO View Post
    In reply to TFOLZO, re: your #121 post.


    (Thanks for reading!)

    Why are you replying to yourself? I barely read any of your post.

    Why don't you construct more solid paragraphs?
     

  30. #130  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    341
    In reply to TFOLZO, re: your #128 post.

    Where did I write ANYTHING w/ regard to "decay?" Or infer it? The entire foundation of my THEORY is based on NO ANNHILATION. Period. No exceptions. I stated that I believe that any

    variation of an atoms' electrons (presumably orbiting as "captures" by a combination of gravity and electromagnetic fields) orbits MIGHT be caused by the forced proximity of an atoms'

    "rest state " w/ regard to other atoms...it MAY be that there is no "physical contact" of respective atoms nucleus.

    This is NOT decay...it is an "induced upset of orbital functions". I do not subscribe to the traditional meanings of "decay' as proposed in modern physics theory...rather, "transformation" or

    "transition" from one state to another. "Decay" advances the idea of "entropy of energy" and this I am denying also.

    ......

    Okay, the "c" factor represents lightspeed...and in fission as well as fusion, the relative velocities of particulates are likely moving very close to "c" (.999) thus resulting in "broad-spectrum"

    energy manifestation...I would consider this damn close enough to lightspeed!

    ......

    "T", I say consider the totality of available mass w/regard to fission...as in "how fast would all of the mass be "gobbled up?" And you quote me a "standard of mathematical regimentation!"

    "T", MY WHOLE POINT was consider the total "available mass" BEFORE the total would be insufficient to sustain fission or fusion!!! You are considering ALL of the total as "available" and

    you cannot, because the decrease in mass is CONSTANT. Are you inferring that say 60% remaining is enough to sustain fusion? Or 70%? Or better yet, just ignore the whole thing and

    say "everything is fine w/ the standard of theory regarding Stars...as long as none of it threatens my "DET", in which case I'll find a way around it, or just disclaim it altogether".

    Okay, you don't see what I'm trying say to you...but consider this.

    The last time I checked, the current accepted figure of "mass into energy" via the mechanism of Fission is "4.6 tons per second" regarding the Sun. Now pick out any area you feel is

    "appropriate" for the fission to occur...say at the core.

    Now, apply the "4.6" figure to any FoR of a defined amount of mass...say a hundred cubic miles. Are "we" okay so far? Good. "T"...how long do you think it would take for the fission process

    of turning "mass into energy" to consume the entire 100 cubic miles? Considering that ALL OF MASS of the 100 cubic miles is being converted into energy?

    How about we make it even easier! Say "10 cubic miles per "4.6 tons/per sec." being converted<<<(do the conversions yourself, or look at Wiki) That way you can't tell me "your figures are

    wrong". Go ahead, try it and tell again "how many billions of years this would take" before fission ceased altogether.

    ......

    Why are we arguing over frickin' algebra? Are you serious w/ references to Archimedes? (he had NOTHING to do w/ the construction of the "Sofia" in the third century AD) Or the great

    Coliseums, of which there where at least three) "T"...algebra by ANY NAME is still algebra! And the idea that "trial and error" with use of marble/granite/and cement (yes, they knew about

    cement by the 3thd.C., it was "old hat" already) and millions of solidi where spent on "experiments" is just...well, they didn't "experiment". They DID build scale models before actual

    construction...and guess what? To extrapolate figures and dimensions from scale...and for this you need some form of ALGEBRA!!! (stop scowling at me!)

    ......

    (I'll let you in on a secret...I care almost nothing for "ancient history", especially Egypt. I know quite a bit...but I almost never think about it. I have no interest in a "dead past" of various

    cultures and societies and "what they meant".)

    (Thanks for reading!)
     

  31. #131  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    341
    Is some insipid cartoon avatar adopted irrelevant personae writing something that they think actually means anything whatsoever? To me? Why?
     

  32. #132  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    Are you colour-blind BWS?...
    Quote Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw View Post
    Why are you replying to yourself? I barely read any of your post.

    Why don't you construct more solid paragraphs?
    ...or just too full of Beer, Wine & Spirits to notice the difference between GerryN's words & mine?

    So no problem then - you wouldn't understand anyway, at least not until you've sobered up!

    TFOLZO
     

  33. #133  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    Gerry N in reply to TFOLZO, re: your #128 post.

    Where did I write ANYTHING w/ regard to "decay?" Or infer it? The entire foundation of my THEORY is based on NO ANNHILATION. Period. No exceptions. I stated that I believe that any

    variation of an atoms' electrons (presumably orbiting as "captures" by a combination of gravity and electromagnetic fields) orbits MIGHT be caused by the forced proximity of an atoms'

    "rest state " w/ regard to other atoms...it MAY be that there is no "physical contact" of respective atoms nucleus.

    When you invoke friction you NECESSARILY invoke decay since the application of friction means slowing &/or degradation of the object in some way through heat loss.

    This is NOT decay...it is an "induced upset of orbital functions". I do not subscribe to the traditional meanings of "decay' as proposed in modern physics theory...rather, "transformation" or

    "transition" from one state to another. "Decay" advances the idea of "entropy of energy" and this I am denying also.

    ......OK then - but you cannot use the word 'friction' because that term implies decay.

    Okay, the "c" factor represents lightspeed...and in fission as well as fusion, the relative velocities of particulates are likely moving very close to "c" (.999) thus resulting in "broad-spectrum"

    energy manifestation...I would consider this damn close enough to lightspeed!

    ......

    "T", I say consider the totality of available mass w/regard to fission...as in "how fast would all of the mass be "gobbled up?" And you quote me a "standard of mathematical regimentation!"

    "T", MY WHOLE POINT was consider the total "available mass" BEFORE the total would be insufficient to sustain fission or fusion!!! You are considering ALL of the total as "available" and

    you cannot, because the decrease in mass is CONSTANT. Are you inferring that say 60% remaining is enough to sustain fusion? Or 70%? Or better yet, just ignore the whole thing and

    say "everything is fine w/ the standard of theory regarding Stars...as long as none of it threatens my "DET", in which case I'll find a way around it, or just disclaim it altogether".

    It also matters what type of material is undergoing fission or fusion. If small nuclei fusion is exothermic but if large nuclei fission is exothermic. The fission reactions in the Sun are side reactions.

    Okay, you don't see what I'm trying say to you...but consider this.

    The last time I checked, the current accepted figure of "mass into energy" via the mechanism of Fission is "4.6 tons per second" regarding the Sun. Now pick out any area you feel is

    "appropriate" for the fission to occur...say at the core.

    Now, apply the "4.6" figure to any FoR of a defined amount of mass...say a hundred cubic miles. Are "we" okay so far? Good. "T"...how long do you think it would take for the fission process

    of turning "mass into energy" to consume the entire 100 cubic miles? Considering that ALL OF MASS of the 100 cubic miles is being converted into energy?

    How about we make it even easier! Say "10 cubic miles per "4.6 tons/per sec." being converted<<<(do the conversions yourself, or look at Wiki) That way you can't tell me "your figures are

    wrong". Go ahead, try it and tell again "how many billions of years this would take" before fission ceased altogether.

    ......I believe about 5 billion years.

    Why are we arguing over frickin' algebra? Are you serious w/ references to Archimedes? (he had NOTHING to do w/ the construction of the "Sofia" in the third century AD) Or the great

    Coliseums, of which there where at least three)

    Archimedes was the leading mathematician of his day - & his ideas & procedures continued in Byzantium, including the building of the Hagia Sophia.

    "T"...algebra by ANY NAME is still algebra! And the idea that "trial and error" with use of marble/granite/and cement (yes, they knew about

    cement by the 3thd.C., it was "old hat" already) and millions of solidi where spent on "experiments" is just...well, they didn't "experiment". They DID build scale models before actual

    construction...and guess what? To extrapolate figures and dimensions from scale...and for this you need some form of ALGEBRA!!! (stop scowling at me!)

    ......They had to use Roman numerals to do such calculations - lacking the neatness of algebraic formulations.

    (I'll let you in on a secret...I care almost nothing for "ancient history", especially Egypt. I know quite a bit...but I almost never think about it. I have no interest in a "dead past" of various

    cultures and societies and "what they meant".)

    (Thanks for reading!)[/QUOTE]

    So what's alive for you then - the BS era of post-WW1 when Einstein's BS was trumpeted to the skies as humanity's greatest achievement. Read Eric Lerner's The BIg Bang Never Happened and uncover the propaganda at work in Einstein's favour.

    TFOLZO
     

  34. #134  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    341
    In reply to TFOLZO, re: your #133 post.

    Is it just me? Or we mimicking the old "Abbott & Costello" routine of "Who's on "first"..."Whats on second!" (also, you keep telling me to read "BB" never happened, and I think it is

    an ab initio bs assumption and ALWAYS have...this is the singular greatest "false premise" EVER!!!) I don't need a book, "T".

    ps...look-up Einstein/Bose "condensate" theory. I think it has merit, regardless of who wrote it.


    (Thanks for reading!)
     

  35. #135  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    That's good that you don't like the BB, GerryN...
    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry Nightingale View Post
    In reply to TFOLZO, re: your #133 post.

    Is it just me? Or we mimicking the old "Abbott & Costello" routine of "Who's on "first"..."Whats on second!" (also, you keep telling me to read "BB" never happened, and I think it is

    an ab initio bs assumption and ALWAYS have...this is the singular greatest "false premise" EVER!!!) I don't need a book, "T".

    ps...look-up Einstein/Bose "condensate" theory. I think it has merit, regardless of who wrote it.


    (Thanks for reading!)
    ...but everyone needs to read his book to know what the alternatives are and how the present Big Bang Cosmology relies on false inferences.

    Lerner's book is not complete however. His plasma cosmology still needs an external structure in philosophy. However this already exists mathematically in the Lambert-Charlier Hierarchical Cosmology (LCHC) for which Plasma Cosmology provides the structure of the interaction of matter beneath the atomic level.

    Soviet writers were too stupid to notice this however, treating LCHC as mere Newtonian cosmology.

    Thanks for writing!

    TFOLZO

    PS: No problem with Bose condensates either.
     

  36. #136  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    861
    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO View Post
    There are no such things as TD&LC nor spacetime.
    Regardless of what you say about special relativity, one thing that can't be denied is that it has passed the various experimental tests that have been presented to it. You might try to diminish the significance of the experiments by attempting to provide alternative explanations for the results, but regardless of what explanations you might put forward, special relativity passed the tests.


    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO View Post
    Your "principle of microscopic reversibility" is BS - it denies the 2nd law of thermodynamics
    The principle of microscopic reversibility is not only compatible with the second law of thermodynamics but is a necessary part of it. Without the principle of microscopic reversibility, it is possible to construct perpetual motion machines that violate the second law of thermodynamics.
    A tensor equation that is valid in any coordinate system is valid in every coordinate system.
     

  37. #137  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    861
    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO View Post
    Galileo's ship indicates relative motion only - he does NOT indicate TD&LC therefore his observations cannot be squared with SR-BS!
    Galileo's ship is saying that the laws of physics are the same for different constant velocities. That is also what Einstein's second postulate is saying.
    Gerry Nightingale likes this.
    A tensor equation that is valid in any coordinate system is valid in every coordinate system.
     

  38. #138  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    SR apologists have interpreted experimental results wrongly in order to "prove" SR. There is no independent proof of TD&LC.
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    Regardless of what you say about special relativity, one thing that can't be denied is that it has passed the various experimental tests that have been presented to it. You might try to diminish the significance of the experiments by attempting to provide alternative explanations for the results, but regardless of what explanations you might put forward, special relativity passed the tests
    .
    Space & time exist objectivity hence there is no such thing as spacetime nor mutual TD&LC.

    The last statement is one-sided so leads to falsehood since if microscopic reversibility were true in all microscopic situations perpetual motion machines would indeed be possible since the 2nd law would merely reside in the macroscopic world so that its effect could eventually be nullified. What is necessary in the microscopic world is some sort of stable particle structure e.g. protons & electrons, otherwise matter could disappear entirely rather than stable states being reached thru maximizing entropy.
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    The principle of microscopic reversibility is not only compatible with the second law of thermodynamics but is a necessary part of it. Without the principle of microscopic reversibility, it is possible to construct perpetual motion machines that violate the second law of thermodynamics.
    As it is however, 2nd law resides is both macroscopic & microscopic worlds - and as I demonstrate with Doppler Ensemble Theory (DET), is built into the photon which is irreversible. The motion picture can be wound back but irreversibility in nature is guaranteed by the 2nd law, working at macro- & micro-scales.

    More importantly 2nd law also the basis for quantum theory - a fact usually forgotten by the SR apologists - thus demonstrating QT microscopic basis, and the futility of research on quantum gravity unification thru GR!

    TFOLZO
     

  39. #139  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    That is an absolute lie!
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    Galileo's ship is saying that the laws of physics are the same for different constant velocities. That is also what Einstein's second postulate is saying.
    Galilean relativity does not lead to time dilation & length contraction so it radically opposes Einstein's relativity Einstein's BS generates TD&LC necessarily; what Einstein's postulate actually implies is that everything is predetermined i.e. controlled by absolute law from the Big Bang. Einstein denied free will, regarding human thought & emotions as merely illusory, hence his arrogance towards Arabs as he tried to manipulate them into not opposite Zionist depredations, just like his manipulations of fellow scientists.

    Einstein claims that mere linear motion leads to TD&LC - absurdities that generate only Minkowski diagrams, daughter universes (& rants'n'raves by cincirob). To claim that Einstein's BS is identical to Galileo's laws of physics is an obscenity i.e. those who preach Einstein's relativity today are MORE bigoted than the Church authorities that persecuted Galileo)! Hence since 1919 the world's return to medieval obscurantism & rampant religious bigotry led by the Einstein-preaching Western World (USA, Israel etc. with Moslem countries merely reacting to the depredations of the former).

    Einstein & his teachings are a curse on mankind - and this curse is the ongoing failure to solve the global energy crisis - the only 'options' offered today being the idiocy of solar energy and wind generators to cover the whole land surface of the planet. I.e. the situation is going to get far far worse!

    TFOLZO
     

  40. #140  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    341
    In reply to TFOLZO, re: your #139 post.

    Sheesh! "T"...slow down and chill!!! (are you chugging anti-freeze? this would definitely explain a lot!!! ) What is with the "ranting" over religious differences!?!?!? ALL OF THEM ARE CRAP, as

    you surely know! I think the concept of "be nice to each other" is pretty good, and the rest is mere commentary. Stay w/ theory "T", and leave politics in a another forum, where they belong.

    ......

    Why the argumentation over the various philosophies of the "Second Postulate?" (I agree w/ KJW's #137 post...Galileos' observations were "spot on" and addressed the issues of velocity and

    gravity as he understood them AT THE TIME...he didn't know the implications of relativistic speeds w/ regard to matter!!! Why write as if he did???

    ......

    In regards to A.E., cut the guy some slack, "T"...he did the best he could with what he had, just as I do and you and everyone else!!! You expect him to be "perfect in all things" and he

    wasn't (he was acutely aware of this himself) and for some reason you think he should be able to EXPLAIN EVERYTHING!!! No one can do this. not even God...if there is one.

    I think he was pretty "fair dinkum" in regard to theory, as well as personal philosophies...understanding that he has "feet of clay"<(he said this himself)

    If you need to "tear someone a "new one"...try Hawking, or even better, 't Hooft..or even better, Oppenheimer! Talk about a "scheming opportunist" who threw his own brother to the

    wolves of HUAC, and caused his "girlfriend/common-law wife" to kill herself after dismissing her from his life like a used piece of toilet paper, all because the FBI "warned" him of "guilt by

    association" direct from Hoover! What a piece of work R.O. was!!

    Try to be more understanding of A.E.'s mistakes, "T"...for instance, look up the letter written by Albert to Lorentz...dated 10/12/1915 (it still exists, the actual letter) in which he describes

    his mistakes w/regard to "entwurf" gravity theory...and another letter to A. Sommerfeld, dated 11/28/1915, in which Albert states " I have realized my existing gravitational field

    theories are completely untenable". (does this read like the delusions of a megalomaniac to you? it doesn't to me! he threw away YEARS of thinking in an instant, realizing that his Mercury

    orbit functions could not merge w/ Hamiltonian functions)

    (I know something you WILL NOT admit to yourself...both the Jews and the Moslems are "stiff-necked, prideful" people...and they won't admit they are!)


    (Thanks for reading!)
     

  41. #141  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    In reply to TFOLZO, re: your #139 post. Sheesh! "T"...slow down and chill!!! (are you chugging anti-freeze? this would definitely explain a lot!!! ) What is with the "ranting" over religious differences!?!?!? ALL OF THEM ARE CRAP, as you surely know! I think the concept of "be nice to each other" is pretty good, and the rest is mere commentary. Stay w/ theory "T", and leave politics in a another forum, where they belong.

    ......The reason is simply that when people began once again to believe in a finite universe after Einstein's BS was trumpeted to the world (in 1919), they LOGICALLY began to think in religious terms once more. This took about 2 generations however in that an infinite universe cosmology was established in the 19th century. Now religious bigotry is standard even amongst 'atheistic' scientists. The truly atheist vision of an infinite Galilean-type universe that was becoming standard in the 19th century - leading to the withering away of religion then - has been discarded entirely. This, coupled to the energy crisis, is why religious bigotry is inflamed everywhere today.

    Why the argumentation over the various philosophies of the "Second Postulate?" (I agree w/ KJW's #137 post...Galileos' observations were "spot on" and addressed the issues of velocity and

    gravity as he understood them AT THE TIME...he didn't know the implications of relativistic speeds w/ regard to matter!!! Why write as if he did???

    ......Because the implications of Galilean Relativity apply at ALL speeds unless there is countervailing evidence. And the point is that there is NO countervailing evidence. Einstein's SR was concocted out of theoretical physics by MISREPRESENTING the actual physical situation, as done by Einstein in his first paper, OEMBS! You need to tease out that text line by line to find the fraud. IOW - Galilean Relativity still stands - and at high 'relativistic' speeds. Above you reveal that you are still caught by the SR propaganda so prevalent in our society.

    In regards to A.E., cut the guy some slack, "T"...he did the best he could with what he had, just as I do and you and everyone else!!! You expect him to be "perfect in all things" and he

    wasn't (he was acutely aware of this himself) and for some reason you think he should be able to EXPLAIN EVERYTHING!!! No one can do this. not even God...if there is one.

    Not so. Einstein was a genius in philosophy, so he knew what he was doing when he manipulated genuine scientists into preaching his nonsense. We see the end result today, the divorce of physics from practical application - and thus today's resulting energy crisis now leading to global conflict in that the USA wants Russian oil & gas and is willing to start WW3 over it. Proof: Hunter Biden a director on the board of a Ukrainian energy company.

    I think he was pretty "fair dinkum" in regard to theory, as well as personal philosophies...understanding that he has "feet of clay"<(he said this himself)

    Whatever his personal foibles, his relativity theories are still accepted uncritically - as in the main forum here, crippling all debate in physics into sterile speculation (look at the Rolling Roadkill Thread)

    If you need to "tear someone a "new one"...try Hawking, or even better, 't Hooft..or even better, Oppenheimer! Talk about a "scheming opportunist" who threw his own brother to the

    wolves of HUAC, and caused his "girlfriend/common-law wife" to kill herself after dismissing her from his life like a used piece of toilet paper, all because the FBI "warned" him of "guilt by

    association" direct from Hoover! What a piece of work R.O. was!!

    Oh dear! So what!!! Those people merely continued the BS of Einstein in various ways - but at least Oppenheimer repented of some of his crazier outbursts so I'm told. The point is: Einstein was the founder of the BS philosophy dominating physics today so the focus of concern has to be upon him!

    Try to be more understanding of A.E.'s mistakes, "T"...for instance, look up the letter written by Albert to Lorentz...dated 10/12/1915 (it still exists, the actual letter) in which he describes

    his mistakes w/regard to "entwurf" gravity theory...and another letter to A. Sommerfeld, dated 11/28/1915, in which Albert states " I have realized my existing gravitational field

    theories are completely untenable". (does this read like the delusions of a megalomaniac to you? it doesn't to me! he threw away YEARS of thinking in an instant, realizing that his Mercury

    orbit functions could not merge w/ Hamiltonian functions)

    These issues are minor. Einstein sketched various outlines (Entwurfe) for gravity but, obviously, ended up discarding most of them, even for GR. His Unified Field Theory was not completed because it cannot be. The world cannot be reduced to formulas uniting electromagnetism with gravity. Einstein's whole agenda was & is perverted.

    (I know something you WILL NOT admit to yourself...both the Jews and the Moslems are "stiff-necked, prideful" people...and they won't admit they are!)

    (Thanks for reading!)
    Does this mean that Christianity is somehow better? Protestantism is obsessed with money-making and now that economies in the West are in decline, so are conservative Protestant churches. Catholicism of course feeds off this decline but has nothing new to offer - given the child molesters infesting the priesthood worldwide. Monotheism generally is a disaster - whatever good it did is now long in the past, hence its continued existence (whether Jewish, Christian or Islamic) threatens humanity's survival.

    Einstein's role was to give to these wretched religions new life, since Einstein regarded biological life as merely demonstrating "fixed necessity" as you can read for yourself in Einstein's Ideas & Opinions i.e. Einstein is the enemy of progress, the enemy of the natural environment & the enemy of genuine science.

    You need to read more about him - including his own words - rather than uncritically defend what you do not yet fully understand.

    TFOLZO
     

  42. #142  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    341
    In reply to TFOLZO, re: your #141 post.

    I need to read MORE concerning Einstein?!?! (you are joking w/ this, right? There are damn few who best me w/ A.E...perhaps Walter Isaacson) On what post do you find me "defending"

    SR? (I am a skeptic of EVERYTHING, "T"...especially of anything I write, never mind anyone else) I DON'T CARE WHO WROTE WHAT WHEN...it doesn't matter, if it is a "true thing".

    ......

    How is rejecting TEN YEARS worth of thinking concerning gravitational issues a "minor issue?" Not to me. Albert let it go...just like that! I mentioned it specifically as an example of

    how he could divorce himself from his own ego...and start over without any remorse or trying to "patch things up somehow".

    ......

    "T", are you so incensed and outraged you can't see straight anymore...because you haven't gotten any positive feedback re: your DET? Join the frickin' club, then...because I am a "charter

    member". I have NEVER received a single positive response regarding any of my stuff...and yet I remain convinced I am right, just as you are convinced you are right w/DET.

    I am utterly convinced that NO circumstance whatever can cause the "annihilation" of matter, even at the atom level!!! (quite shocking, yes?)

    The single sentence I wrote means I am "out of the running" w/ regard to theory...NO ONE will ever consider my concepts as having any worth whatsoever, even if it were TRUE.

    It would mean the end of "modern physics theory"...and the realization that billions upon billions of dollars were spent pursuing the "Cheshire Cat's Grin".

    ......

    So...should I vent my frustration on people on the "Sites", knowing that it won't do any good? NO...I have no choice except to keep trying, or be a coward and say nothing contentious so

    people will say "Oh...Gerry's alright! He always writes knowledgeable posts...and knows lots of interesting "tidbits" of physics as well". NO...that's not me, and never has been me.

    Like I said, "T"...you have to cut people a LOT of slack w/ regard to giving "serious consideration" to (DET) It's a lot to take in...just as my own stuff!

    ......

    You keep making rather vague mentions of how "research into nuclear energy is being suppressed or made null by false concepts". Okay...could you please tell me what should be

    pursued w/ more vigor regarding "nuke energy?" I seriously would like to know "what should done that is not being done" because I have not read anything concerning "new avenues of

    approach" w/ regard to nuclear energy production. This is the first I've heard of this! ( I have an excuse. I'm old)

    ......

    "T"...please cease w/ the conspiracy stuff, at least to me...you are preaching to the choir! (yes...I'm aware of "meme" mindsets that people aren't consciously aware of)


    (Thanks for reading!) pssst! i'm not in thrall to albert!
     

  43. #143  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    861
    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    Regardless of what you say about special relativity, one thing that can't be denied is that it has passed the various experimental tests that have been presented to it. You might try to diminish the significance of the experiments by attempting to provide alternative explanations for the results, but regardless of what explanations you might put forward, special relativity passed the tests.
    SR apologists have interpreted experimental results wrongly in order to "prove" SR.
    There isn't much scope for misinterpretation. Either the experiments agree with the predictions of special relativity or they don't. And special relativity passed the tests.


    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    Galileo's ship is saying that the laws of physics are the same for different constant velocities. That is also what Einstein's second postulate is saying.
    That is an absolute lie!
    Which of these two sentences are false?

    (1): Galileo's ship is saying that the laws of physics are the same for different constant velocities.

    (2): That is also what Einstein's second postulate is saying.
    A tensor equation that is valid in any coordinate system is valid in every coordinate system.
     

  44. #144  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    Either one or the other is false since both cannot be true!
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post

    Which of these two sentences are false?

    (1): Galileo's ship is saying that the laws of physics are the same for different constant velocities.

    (2): That is also what Einstein's second postulate is saying.
    The lie is #2 since Einstein does NOT say the same thing as Galileo. Galileo merely observed that non-accelerated states of motion cannot be ascertained by people within the container of the motion (they'd have to look outside to establish their relative motion).

    Galileo does NOT state that the laws of physics are the same for different steady velocities. Your claim is an unwarranted misinterpretation of Galileo in the interests of claiming that the universe is ENTIRELY LAWFUL - which it is not. Mathematics describes the universe but can only prescribe it under very narrow conditions. The universe is fundamentally disordered, hence cannot be mathematically modelled as a whole.

    Einstein's "laws of physics" are entirely different from the descriptive laws of Galileo!

    TFOLZO
     

  45. #145  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    Gerry N: In reply to TFOLZO, re: your #141 post.

    I need to read MORE concerning Einstein?!?! (you are joking w/ this, right? There are damn few who best me w/ A.E...perhaps Walter Isaacson) On what post do you find me "defending"

    SR? (I am a skeptic of EVERYTHING, "T"...especially of anything I write, never mind anyone else) I DON'T CARE WHO WROTE WHAT WHEN...it doesn't matter, if it is a "true thing".

    ......Einstein wrote a great deal - & there are always new things coming out. So I zero in on stuff dealing with SR and his political hypocrisy.

    How is rejecting TEN YEARS worth of thinking concerning gravitational issues a "minor issue?" Not to me. Albert let it go...just like that! I mentioned it specifically as an example of

    how he could divorce himself from his own ego...and start over without any remorse or trying to "patch things up somehow".

    ......Einstein spent his whole life from before 1910 thinking about gravity - though he spent more time thinking about overturning quantum theory- which he could not do.

    "T", are you so incensed and outraged you can't see straight anymore...because you haven't gotten any positive feedback re: your DET? Join the frickin' club, then...because I am a "charter

    member". I have NEVER received a single positive response regarding any of my stuff...and yet I remain convinced I am right, just as you are convinced you are right w/DET.

    This is because of the SR mindset dominant on this Forum.

    I am utterly convinced that NO circumstance whatever can cause the "annihilation" of matter, even at the atom level!!! (quite shocking, yes?)

    Matter-energy cannot be annihilated of course; it just changes its form e.g. electrons & positrons annihilating to form gamma-rays.

    The single sentence I wrote means I am "out of the running" w/ regard to theory...NO ONE will ever consider my concepts as having any worth whatsoever, even if it were TRUE.

    It would mean the end of "modern physics theory"...and the realization that billions upon billions of dollars were spent pursuing the "Cheshire Cat's Grin".

    ......We have to wait until people bother to test what's important.

    So...should I vent my frustration on people on the "Sites", knowing that it won't do any good? NO...I have no choice except to keep trying, or be a coward and say nothing contentious so

    people will say "Oh...Gerry's alright! He always writes knowledgeable posts...and knows lots of interesting "tidbits" of physics as well". NO...that's not me, and never has been me.

    Like I said, "T"...you have to cut people a LOT of slack w/ regard to giving "serious consideration" to (DET) It's a lot to take in...just as my own stuff!

    ......True - but too much slack has been cut for Einstein, e.g. presenting him as some kindly socialist-pacifist for example.

    You keep making rather vague mentions of how "research into nuclear energy is being suppressed or made null by false concepts". Okay...could you please tell me what should be

    pursued w/ more vigor regarding "nuke energy?" I seriously would like to know "what should done that is not being done" because I have not read anything concerning "new avenues of

    approach" w/ regard to nuclear energy production. This is the first I've heard of this! ( I have an excuse. I'm old)

    ......Read about Focus Fusion by the aforesaid Eric Lerner of 'Big Bang Never Happened' fame - Lawrenceville Plasma Physics. It's in Noo Joizey - & he's not conspiracy prone either!

    "T"...please cease w/ the conspiracy stuff, at least to me...you are preaching to the choir! (yes...I'm aware of "meme" mindsets that people aren't consciously aware of)


    (Thanks for reading!) pssst! i'm not in thrall to albert!

    Great to hear it!

    Thanks for writing

    TFOLZO
     

  46. #146  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    341
    In reply to TFOLZO, re: your #144 post.

    The Universe is "disordered?" (I cannot "see" this at all...not even as a "deep causality") You have me at a total loss w/ this concept, "T".

    Where do you see disorder? What mechanisms predicate it?

    (Thanks for reading!)
     

  47. #147  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    We see disorder everywhere - not just in rubbish heaps...
    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry Nightingale View Post
    In reply to TFOLZO, re: your #144 post.

    The Universe is "disordered?" (I cannot "see" this at all...not even as a "deep causality") You have me at a total loss w/ this concept, "T".

    Where do you see disorder? What mechanisms predicate it?

    (Thanks for reading!)
    ...but in people's minds too.

    The universe is infinite in time, space & matter-content; matter is also infinitely divisible. Hence there is NO overall order. Order can emerge but only on the basis of a chance combination of factors. Unfortunately the concept has been obscured by deterministic chaos, which notion claims that disorder is only apparent & disappears when the microscopic world is considered.

    There are an infinite number of mechanisms & they collide in our own bodies & lives. We learn more & more but cannot come to a final answer - though Einstein has conned many into thinking there is, & many, such as Polkinghorne, have used modern physics to justify their return to religion.

    Disorder is the fundamental condition of the world - there is no superintending deity as Christians, Jews & Moslems like to fantasize!; that is why we have politics & leaders - in order to bring order into a disordered world!

    The point is that Spinoza's conception of the world is nonsensical: there is no predestined future in the mind of god, no pre-established harmony, no Parmenidean block universe where everything is predetermined to the tiniest detail in the Big Bang. Such notions are the preaching of modern cosmology & financial swindlers - preached so that the masses will fall into the con game of modern economics, since clever modern economists, social counterparts of Einstein & his physics, know all the answers, so that speculation on the stock market will always make the participants rich - or so they tell us! Listen to Max Keiser on Russian Television!

    TFOLZO
     

  48. #148  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    341
    In reply to TFOLZO, re: your #147 post.

    I see a profound difference in interpretation between us, "T"...to me, there is no "chaos" at all, nor can ANYTHING be said to be "random". I see Relativity at work everywhere, in all

    circumstances..."action & reaction" are always at work, in one way or another.

    ......

    I don't give a s**t for Baruch Spinoza's philosophies concerning "man and God" or for Albert Camus' "nihilism" or Sartre's "the meanings of the human condition in thought"...what interests

    me is "causality", something no one wants to explore because "we don't know how to put numbers on it...so it's meaningless".

    Do you seriously believe even for a moment that such writings in philosophy are "new territory" for me? (if you knew the history of my childhood, of physical and mental torment and

    anguish...of knowing I was not wanted by the age of six and wishing I could sleep and never wake up...then you would NEVER presume "how little I know" of the "human condition")

    I KNEW EVERYTHING ABOUT LIFE BEFORE I WAS TEN YEARS OLD!!! So lay off w/ references of "if only I knew" about this/that and the other "thing" concerning "mindset issues" in

    regard to myself...I already know ALL ABOUT IT.

    ......

    There is NO "chance combination" of factors, "T"...I assume you speaking in relationship to such concepts as the "possible number of permutations of atoms in the Universe cannot ever be

    determined as there are too many "shifting paradigms" of entanglement". <(this is NOT correct) There IS an answer...it's just that we have no ability assess it's correctness in "real time"

    and never will...not "knowing a thing" does NOT predicate a "thing can NEVER have an answer".

    An "endless loop" does NOT mandate there is "no limit" to a thing...it just means it's "there", an existence of "self" that "IS". Like "light" in a FoR...if conditions warrant that "causality" has

    manifested light...then the light is "THERE" and will always remain "THERE" until the conditions of enablement dictate otherwise. In this manner, a "thing" can always be present, or never

    present...both possibilities are dependent on a circumstance of causality.


    (Thanks for reading!)
     

  49. #149  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    In reply to TFOLZO, re: your #147 post.

    I see a profound difference in interpretation between us, "T"...to me, there is no "chaos" at all, nor can ANYTHING be said to be "random". I see Relativity at work everywhere, in all

    circumstances..."action & reaction" are always at work, in one way or another.

    ......When you say "Relativity" above, do you mean EInsteinian or Galilean Relativity?

    I don't give a s**t for Baruch Spinoza's philosophies concerning "man and God" or for Albert Camus' "nihilism" or Sartre's "the meanings of the human condition in thought"...what interests

    me is "causality", something no one wants to explore because "we don't know how to put numbers on it...so it's meaningless".

    Need to distinguish between 'causality' and 'determinism'. To deny fundamental disorder reduces causality to determinism - the future absolutely controlled by the past. Spinoza's philosophy of determinism is also that of Einstein.

    Do you seriously believe even for a moment that such writings in philosophy are "new territory" for me? (if you knew the history of my childhood, of physical and mental torment and

    anguish...of knowing I was not wanted by the age of six and wishing I could sleep and never wake up...then you would NEVER presume "how little I know" of the "human condition")

    I KNEW EVERYTHING ABOUT LIFE BEFORE I WAS TEN YEARS OLD!!! So lay off w/ references of "if only I knew" about this/that and the other "thing" concerning "mindset issues" in

    regard to myself...I already know ALL ABOUT IT.

    ......Very few people have read much philosophy before the age of 10. Philosophy contains many twists & turns that we only later become aware of.

    There is NO "chance combination" of factors, "T"...I assume you speaking in relationship to such concepts as the "possible number of permutations of atoms in the Universe cannot ever be

    determined as there are too many "shifting paradigms" of entanglement". <(this is NOT correct) There IS an answer...it's just that we have no ability assess it's correctness in "real time"

    and never will...not "knowing a thing" does NOT predicate a "thing can NEVER have an answer".

    The denial of chance (= disorder) means that you must uphold either a religious position or that of Parmenides where the universe is fully ordered, the past predetermining the future and human thoughts & feelings merely controlled by the universe as a whole. This notion is certainly a very modern one - like the idea that what is termed 'chance' merely reflects our ignorance of any particular phenomenon.

    An "endless loop" does NOT mandate there is "no limit" to a thing...it just means it's "there", an existence of "self" that "IS". Like "light" in a FoR...if conditions warrant that "causality" has

    manifested light...then the light is "THERE" and will always remain "THERE" until the conditions of enablement dictate otherwise. In this manner, a "thing" can always be present, or never

    present...both possibilities are dependent on a circumstance of causality.


    (Thanks for reading!)[/QUOTE]

    But if the universe is infinite in matter, space & time & infinitely divisible, the notion of determinism breaks down because there are INFINITE variables. 'Endless loop' in the sense of a stereotyped eternal recurrence indeed implies a limit because there is no overall change but merely exact repetition of the past.

    The belief in determinism - labelled 'causality' - is merely a dogma, not a fact of the universe. Causality exists but so does chance; the universe is indeterministic, fundamentally disordered & thus NOT representable accurately through mathematics, though parts of the universe's activities are e.g. gravity.

    TFOLZO
     

  50. #150  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    861
    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    Which of these two sentences are false?

    (1): Galileo's ship is saying that the laws of physics are the same for different constant velocities.

    (2): That is also what Einstein's second postulate is saying.
    The lie is #2 since Einstein does NOT say the same thing as Galileo.
    Einstein's second postulate says that the laws of physics are the same for different constant velocities. This is the same as what Galileo said. It is called the "principle of relativity". Of course it is common between Galileo's relativity and Einstein's relativity.


    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO View Post
    Galileo does NOT state that the laws of physics are the same for different steady velocities.
    You should re-read Galileo's ship > The proposal. It specifically mentions two velocities: the ship "standing still", and the ship at "any speed you like".


    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO View Post
    Galileo merely observed that non-accelerated states of motion cannot be ascertained by people within the container of the motion (they'd have to look outside to establish their relative motion).
    The wording of Galileo's ship > The proposal is actually closer to saying that laws of physics are the same for different steady velocities. But the inability to determine one's absolute velocity is a consequence of this.
    A tensor equation that is valid in any coordinate system is valid in every coordinate system.
     

  51. #151  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    341
    In reply to TFOLZO, re: your #149 post.

    My answer? My #148 post...where do you see that I have ANY "religious" mind-set? In my case, you are super-imposing "how you think" of my answer(s) over what I actually wrote.

    ......

    "Relativity" is "Relativity" no matter WHO WROTE IT!!!


    (Thanks for reading!)
     

  52. #152  
    Senior Member Boing3000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    194
    Quote Originally Posted by tfolzo
    Galileo merely observed that non-accelerated states of motion cannot be ascertained by people within the container of the motion (they'd have to look outside to establish their relative motion).
    Which equate to postulate 2) 'within the container of motion' (called by mind-controlled-people FoR) the laws of physics are the same, because if not, any experiment would be a giveaway about your 'state of motion'.

    And your political agenda, or more likely nonsensical religion, preclude you to recognize that. However you should be concerned (or more likely not), that any average 10 years old can understand that.
    But of course those kids are all part of some kind of conspiracy against Galileo.

    Cowardice and total lack of accountability is pretty much the most important quality to develop, when it comes to delude oneself into fantasies, about unlawful universe full of paradox that only TZOLFO can see.

    This thread is a great comic show, please continue...
     

  53. #153  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    Einstein's second postulate says that the laws of physics are the same for different constant velocities. This is the same as what Galileo said. It is called the "principle of relativity". Of course it is common between Galileo's relativity and Einstein's relativity..
    Einstein uses the term 'Principle of Relativity' as a generic term embracing both. It is hypocritical since Galilean Relativity does not preach TD&LC! This is part of Einstein's manipulative agenda.
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    You should re-read Galileo's ship > The proposal. It specifically mentions two velocities: the ship "standing still", and the ship at "any speed you like". .
    This is referring only to relative motion - i.e. not moving relative to the water. The implications of relative motion for Galileo do NOT include length contraction nor time dilation. Hence the difference between Galileo & Einstein is fundamental.
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    The wording of Galileo's ship > The proposal is actually closer to saying that laws of physics are the same for different steady velocities. But the inability to determine one's absolute velocity is a consequence of this.
    But the inability is readily corrected by looking outside the ship. Not so SR where with TD&LC one can end up in any sort of nonsense e.g. the Rolling Roadkill Thread. Galileo & Einstein are poles apart physically and philosophically. But most people in the West are too stupid & miseducated by Einsteinians to see the difference.

    TFOLZO
     

  54. #154  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    The question of motion - and thus relativity in the most general sense - is vital even for religions, since they have to take a stand on the nature of matter, space & time - even if only an evasive stand.
    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry Nightingale View Post
    In reply to TFOLZO, re: your #149 post.

    My answer? My #148 post...where do you see that I have ANY "religious" mind-set? In my case, you are super-imposing "how you think" of my answer(s) over what I actually wrote.

    ......

    "Relativity" is "Relativity" no matter WHO WROTE IT!!!


    (Thanks for reading!
    )
    I presume though that you mean that Galilean Relativity & Einsteinian Relativity are still quite distinct forms of "relativity - no matter who wrote it." Hence the nature of relativity is one very much influenced by culture, philosophy & religion - and that includes physical relativity, the nature of motion.

    TFOLZO
     

  55. #155  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    861
    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    Einstein's second postulate says that the laws of physics are the same for different constant velocities. This is the same as what Galileo said. It is called the "principle of relativity". Of course it is common between Galileo's relativity and Einstein's relativity..
    Einstein uses the term 'Principle of Relativity' as a generic term embracing both. It is hypocritical since Galilean Relativity does not preach TD&LC! This is part of Einstein's manipulative agenda.
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    You should re-read Galileo's ship > The proposal. It specifically mentions two velocities: the ship "standing still", and the ship at "any speed you like". .
    This is referring only to relative motion - i.e. not moving relative to the water. The implications of relative motion for Galileo do NOT include length contraction nor time dilation. Hence the difference between Galileo & Einstein is fundamental.
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    The wording of Galileo's ship > The proposal is actually closer to saying that laws of physics are the same for different steady velocities. But the inability to determine one's absolute velocity is a consequence of this.
    But the inability is readily corrected by looking outside the ship. Not so SR where with TD&LC one can end up in any sort of nonsense e.g. the Rolling Roadkill Thread. Galileo & Einstein are poles apart physically and philosophically. But most people in the West are too stupid & miseducated by Einsteinians to see the difference.
    No one is suggesting that Galileo's relativity and Einstein's relativity are the same. They both include the principle of relativity, but this alone does not define the theory. The current debate between us arose because you said that the speed of light is constant, and that is inconsistent with Galileo's relativity because the principle of relativity plus the constant speed of light is Einstein's relativity. Galileo's relativity does not include a constant finite speed (of light). A constant finite speed is the consequence of an indefinite metric (such as the Minkowskian metric).
    A tensor equation that is valid in any coordinate system is valid in every coordinate system.
     

  56. #156  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    No one is suggesting that Galileo's relativity and Einstein's relativity are the same. They both include the principle of relativity, but this alone does not define the theory. The current debate between us arose because you said that the speed of light is constant, and that is inconsistent with Galileo's relativity because the principle of relativity plus the constant speed of light is Einstein's relativity.).
    Galileo had no particularly theory about the nature of light so that a corpuscular theory cannot be attributed to him. That the speed of light in constant is NOT inconsistent with Galilean relativity when one takes into account the Doppler Effect - as the Doppler Ensemble Theory (DET) does, supplementing Galilean Relativity just where it requires supplementation with a new quantum-based theory of light.
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    Galileo's relativity does not include a constant finite speed (of light). A constant finite speed is the consequence of an indefinite metric (such as the Minkowskian metric).
    The 'alternative' is the drivel that you prefer - subjective time & space i.e. TD&LC and the Minkowski muddlegrams which obscure the parallel & daughter universes which necessarily arise thru mutual motion in an 'Einsteinian universe'. The difference between Galileo & Einstein could hardly be greater - especially as the Galilean universe is infinite (demoting religion to the back blocks) whereas Einstein's universe is finite (promoting mathematical[=financial] speculation & the return of rampant religious bigotry, exemplified in US Judaeo-Christians & the Zionist state - Islamic bigotry merely a phenomenon secondary to the Western bigotry).

    I.e. Einstein has much to answer for - & not only in physics & philosophy!

    TFOLZO
     

  57. #157  
    Senior Member Boing3000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    194
    Quote Originally Posted by tfolzo
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW
    No one is suggesting that Galileo's relativity and Einstein's relativity are the same. They both include the principle of relativity, but this alone does not define the theory. The current debate between us arose because you said that the speed of light is constant, and that is inconsistent with Galileo's relativity because the principle of relativity plus the constant speed of light is Einstein's relativity.)
    Galileo had no particularly theory about the nature of light so that a corpuscular theory cannot be attributed to him
    Why do you want to attribute a corpuscular theory of light to Galileo ? Do you realize only you repeat those baloney like some religious mantra.

    Quote Originally Posted by tfolzo
    That the speed of light in constant is NOT inconsistent with Galilean relativity<PERIOD>]
    That is true. A constant in every FoR is perfectly in accord with relativity. Physic is the same in every FoR. A constant is the perfect relative thing. If you utter 60 nonsense by minute (upm) in a boat, you also would utter 60 nonsense by minute in another boat.


    Quote Originally Posted by tfolzo
    into account the Doppler Effect
    That is false. Doppler effect is related to the medium. Galilean relativity breaks when the speed of the SAME light(however red shifted or blue shifted) is measured equals in different FoR.
    Which is not the case for your nonsense, uttered in a boat at 60 upm, and received with great amusement in another boat, high pitched AND > 60 upm.

    Quote Originally Posted by tfolzo
    whereas Einstein's universe is finite
    A lie, among many others...

    Quote Originally Posted by tfolzo
    I.e. Einstein has much to answer for - & not only in physics & philosophy!
    Only downright fascist, full of self-hating, could utter such BS. How easy it is for cowards to issue such idle threat.

    I imagine how Einstein is fearing your wrath, from the after life (where he is playing dice with God), and I am ROTFL
    x0x likes this.
     

  58. #158  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    Galilean Relativity + DET is the way to solve the light speed problem, not Einstein's SR.
    Quote Originally Posted by Boing3000 View Post
    That is false. Doppler effect is related to the medium. Galilean relativity breaks when the speed of the SAME light(however red shifted or blue shifted) is measured equals in different FoR.

    Which is not the case for your nonsense, uttered in a boat at 60 upm, and received with great amusement in another boat, high pitched AND > 60 upm.

    Only downright fascist, full of self-hating, could utter such BS. How easy it is for cowards to issue such idle threat.

    I imagine how Einstein is fearing your wrath, from the after life (where he is playing dice with God), and I am ROTFL



    L>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>Receding observer
    L>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Observer stationary wrt source.
    L>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Approaching observer

    The Doppler Ensemble arises naturally from considering how photons from a light source (L) at left are seen by observers mutually in motion.

    From this we establish the fact that any photon consists of all possible wavelengths. Light is projected (as Walter Ritz understood) NOT propagated in a medium.

    And there is NO medium for light either - that nonsense is Lorentzian and in defence of which BS he created TD&LC (along with his fellow stooges Fitzgerald & Poincare).

    So you're entirely behind the eight-ball when it comes to understanding, Boinky!

    TFOLZO
     

  59. #159  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    861
    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO View Post
    promoting mathematical[=financial] speculation & the return of rampant religious bigotry, exemplified in US Judaeo-Christians & the Zionist state - Islamic bigotry merely a phenomenon secondary to the Western bigotry
    MODERATOR NOTE: This forum is not the place for such political statements. You've made such statements on a number of occasions and it is time for you to stop making them. Consider this a warning.
    A tensor equation that is valid in any coordinate system is valid in every coordinate system.
     

  60. #160  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    341
    In reply to TFOLZO, re: your #158 post.

    Okay...here we go again! You are equating your DET as a "true state of condition" INDEPENDENT of "observers"...that, in effect, "this is how light actually is".

    My answer is NO and still more NO.

    I wrote you an opinion a few weeks ago that "color-spectra exist in our MINDS and may not be the true aspect of light itself"...and you just waved it off w/ "who cares?"

    I responded again, stating that "our vision process is "creating" the spectra, so as to give definition and clarity as well as depth of field" and you chose to just let it go because you

    have no interest in the "how our minds may well be deceiving us" w/regard to light...your only agenda is DET and claiming that some cabal of Jews "stole and perverted real science" so as

    to promote some personal agenda of their own. (this is false...an invalid premise on it's face. A.E. wrote his first paper at 16! Are you equating this w/some "Dr.Evil" plot to overthrow

    society in general make us all his minions??? AT SIXTEEN!?!? C'mon "T"...you are not the only one who can "read between the lines" of what is stated and what is the true intent.)

    ......

    You think you are the only person who sees conspiracies? I see them myself...and the only ones that I care about are the ones that involve "force as means to an end" to "make people live

    right"...these philosophies scare the crap out of me!


    (Thanks for reading!)
     

  61. #161  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    341
    In further reply to TFOLZO #158.

    Just where does Lorentz promote "aether" theory...I just don't "see" it. I can understand some of inference that an emitted photon state would serve as a mandate that the photons must

    travel "thru" something...and the standard of doctrine maintains that there MUST be a "timespace" continuum that serve the purpose of a "non-aether" metric for light as well as gravity.

    This is the only way to explain the "how light and gravity" can bypass the normal rules of "action/reaction" as well as the decay of velocity, i.e., light/gravity are provided a postulated

    medium of their own, not subject to decay or "normal" time...very convenient, especially in treating energy and gravity as "pseudo particles".

    ......

    Lorentz and A.E. may well have been wrong w/regard to the concept of a "spacetime continuum"...but in fairness, given the circumstance of "pseudo-particle emission", what else

    could they do? ( I think "E" was aware this was an inherent flaw...this separate "continuum", but could never find an acceptable alternative)


    (Thanks for reading!)
     

  62. #162  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    997
    Its a curious thing isnt it that the speed of light is independent of the emitter? You could envisage that at the space time event the light was emitted the source was momentarily stationary. But stationary with respect to what? You would conclude that it has to be stationary with respect to the absorber. Think about that.....at a point in time the emitter is stationary to everything. Well and good, but then things move....well not in the frame of the photon. They don't move anywhere.
     

  63. #163  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    341
    In reply to Jilan, re: your #162 post.

    Jilan...take the "they don't move anywhere" (photons) to the step in logic. Answer? They don't "move" because they NEVER had to "move". The potential of manifestation was already

    "there" in-place. The measures we use for establishing lightspeed are also an exact corollary of a "frequency response". (a quantum-metric "tuning fork"...always "there" awaiting a

    stimulus) In this manner, it would make no difference if a source was moving or not, because there is no emission of a pseudo-particle state.


    (Thanks for reading!) Cheerio!
     

  64. #164  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    861
    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO View Post
    Galileo had no particularly theory about the nature of light so that a corpuscular theory cannot be attributed to him. That the speed of light in constant is NOT inconsistent with Galilean relativity when one takes into account the Doppler Effect - as the Doppler Ensemble Theory (DET) does, supplementing Galilean Relativity just where it requires supplementation with a new quantum-based theory of light.
    Contrary to popular misconception, relativity is not about light. One can be forgiven for this misconception given how often light is mentioned, as well as the role of electromagnetism in the history of special relativity. Therefore, the incompatibility between the constant finite speed of light and Galilean relativity is not going to be corrected by making adjustments to the properties of light. The fundamental error you have made is that you've disregarded kinematics, mistakenly thinking that the physical properties of light are relevant. Consider two observers, A and B. B is moving relative to A at velocity . Both observers observe object C in motion such that observer A observes C moving at velocity , and observer B observes C moving at velocity . What is the relationship between and given ? Now consider that object C is moving at velocity with respect to both A and B even though . How does this conform to Galilean relativity, noting that object C was not specified as light and no properties beyond speed of C was mentioned?
    A tensor equation that is valid in any coordinate system is valid in every coordinate system.
     

  65. #165  
    Senior Member Boing3000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    194
    Quote Originally Posted by tzolfy
    L>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>Approaching observer
    L>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Observer having a nice cup of tea
    L>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Receding observer

    The Doppler Ensemble arises naturally from...
    ... from consideration ? I can appreciate drawing from a child, but many I have seen are much more interesting, even though they don't pretend to be a physic theory.
    So I have corrected your Deluded Terrible Error here above.

    You are welcomed
     

  66. #166  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    341
    In reply to KJW, re: your #164 post.

    I was not aware that "light" had any physical properties of itself. Other than being a manifested state. (or were you writing extemporaneously? As in, "it's there or not there, and thus

    when it is there, light could be considered a "physical presence" when it inter-acts w/ matter")


    (Thanks for reading!)
     

  67. #167  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    Contrary to popular misconception, relativity is not about light. One can be forgiven for this misconception given how often light is mentioned, as well as the role of electromagnetism in the history of special relativity. Therefore, the incompatibility between the constant finite speed of light and Galilean relativity is not going to be corrected by making adjustments to the properties of light. The fundamental error you have made is that you've disregarded kinematics, mistakenly thinking that the physical properties of light are relevant. Consider two observers, A and B. B is moving relative to A at velocity . Both observers observe object C in motion such that observer A observes C moving at velocity , and observer B observes C moving at velocity . What is the relationship between and given ? Now consider that object C is moving at velocity with respect to both A and B even though . How does this conform to Galilean relativity, noting that object C was not specified as light and no properties beyond speed of C was mentioned?
    The speed of light in SR is only constant for inertial observers. See this Baez article where you can read this:

    "That the speed of light depends on position when measured by a non-inertial observer is a fact routinely used by laser gyroscopes that form the core of some inertial navigation systems. These gyroscopes send light around a closed loop, and if the loop rotates, an observer riding on the loop will measure light to travel more slowly when it traverses the loop in one direction than when it traverses the loop in the opposite direction. The gyroscope does employ such an observer: it is the electronics that sits within the gyro. This electronic observer detects the difference in those light speeds, and attributes that difference to the gyro's not being inertial: it is accelerating within some inertial frame. That measurement of an acceleration allows the body's orientation to be calculated, which keeps it on track and in the right position as it flies".

    In addition GR subsumed SR, and in GR the speed of light is not constant. The locally measured speed is, but strictly speaking this only applies to an "infinitesimal region". Again from the Baez article:

    "Einstein talked about the speed of light changing in his new theory. In his 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: "... according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [...] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity [Einstein means speed here] of propagation of light varies with position." This difference in speeds is precisely that referred to above by ceiling and floor observers".

    The speeds of A and B conform to Galilean Relativity via the wave nature of matter. See The Other meaning of Special Relativity by Robert Close. When you're made of waves, you always measure wave speed to be the same, because you calibrate your rods and clocks using the motion of waves. See [0705.4507] Comments on "Note on varying speed of light theories" where Magueijo and Moffat talked about the tautology.

    Now since you're a moderator, will you please moderate PhysBang's libellous assertion that I'm a con artist? If you won't, does that mean you endorse his assertion?
    Jilan likes this.
     

  68. #168  
    Senior Member Boing3000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    194
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight missquoting the same quote over and over again
    In addition GR subsumed SR, and in GR the speed of light is not constant
    That is true. The speed of light is not constant. First it is the speed of light, and then after it became the speed of light. If you look-up closer, you'll see that it change constantly from "the speed of light" to "the speed of light".
    What is even funnier is that when you get that speed from a speedometer, it always is the same changing constant.
    I often see light bounce of mirror, changing speed by a factor of 2 times C, which can only occurs by decelerating from -C to +C forming a perfect rainbow, bringing happiness and joy even in the most obtuse troll.
    I also see light speed change in my cup of almost but not quite totally unlike tea, especially when inserted in a gyroscope.

    Quote Originally Posted by From professional miss-understander
    A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity {Einstein means speed here} of propagation of light varies with position
    I bet Einstein means velocity, because he is aware of the difference between a vector quantity (which changes direction) and a perfectly constant scalar.

    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight
    will you please moderate PhysBang's libellous assertion that I'm a con artist
    I found that assertion to match very closely the reality. I would personally have said "you are acting in a bad faith".

    Does it bother you that we read what you wrote, and then libel it with the appropriate adjective ?
    Does it bother you that only people with "personal theories" but "enable to explain them" are willing to listen to your confidence trick without finding them distasteful ?
    x0x likes this.
     

  69. #169  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    280
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    In addition GR subsumed SR, and in GR the speed of light is not constant. The locally measured speed is, but strictly speaking this only applies to an "infinitesimal region".
    Welcome to speaking honestly about your reference. If you continue to read and learn about physics and tell the truth about your references, then you will stop being a fraud and you might actually become an expert on physics.

    Farsight, the reason that you are a fraud is that you openly call yourself a "physics expert" but you can't do physics and you repeatedly make basic errors about physics and you present dishonest presentations about the content of physical theories and about what physicists say and write. You are now changing your stated position on the Baez article because your continued dishonesty about it has been exposed and it is too much for you to ignore.

    I hope that you continue on the path to honesty.
     

  70. #170  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by PhysBang View Post
    Welcome to speaking honestly about your reference. If you continue to read and learn about physics and tell the truth about your references, then you will stop being a fraud and you might actually become an expert on physics.

    Farsight, the reason that you are a fraud is that you openly call yourself a "physics expert" but you can't do physics and you repeatedly make basic errors about physics and you present dishonest presentations about the content of physical theories and about what physicists say and write. You are now changing your stated position on the Baez article because your continued dishonesty about it has been exposed and it is too much for you to ignore.

    I hope that you continue on the path to honesty.
    All: This is a pack of lies. While I have said "I'm the expert round here", that's because I can do physics. But I haven't repeatedly made basic errors, I don't give dishonest presentations, and I'm not changing my stated position on the Baez article. Nor have I been dishonest, and such has not been exposed. Physbang is a troll and a stalker, and if he is not moderated, then this forum is providing a platform for libel.
     

  71. #171  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    341
    In reply to Farsight, re: your #167 post.

    "Observer observes light in gyroscope to "slow?"...then Baez is assuming that "c' is observer dependent, and it isn't. This is imposing a superluminal conclusion based upon a "frame-dragging"

    effect and concluding "this is the true value of lightspeed?" No. One cannot say this circumstance "proves" anything except time is an arbitrary measurement.

    ......

    In the U.S. and elsewhere, look at a common household light fixture...the light appears very even and steady. It isn't. In fact, it is flashing at 60 cycles per second, off and on, and no

    human ever sees it...no chemical can achieve a reaction state so fast as to "keep pace" with anything close to relativistic velocities...to all of us, everything "looks" steady, and it

    NEVER WAS, not as long as AC current is applied...this is "frame-dragging" for real, not some oddity from a book, or conjectural semantics.

    Baez is wrong.


    (Thanks for reading!)
     

  72. #172  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    280
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    All: This is a pack of lies. While I have said "I'm the expert round here", that's because I can do physics.
    There is no evidence to support this claim.
    But I haven't repeatedly made basic errors,
    If one does an internet search for any of your posts that use mathematics, one finds many basic errors. The JREF forum has many great examples of basic errors, including ones where you forget to include units and thus produce incorrect results (a significant problem for doing physics).

    As such, the evidence is that yuou cannot do physics and your claims are based only on your limited reading and your dogmatic adhearence to your own fantasy interpretations of physics.

    I don't give dishonest presentations,
    Your performance on this forum produces more than enough evidence to show that you do present dishonest poresentations. Even now you have begun to change the way that you present your favorite Baez link because your deceit was too easy to uncover.

    and I'm not changing my stated position on the Baez article.
    Farsight, we can all read.
     

  73. #173  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    997
    Are we getting dragged into the semantics again? The coordinate speed of light (both instantaneous and average) is slowed in the presence of gravitational fields. The local instantaneous proper speed of light is always c.
     

  74. #174  
    Senior Member Boing3000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    194
    Quote Originally Posted by Jilan
    Are we getting dragged into the semantics again?
    Not likely. Even though semantic is interesting, "coordinate speed" or "Proper Velocity" have "proper" definition, and no amount of "Farsight comment" is going to make any difference.

    But his comments are more then welcomed. It is fascinating to observe revisionism/fraud/delusion. They have proper momentum, but strangely cannot get any traction
    x0x likes this.
     

  75. #175  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    861
    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry Nightingale View Post
    I was not aware that "light" had any physical properties of itself.
    I don't know why you would think that it doesn't. Light has the physical properties that allow us to say that we physically have light rather than a bowl of cereal. The point I was making was that relativity is not about light. is a speed referred to in relativity that is coincidentally the speed light travels in a vacuum, but this doesn't mean we're talking about light. We are only considering the speed itself regardless of what it is that is travelling at that speed.
    A tensor equation that is valid in any coordinate system is valid in every coordinate system.
     

  76. #176  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    861
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    Contrary to popular misconception, relativity is not about light. One can be forgiven for this misconception given how often light is mentioned, as well as the role of electromagnetism in the history of special relativity. Therefore, the incompatibility between the constant finite speed of light and Galilean relativity is not going to be corrected by making adjustments to the properties of light. The fundamental error you have made is that you've disregarded kinematics, mistakenly thinking that the physical properties of light are relevant. Consider two observers, A and B. B is moving relative to A at velocity . Both observers observe object C in motion such that observer A observes C moving at velocity , and observer B observes C moving at velocity . What is the relationship between and given ? Now consider that object C is moving at velocity with respect to both A and B even though . How does this conform to Galilean relativity, noting that object C was not specified as light and no properties beyond speed of C was mentioned?
    The speed of light in SR is only constant for inertial observers.
    I didn't mention non-inertial motion. Also, my point is that we are not talking about light specifically, but rather about speeds and velocities in general. I should also remark that is the dimensioned numeric value of 299792458 ms1 in SI units. Dimensionally a speed and coincidentally the speed light travels in a vacuum, it can also be regarded as the relationship between the SI units of the metre and the second.


    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    in GR the speed of light is not constant. The locally measured speed is, but strictly speaking this only applies to an "infinitesimal region".
    The local speed of light is the speed of light at the location of the light, and is therefore the only speed of light that is of any significance.

    Infinitesimal regions integrate to finite regions, and your "only applies to an infinitesimal region" is indicative of a disdain for calculus.
    x0x likes this.
    A tensor equation that is valid in any coordinate system is valid in every coordinate system.
     

  77. #177  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    I didn't mention non-inertial motion. Also, my point is that we are not talking about light specifically, but rather about speeds and velocities in general. I should also remark that is the dimensioned numeric value of 299792458 ms1 in SI units. Dimensionally a speed and coincidentally the speed light travels in a vacuum, it can also be regarded as the relationship between the SI units of the metre and the second.
    Both of which are defined using the local speed of light. And then they're used... to measure the local speed of light. Hence the tautology described by Magueijo and Moffat in this paper :

    "Following Ellis [1], let us first consider c as the speed of the photon. Can c vary? Could such a variation be measured? As correctly pointed out by Ellis, within the current protocol for measuring time and space the answer is no. The unit of time is defined by an oscillating system or the frequency of an atomic transition, and the unit of space is defined in terms of the distance travelled by light in the unit of time. We therefore have a situation akin to saying that the speed of light is one light-year per year, i.e. its constancy has become a tautology or a definition."

    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    The local speed of light is the speed of light at the location of the light, and is therefore the only speed of light that is of any significance.
    Not true. The "coordinate speed of light" has great significance. It varies with gravitational potential.

    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    The Infinitesimal regions integrate to finite regions, and your "only applies to an infinitesimal region" is indicative of a disdain for calculus.
    No it isn't. It indicates an appreciation for what Einstein said, and what Don Koks said on Baez:

    "Einstein talked about the speed of light changing in his new theory. In his 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: "... according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [...] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity [Einstein means speed here] of propagation of light varies with position." This difference in speeds is precisely that referred to above by ceiling and floor observers."

    And what Professor Ned Wright said in his deflection and delay article:

    "In a very real sense, the delay experienced by light passing a massive object is responsible for the deflection of the light."

    It's like what Einstein said. Light curves because the speed of light varies with position. Now are you going to moderate the abuse? Or do you give free rein to abuse directed at anybody who challenges what you say?
     

  78. #178  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    280
    It is interesting to see how Farsight has begun adding the language of his interlocutors into his work. Now Farsight speaks of the "coordinate speed of light", whereas before he would just speak of the speed of light without any hint of the difficulty in identifying a speed in GR. He still, of course, has a fantasy that amounts to the claims that calculus does not exist, that it is not central to GR, and that Einstein did not use calculus or really any mathematics in the construction of GR. He is still presenting himself as an expert on something he doesn't understand.
     

  79. #179  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    652
    A quick google on Farsight "coordinate speed of light" will make it plain that I've referred to the coordinate speed of light for years.
     

  80. #180  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    341
    In reply to KJW, re: your #176 reply.

    I cannot see how to reconcile the "standards of interpretation" of light w/ my own understanding. It seems that at any time, if any challenge is made, then QM functions of "what light is"

    overpower any logic or reason...I say "light has NO physical properties of itself (no matter) and you quote doctrines that dictate that it DOES, and further that "it would not make any

    difference "what" is at speed of any nature"...you are correct. I cannot argue "illogical logic" successfully.

    I have no faith in photons as "pseudo-particles" of real matter...of course, I realize such a concept could never be considered, for if it were, then all of modern theory would vanish, along

    w/all of the equations that "prove" light as a physical property.

    The only rebuttal I can offer is "where are these magic particles?" If they exist, then why is it impossible to "capture" one?

    ......

    I cannot argue against the iconoclastic models of the last hundred years, as the use of equations makes this "not open to debate or change". It seems anything "outside the box" is

    considered either as having no merit, or "unverifiable" and therefor not worth consideration.


    (Thanks for reading!)
     

  81. #181  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    280
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    A quick google on Farsight "coordinate speed of light" will make it plain that I've referred to the coordinate speed of light for years.
    Yes, and it will also show the way that you have changed your approach. It will also show how you didn't change your approach: no attempt to produce measurement evidence.
     

  82. #182  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    861
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    The local speed of light is the speed of light at the location of the light, and is therefore the only speed of light that is of any significance.
    Not true. The "coordinate speed of light" has great significance. It varies with gravitational potential.
    Then what is the speed of light in a vacuum at the surface of the earth?
    A tensor equation that is valid in any coordinate system is valid in every coordinate system.
     

  83. #183  
    Senior Member Boing3000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    194
    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry
    I cannot see how to reconcile the "standards of interpretation" of light w/ my own understanding. It seems that at any time, if any challenge is made, then QM functions of "what light is" overpower any logic or reason
    First try to understand that this thread is not about QM.
    Second, be polite enough to start your own thread about what you cannot understand about QM&light. Some kind people will probably try again to repeat very basic knowledge to you, that you'll ignore right away. That is how your personal overpowered logic works.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry
    I say "light has NO physical properties of itself (no matter)
    What about speed, frequency, amplitude, energy, polarization, momentum ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry
    and you quote doctrines that dictate that it DOES
    How far into that pit of insanity are you going to dig yourself in ? Is "light is a bowl of cereal" now the STANDARD DOCTRINE ?
    Your repeated lies should get you expelled from this forum.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry
    I have no faith in photons as "pseudo-particles" of real matter...
    Keep your faith and your doctrine for yourself, this is a science forum.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry
    of course, I realize such a concept could never be considered, for if it were,
    Incidentally, it is. Haven't you heard about Maxwell equation ? Light IS a wave, in classical physics. And also in QM. In QM all is wave.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry
    then all of modern theory would vanish, along
    Beside your fallacies, if we discover that light is indeed a bowl of cereal, nothing will vanish. Newton physics is still there, end even if wrong sometimes, it works pretty well most of the time, for ever, and ever.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry
    w/all of the equations that "prove" light as a physical property.
    Equations proves nothing, they are correct or a bunch of symbols salad (they all are, in your perspective, and that is YOUR problem).
    Experimental evidence, real apparatus measuring real properties of light, indicates what equations are the more in tune with reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry
    I cannot argue against the iconoclastic models of the last hundred years,
    Pardon my english, but are you insulting again hundred years of people ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry
    as the use of equations makes this "not open to debate or change"
    What is this supposed to mean ? apart being a sorry excuse.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry
    It seems anything "outside the box" is considered either as having no merit
    It seems to me that thinking "outside the box" is pretty much the hype nowadays, as it has been for the last millions years, and even for T-Rex.
    That is, for example, what Einstein did, or Ford, or Galileo, or any other names worth remembering...

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry
    or "unverifiable" and therefor not worth consideration
    That is your fallacy. Because thinking outside the box, means your have build another verifiable one. Where is yours ?
     

  84. #184  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    341
    In reply to the #183 post.

    I do not answer to people who call me a liar, as well as insane. IMO, you have crossed the line w/me, more than once or twice. Enough is enough.
     

  85. #185  
    Senior Member Boing3000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    194
    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry
    IMO, you have crossed the line w/me
    I sure have, like most of us. Can you realize that it is because it is you who have crossed that line ? Or will you continue to "insult" everybody here ?
    Have a nice trip on the other side, you are in good company, it is gonna be fun.

    And don't pretend you could reply, you have no response and you hate debate. You are just posturing.
    x0x likes this.
     

  86. #186  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    997
    Oh come on guys, it would be very dull if everyone was in agreement. Don't you think?
     

  87. #187  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    Then what is the speed of light in a vacuum at the surface of the earth?
    It's defined to be 299,792,458 m/s. Because the second is defined to be the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of radiation and the metre is defined to be the distance travelled by light in 1/299,792,458th of a second. If you go lower then like Einstein said the speed of light is lower, but you still define the speed of light to be 299,792,458 m/s as above. But you know that one 299,792,458 m/s is not the same as the other because the seconds aren't the same. The metres are the same because the slower light and the bigger second cancel each other out. Again see what Magueijo and Moffat said about the tautology:

    "Following Ellis [1], let us first consider c as the speed of the photon. Can c vary? Could such a variation be measured? As correctly pointed out by Ellis, within the current protocol for measuring time and space the answer is no. The unit of time is defined by an oscillating system or the frequency of an atomic transition, and the unit of space is defined in terms of the distance travelled by light in the unit of time. We therefore have a situation akin to saying that the speed of light is one light-year per year, i.e. its constancy has become a tautology or a definition".

    Jilan: some people are deliberately trying to trash the discussion.
     

  88. #188  
    Senior Member Boing3000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    194
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight
    It's defined to be 299,792,458 m/s. Because the second is defined to be the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of radiation and the metre is defined to be the distance travelled by light in 1/299,792,458th of a second. If you go lower then like Einstein said the speed of light is lower, but you still define the speed of light to be 299,792,458 m/s as above. But you know that one 299,792,458 m/s is not the same as the other because the seconds aren't the same. The metres are the same because the slower light and the bigger second cancel each other out.
    ROTFL. Which meters ? There is only one meter. The same little piece of wood you've carved out of your delusion at altitude 1000 is the same you can use at altitude 42.
    You will measure light speed with it, and with the same clock, and it will give the same answer.
    Most people will conclude that the speed is the same, has well as any other experiment you would care to do.
    But a few con-artist with a faint grasp of logic will define that light speed change because light speed is the same.

    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight
    Again see what Magueijo and Moffat said about the tautology:
    Tautology is your strong only ability: to be blind

    Quote Originally Posted by Jilan
    Oh come on guys, it would be very dull if everyone was in agreement. Don't you think?
    I agree. The problem is that I would like to disagree with something complicated, even personal theories, but some with any measurable gravitas to them
     

  89. #189  
    x0x
    x0x is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    737
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    But you know that one 299,792,458 m/s is not the same as the other because the seconds aren't the same.
    Rubbish from the master rubbish distributor.

    The metres are the same because the slower light and the bigger second cancel each other out.
    Some more utter rubbish.

    Jilan: some people are deliberately trying to trash the discussion.
    Nah, you are doing an excellent job all by yourself.
     

  90. #190  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    341
    In reply to Jilan, re: your #186 post.

    Cheers!

    No...no "c'mon guys" w/this one. I can take a punch better than most, but calling me a liar and insane is too much. This is pure "trolling", and a deliberate hijacking of a legitimate thread to

    further some personal agenda of nothing more than disjointed vitriol against me PERSONALLY. (although I will award 5 points to someone posting the word "gravitas" in it's correct context)

    ......

    Cheerio!
     

  91. #191  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    280
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    It's defined to be 299,792,458 m/s. Because the second is defined to be the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of radiation and the metre is defined to be the distance travelled by light in 1/299,792,458th of a second. If you go lower then like Einstein said the speed of light is lower, but you still define the speed of light to be 299,792,458 m/s as above. But you know that one 299,792,458 m/s is not the same as the other because the seconds aren't the same. The metres are the same because the slower light and the bigger second cancel each other out.
    This method is used for fixing lengths because the theoretical framework for the constancy of the speed of light is so sound. Before this method, people used other standards. It just turns out that, when you are sure that the speed of light is constant, you can use this to predictably produce accurate lengths.
    Magueijo and Moffat grossly simplify what Ellis wrote in that passage, and they do not make similar mistakes throughout the bulk of their paper, only in that introductory section (oddly, the only part Farsight quotes). Ellis shows just how deeply the constant speed of light is tied to many other physical systems and how the burden is on someone who wants to argue for a variable speed of light theory to address these other areas.

    Now note that Farsight is advocating a variable speed of light theory but he never addresses any of the things that Ellis (or Magueijo or Moffat) brings up.
    Jilan: some people are deliberately trying to trash the discussion.
    Some people want all the subtleties of relativity theory addressed rather than ignored.
    Boing3000 likes this.
     

  92. #192  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    341
    In reply to Farsight, re: your posts this thread.

    I'm having difficulty keeping up w/ your various examples of the "variance' of "c'. Just how is it possible to state that "c" of itself varies, using any sort of "tick -rate?" I'm curious as to

    what you are trying to establish w/ the concept of a "c varience". Suppose lightspeed does vary...then what? What would this mean, aside from the obvious?


    (Thanks for reading!)
     

  93. #193  
    Senior Member Boing3000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    194
    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry
    This is pure "trolling", and a deliberate hijacking of a legitimate thread to further some personal agenda of
    Then again, it is not trolling to bring up the fact that is is you who hijack every thread to sell your personal agenda/belief about what is and what is not (especially ranting about QM)
    So I'll add you are being hypocritical as an observational evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry
    nothing more than disjointed vitriol against me PERSONALLY.
    What on earth are you lying about ? (again and again). Take responsibility for your own personal statement. If you find me corrosive, it is because I won't let your deception go unchallenged.
    I don't care if you are doing it on purpose, or out off ignorance. You are irrelevant. This thread is, this forum is. Your lies are.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry
    (although I will award 5 points to someone posting the word "gravitas" in it's correct context)
    Thank you Gerry. I know that deep inside, you are a nice guy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry
    I'm curious as to what you are trying to establish w/ the concept of a "c varience". Suppose lightspeed does vary...then what? What would this mean, aside from the obvious?
    An excellent question. Farsight answer is :"to fight cargo cult whooo". A confidence trick, he is going to protect you from deception while deceiving you...

    And I give you 5 points just to not having lied about what people say and think, in your post #192
    And I give you 5 more points just because that post actually contains a genuine honest question.
     

  94. #194  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    861
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    Then what is the speed of light in a vacuum at the surface of the earth?
    It's defined to be 299,792,458 m/s.
    Well that settles it. It is 299792458 ms1. However, this doesn't really address what you said that led me to ask the above question:

    "The "coordinate speed of light" has great significance. It varies with gravitational potential."
    A tensor equation that is valid in any coordinate system is valid in every coordinate system.
     

  95. #195  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    341
    In general reply to trolls, re: thread hijacking to promote a personal agenda.

    I will respond w/ this. I have already registered a complaint w/ the moderators due to accusations of "lying".
     

  96. #196  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    341
    A further reply general reply.

    Show "proof" of a single-photon IN TRANSIT...then tell me "how wrong I am" and "how little I understand" of everything/anything. NO...no "wave" function! Show me a single-photon in

    movement! And then tell me "how wrong I am".
     

  97. #197  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    Well that settles it. It is 299792458 ms1. However, this doesn't really address what you said that led me to ask the above question:

    "The "coordinate speed of light" has great significance. It varies with gravitational potential."
    I addressed it. 299792458 ms1 at one altitude is not the same speed as 299792458 ms1 at a different altititude. Hence NIST optical clocks at different elevations run at different rates.

    Now are you going to address the trolls and the abuse and the ad-hominems?
     

  98. #198  
    Senior Member Boing3000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    194
    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry
    I will respond w/ this. I have already registered a complaint w/ the moderators due to accusations of "lying".
    "Accusation" is a word you can use if I just state a fact without documenting it. In post #183 I have documented one lie (where you said someone claimed a doctrine that the standard interpretation of light is based of bowl of cereal).
    Everybody can read all your declarations about "what scientists do", moderators also. They are all lies, based on terrible misconception, that you never care to endorse. Have you ever heard of double-standard ?

    BTW "me making accusation" is another lie.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry
    Show "proof" of a single-photon IN TRANSIT...then tell me "how wrong I am" and "how little I understand" of everything/anything. NO...no "wave" function! Show me a single-photon in movement! And then tell me "how wrong I am".
    First show where anybody is talking about proof of "photon in transit" (whatever that means) or "wave function" in this thread, and how it is relevant to this thread discussion. Nobody had said that.
    You are again making up arguments that nobody had used. You are hand waving on top of a lie.

    To be wrong, you should at least propose something that could be analysed rationally. There is just (make-up)words salad. You are not even wrong, and you clearly don't want to have a discussion, only to parrot your personal beliefs.
     

  99. #199  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    341
    I repeat...show me PROOF of a single photon in transit. If you or anyone else can do this, then I will recant my positions.

    If you or anyone else cannot show "proof' of a SINGLE photon in-motion...then my assertions have equal validity to anyone else. (I have never stated that anything I write could not be

    wrong...of course I can be wrong! Accusations are NOT "debate!"

    ......

    Did you not read my true name and contact information? Call me and tell me "what a liar" I am! YOU ARE A TROLL!!!
     

  100. #200  
    Senior Member Boing3000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    194
    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry
    I repeat...show me PROOF of a single photon in transit
    I repeat, what on earth are you talking about ? Did I or anybody else spoke about a "single photon in transit" ? What are you requesting from me, and on what ground ? To do physics in your stead ? Can you say "please?"
    You are doing that claim, not US.

    Anyway, I think experiment are proof, and the very well know double slit experiment is the proof that you CANNOT observe one photon here and then there without ruining it. I even think QM is base on such kind of observations. You happens to be QM preacher without even knowing it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry
    then my assertions have equal validity to anyone else
    You make not assertion, beside all "physicts is wrong". Or "show me that unicorns exist". Nobody on this site spoke about unicorns, you liar.
    I am not a troll either, you liar again.
     

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •