Notices
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 217
Like Tree26Likes

Thread: SPLIT : Farsight's Comments

  1. #1 SPLIT : Farsight's Comments 
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by johnzxcv View Post
    so you say gravity effect the distance therefore effect the speed of light?
    No, the mass-energy affects the surrounding space and therefor the speed of light.

    Quote Originally Posted by johnzxcv View Post
    Is there any experiment have been done about this? Right? to prove a theories we need an experiment!
    Yes, the Shapiro delay, the NIST optical clocks that run slower when they're lower, the GPS clock adjustment.

    Quote Originally Posted by johnzxcv View Post
    One more thing you also said that the time of clock near the earth doesn't run slower because they run in a different space .So they in different time.
    Sorry john, I'm not clear what you mean by that.

    Quote Originally Posted by johnzxcv View Post
    That idea is great! You seem to come up with a lot of new theories.
    I don't. I just tell you about stuff you haven't heard of before.
    johnzxcv likes this.
     

  2. #2 SPLIT : Farsight's Comments 
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    652
    Grrrr. Markus, moderate this:

    Quote Originally Posted by PhysBang View Post
    Where is the nastiness in those comments? They point out the truth. Farsight is literally lying in many of his posts. He is usually deceiving people by selectively quoting parts of documents without addressing the clear statements in those same documents that address and deny his position. He also alternately claims that his position is the real physics and that his position is rejected by physicists; he is presenting an alternative to today's physics but he is angry that he present these ideas in an alternate theory venue. Arguing dishonestly is not debate.
    And oh, you like lpetrich's little "explanation" do you?

    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    That's an interesting approach to the question, Ipetrich. I like it ! It's always fascinating to see how different people approach the same question from other angles
    I challenge you to explain it. Note that when r = 2M lpetrich's expression reduces to . How about you run us through the situation where the particle is at r = 2M?
     

  3. #3  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    551
    Quote Originally Posted by johnzxcv
    Anyway I have read your thread , so you say gravity effect the distance therefore effect the speed of light?
    That's wrong. If the distance changes then that doesn't change the speed. It merely alters the amount of time it takes for the light to travel that distance.
     

  4. #4  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    341
    In reply to Farsight, re: your #1 post.

    Farsight (or John, or whatever) when are you going to "see the light?" Arguing semantics over equations AGAIN??? You can't win...for everything you present, you will receive a fusillade of

    mathematical conundrums in return! (a calculus "Chinese finger-prison" condition...the more you pull, the tighter it gets)

    (Thanks for reading!)...nice response, but it won't work....
     

  5. #5  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    652
    I am winning, Gerry. But not here. Nobody is winning here, not with a "moderator" who gives free rein to the most appalling abuse whilst stifling genuine physics discussions.
     

  6. #6  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    280
    Farsight, the only way you have the possibility of a "win" is if you can produce an equation that describes the falling of an object using either a) a slower speed of light or b) inhomogeneous space. Until you can do that, you and I both know that you have no physics.

    You can string along those who have hopes, dreams, and ignorance like Gerry, if that's all you want.

    And let us not forget that it is your abuse that gets you banned from places.
     

  7. #7  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    341
    In reply to Physbang, re: your #6 post.

    I have no "hopes and dreams" that would apply to theoretical physics...as far as "ignorance" in the appropriate areas are concerned, the only time I am "lost at sea" is with "what women

    really want"...this is a mystery to me.

    .....

    Answer my question of "Why Mercury doesn't sail off...or crash into the Sun?" Then we can establish a baseline of "who is ignorant".

    .....

    Many people get "banned" for legitimate reasons...but not always. "Mods" and "admins" can be just as pedantic as anyone else, especially w/ regard to theory! For instance, "BB" theory is

    a "best guess" response to observed expansion, as well as "blackhole" theory...but adherents of these positions don't like any criticism that involve any sort of "proof". These are the same

    people who accuse others of being "ignorant of the facts" while at the same time being adherents of completely unprovable suppositional "facts!!!" like "BB".

    If anyone says anything contrary to the "Doctrine of Gospel" concerning any QM "fact?" and an adherent "true believer" who happens to be "in-charge" reads it...that poster is out!!!

    (want to tell me I'm "wrong" in this observation? Because I can "prove" this on this very site and you know it...I was the "poster" who was "WARNED" by "SpeedFreek" for writing "heresy"

    concerning completely unprovable, unworkable, illogical, suppositional "Doctrine".


    (Thanks for reading!)
     

  8. #8  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    341
    Oh...I forgot!

    PS...everything that is matter "falls slower than c". "Light" does not "fall" in any conventional meaning of the term...you might want to re-examine some of your examples you write out.
     

  9. #9  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    280
    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry Nightingale View Post
    Oh...I forgot!

    PS...everything that is matter "falls slower than c". "Light" does not "fall" in any conventional meaning of the term...you might want to re-examine some of your examples you write out.
    Yeah, see, there is an example of ignorance: you don't even understand what Farsight is peddling. I'm sure that you can function all right and feed yourself (or you can at least get someone to feed you), so I'm not worried about you. But you really can't tell shit from shinola.
     

  10. #10  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    115
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    No, the mass-energy affects the surrounding space and therefor the speed of light.

    Yes, the Shapiro delay, the NIST optical clocks that run slower when they're lower, the GPS clock adjustment.

    Sorry john, I'm not clear what you mean by that.

    I don't. I just tell you about stuff you haven't heard of before.
    Can you use any formula to describe how much it effects speed of light?
     

  11. #11  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    341
    In reply to Physbang, re: your #9 post.

    "The entire Universe of all forces and matter were created by....a teeny-tiny MAGIC particle!!!" (all is explained by this QM FACT)

    Just who is "peddling sh*t" to whom" here, Physbang? (I am not using any "magic shinola" when I write anything...as opposed to others who do)

    .....

    You think because I support "Farsights" right to post that I "agree" w/him? Not so.

    I support his "right to post" because I am not capable of judging the merit of something until I can READ IT!!!

    .....

    It seems to me YOU are the one whose mind is filled w/sh*t and shinola.


    Ta ra
     

  12. #12  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    280
    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry Nightingale View Post
    In reply to Physbang, re: your #9 post.

    "The entire Universe of all forces and matter were created by....a teeny-tiny MAGIC particle!!!" (all is explained by this QM FACT)

    Just who is "peddling sh*t" to whom" here, Physbang? (I am not using any "magic shinola" when I write anything...as opposed to others who do)
    The only person stating this claim, "The entire Universe of all forces and matter were created by....a teeny-tiny MAGIC particle!!!" (all is explained by this QM FACT)," is you.

    You are sadly deluded.
    You think because I support "Farsights" right to post that I "agree" w/him? Not so.
    No, you support Farsight's right to post anything anywhere because you are clueless.
     

  13. #13  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by PhysBang View Post
    And let us not forget that it is your abuse that gets you banned from places.
    It absolutely isn't. I get banned for coming up with good physics, by some "moderator" who brooks no challenge and can't bear to be corrected. And who gives free rein to abusive trolls.


    Quote Originally Posted by johnzxcv
    Can you use any formula to describe how much it effects speed of light?
    Yes, the standard formulae like:



    See Wikipedia. The thing to be aware of is that you measure t with a light clock. So when t0 is not equal to tf it's because the speed of light is different at the two locations.
     

  14. #14  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    280
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    It absolutely isn't. I get banned for coming up with good physics,
    OK, so can you point to a single location on the internet where you have offered an equation to give the details of your particular physics claims?

    No?

    OK, so we know that you are a liar who can't do physics but wants to insult people anyway.
     

  15. #15  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    341
    In reply to Farsight, re: your #13 post.

    "The speed of light is different at two locations". No...and still more no! (go sit on naughty-step, and stop making faces at me!)

    You are equating the differences of matter/mass as "definitions" of "speed"...that's where the problem is.

    ......

    Each mirror has it's own "true" reference...and by comparing results, you then conclude "aha, there's a difference in recorded transit, and therefor "c" varied! Eureka!!!

    Forget the light for a moment, and consider the mirror...is it EXACTLY the same as the other mirrors? No...it's position is different, as well as it's matter in relation to another mirror (the

    positions of molecular conformity are NOT "identical" from one mirror to another, remember? "No two objects can inhabit the same space".

    ......

    What does this mean in practical terms? Not much...until you begin assigning mathematical values to each mirror/light "frame". You set a "yardstick" measure, compare two or more FoR's,

    add a calculation value for each frame...and a difference is noted.

    You say "the results are proof" and you are right. But the results are biased by the presence of the matter...NOT the light! The "matter" of each FoR is different. The inherent qualities of

    light are not "different" w regard to "speed", it is inherent differences in the MATTER that are influencing the bias of calculation!


    (Thanks for reading!)
     

  16. #16  
    Senior Member AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    161
    I get banned for coming up with good physics,
    A review of Farsight's work:
    This is a work of pure imagination. The author has come up with an imaginative idea (that does NOT meet the criterion for being considered a theory) about what comprises the universe we live in. This book claims that matter, energy and space are the same thing, with the particles we observe being 'knots' of space.
    Unfortunately, his ideas simply don't work. When one creates even the most rudimentary mathematical model of his theories, one finds predictions that contradict what we know about the universe. Even without doing any math, it is possible to find errors and false predictions in his ideas based on simply finding the logical conclusions of his claims.
    This book is self-published, after having been rejected by a number of publishers. I find it quite telling that even a company that would publish works by Deepak Chopra would turn down this author.
    Duffield has been shopping this theory around the internet for several years now. In that time, he's been banned from numerous science forums for various reasons, including refusing to accept correction, presenting his ideas as established science, and even attempting to intimidate others by describing his claimed prowess at boxing and willingness to travel.
    In short, this book is a waste of time, for the author as well as any reader. I would recommend that anyone wishing to learn more about physics purchase a book by an actual physicist.
     

  17. #17  
    Senior Member Boing3000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    194
    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry
    "The entire Universe of all forces and matter were created by....a teeny-tiny MAGIC particle!!!" (all is explained by this QM FACT)
    That kind of lie should earned you some kind of penalty.
    You've done it before and you do it again. You won't backup your claims with quotes because you can't. You won't apologies for this lie, nor for "a honest mistake" if it were one, because lying on a forum for you is "all right (reserved)".

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry
    Just who is "peddling sh*t" to whom" here, Physbang? (I am not using any "magic shinola" when I write anything...as opposed to others who do)
    You, and that smells bad. This is a public place, a forum, you should behave a little.

    Speaking of behaving, you've got a point, there are troll on this site but very few, the moderation here is quite good. A proof is that you can continue to express yourself, even thought you don't want to have a positive and honest conversation. Moderator have understood you don't want to hurt anyone intentionally, even tough you do it anyway. I may even be expelled for writing that, I have been qualified "rude" so many time now, because I know I am hurting you right now, even tough I know that hurting people is NOT a good educational tool.

    Anyway I do it, because I have the right to politely state my FoR measurement. That's also my universe, and you make it worse.

    I have not been expelled from any forum for defending that BB theory is not a theory, because there is a good rational behind that position. I have been expelled because moderator are also human being, and some have clear agendas...

    You should be aware that you are polluting one of the rare place with some fresh air...

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry
    Answer my question of "Why Mercury doesn't sail off...or crash into the Sun?" Then we can establish a baseline of "who is ignorant".
    That have been replied many time over, with the actual "main stream" explanation. If that math or calculus freaks you out, what kind of response do you want ?

    I have a question for you, do you know THE answer ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry
    If anyone says anything contrary to the "Doctrine of Gospel" concerning any QM "fact?" and an adherent "true believer" who happens to be "in-charge" reads it...that poster is out!!!
    What ? I don't like QM either, but what I know is nobody "believe" it. It just exists, is a rational theory, and match experiments/facts. Only you associate belief or absolute truth, with theory. You should watch out the definition of the word "theory"

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry
    You think because I support "Farsight" right to post that I "agree" w/him? Not so.
    No, you support Farsight because you think he have a free pass, and you want the same. TANSTAAFL theory will prove you wrong.
    You don't understand Farsight motive, only him knows for sure, or not, if he is really delusional.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry
    I support his "right to post" because I am not capable of judging the merit of something until I can READ IT!!!
    Once , twice maybe ... but not a dozen time, the SAME BS, even so they have been addressed, he NEVER answer the critics.

    Do you realize the logical stupidity to say that light should escape a BH ? BH by definition are called BLACK hole, because ?
    Because the CALCULUS you don't like have FORESEEN some strange solution of some "INESCAPABLE SPACE". They have been observed since then (although you can keep your skepticism high, like I do). So if we are speaking of BH we are NOT speaking a place from which light can escape by definition

    I will draw the analogy that every one of us have great difficulty escaping our prejudice. You, me, everybody. But some are still free to try, because they are not inside a mental black hole formed by too massive delusions of adequacy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry
    "Light" does not "fall" in any conventional meaning of the term...you might want to re-examine some of your examples you write out.
    If you are interested by re-examine some of your beliefs, I will suggest that you read the book "Why E=MC2 (And Why should we care)" by Cox | Forshaw. There is ZERO "calculus" above the Pythagorean theorem level, it is slow pace, and funny. You will understand that light and apple fall at exactly the same rate.
     

  18. #18  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    341
    In reply to Boing3000, re: your #17 post.

    ???

    Your last paragraph is truly confusing...are you suggesting I sign-up for "He-man Einstein Haters Club" a la' the "Little Rascals?" And in the context of this paragraph, do even realize

    the substance of what you are saying makes NO comparable analogy at all!?!? (I see you are likely not a native English speaker, so errors in spelling are okay)

    "Light and apples fall at the same rate"...there is so much wrong w/this, I don't know where to start!!!

    .....

    "Who" is it that supports "BB" theory in modern theoretical physics??? How about 99% of every theoretical physics professionals in the World! By this I mean virtually every physics dept.

    of every University on Earth is "teaching physics from the same page".

    Show me ONE University that "rejects" "BB" in-toto...and I will reference a hundred that do support it! (ask anyone on any site...this is not opinion on my part, it is a fact)

    ......

    "Do you realize the logical stupidity to say that light should escape a BH?" Okay then...do YOU realize that the factor of such an intense gravimetric condition would NOT allow for the

    creation of photons from an ab initio "rest" state? (this means in plain English there would be NO LIGHT emanating from such an entity for gravity to "pull back")


    .....

    I have no prejudice or agenda or bias...I read things, I think about them, and reach MY OWN conclusions. I'm not a scientist, or have any ambitions or inclinations to be one.

    ......

    In relation to the question of Mercury, "why doesn't it fall or escape?" from the Sun...YES, I have an answer.

    The "tensor metrics" of gravity itself will not allow Mercury to "escape" or "fall"...that is the only reasonable, logical answer.

    What is the "tensor metric" of gravity? Simple. "Gravity" exists as both "potential" and "actuality"...the "actuality" being matter and mass, from which no velocity or momentum of mass can

    escape...there is no "where" of "no potential of gravity". As long as matter and mass exist, they are affected by gravity...no velocity can overcome this factor, nor momentum.

    ......

    Just what are you implying by "free pass?" And "I want the same". I hate to "bust your bubble', but in America "we say what we want". This not true in the rest of the World, or at least the

    majority of it! If you don't like it...too bad. (get on a "faith-based" site devoted to theory, if all you want is pedantic dogma)


    (Thanks for reading!)
     

  19. #19  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by Boing3000 View Post
    Speaking of behaving, you've got a point, there are troll on this site but very few, the moderation here is quite good.
    It's dreadful. The "moderator" gives free rein to abusive trolls like PhysBang, and he uses the "mainstream" excuse to censor any challenge to his incorrect physics that contradicts Einstein.

    Quote Originally Posted by Boing3000 View Post
    You don't understand Farsight motive, only him knows for sure, or not, if he is really delusional.
    My motivation is to fight a rising ride of ignorance and cargo-cult woo.

    Quote Originally Posted by Boing3000 View Post
    Once , twice maybe ... but not a dozen time, the SAME BS, even so they have been addressed, he NEVER answer the critics.
    I always answer the critics. And I provide evidence and references, and make a convincing case. Then I get censored. This isn't BS:

    "Given this situation, in the presence of more complicated frames and/or gravity, relativity generally relinquishes the whole concept of a distant object having a well-defined speed. As a result, it's often said in relativity that light always has speed c, because only when light is right next to an observer can he measure its speed—— which will then be c. When light is far away, its speed becomes ill-defined. But it's not a great idea to say that in this situation "light everywhere has speed c", because that phrase can give the impression that we can always make measurements of distant speeds, with those measurements yielding a value of c. But no, we generally can't make those measurements. And the stronger gravity is, the more ill-defined a continuum of observers becomes, and so the more ill-defined it becomes to have any good definition of speed. Still, we can say that light in the presence of gravity does have a position-dependent "pseudo speed". In that sense, we could say that the "ceiling" speed of light in the presence of gravity is higher than the "floor" speed of light.

    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".


    Light can't escape the black hole because at the event horizon gravitational time dilation is infinite, so a light clock never ticks. Because the speed of light is zero. So light doesn't move upwards. It's that simple.

    Quote Originally Posted by Boing3000 View Post
    You will understand that light and apple fall at exactly the same rate.
    Oh yeah? The apple's downward speed increases by 9.8m/s. What happens to a light beam pointed downwards?
     

  20. #20  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    280
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    It's dreadful. The "moderator" gives free rein to abusive trolls like PhysBang, and he uses the "mainstream" excuse to censor any challenge to his incorrect physics that contradicts Einstein.
    How horribly abusive I've been to as you to justify your claims.

    Yes, I have pointed out that you are a pathetic human being, but I chose to do this after you have repeatedly lied about what scientists (including Einstein) have said, insulting the work of scientists and other posters, and have proven that you can't do any physics.

    Your continued failure to produce a single equation describing your crazy ideas, or even a simple physics application, demonstrates that you can't do physics. It is pathetic that you try to take out your failure to learn physics on practicing scientists, but it is a moral flaw of your character to compensate your intellectual flaw in this manner.

    My motivation is to fight a rising ride of ignorance and cargo-cult woo.
    This is a lie. Your motivation is to make someone see you as scientifically powerful. You may be trying to compensate for failures in your personal life, but your hateful invective is not healthy.

    I sincerely hope that you did not lose your family's savings on your misguided self-published book. However, sticking hard to your beliefs despite evidence to the contrary will not make a financial loss reverse itself.
    I always answer the critics.
    Clearly a lie. You have never produced any evidence. You claim that scientists make mistakes calculating galaxy rotation curves, you never show what the mistake is nor how to do the work properly.
     

  21. #21  
    Senior Member Boing3000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    194
    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry
    Your last paragraph is truly confusing...are you suggesting I sign-up for "He-man Einstein Haters Club" a la' the "Little Rascals?" And in the context of this paragraph, do even realize the substance of what you are saying makes NO comparable analogy at all!?!? (I see you are likely not a native English speaker, so errors in spelling are okay)
    My last paragraph is a lecture advise. Can you explain where does the «*he-man Einsten Hater Club*» came from ?
    In the context of this very basic paragraph, do you realize that you are ranting again about club and church ?
    In the paragraph before (I am indeed not a native English speaker, as you are indeed not a internet or forum user, but I can count), the analogy is clear for me, your though cannot escape your prejudice. By now it is a observable fact.
    In your frame of reference, you are a «*Einstein is a god Club*» with Fart sigh (arghhh the Troll in me is beginning to win), because it dispense you of making any sense, because you think you can hide behind his reputation. But nor your or Farsight are prophet of your «*Holy God*», because Einstein was not God. That much I can tell without taking any significant risk.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry
    "Who" is it that supports "BB" theory in modern theoretical physics??? How about 99% of every theoretical physics professionals in the World! By this I mean virtually every physics dept. of every University on Earth is "teaching physics from the same page"
    BB is not a theory. There is no formulation, no provable bundle of math called BB theory. That is a conjecture based on a assemblage of add-hoc hypothesis and back up by some observations. I doubt that BB is part of the bundle of knowledge taught at universities. But it is all over Pop-Science television/book show down. It is sexy enough for that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry
    Show me ONE University that "rejects" "BB" in-toto...and I will reference a hundred that do support it! (ask anyone on any site...this is not opinion on my part, it is a fact)
    Reject... support... Science is not based on emotions/opinions but on math and observations. Conjecture are based on likelihood. Some observations fit the BB conjecture, some don't (hence the hypothesis (inflation etc...). If universities talk about conjecture (and I doubt so), that is what «*they*» say.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry
    Okay then...do YOU realize that the factor of such an intense gravimetric condition would NOT allow for the creation of photons from an ab initio "rest" state?
    I realized just now that you are smarter that Good Old Al. Because it is not what his equation says. You've hit my crackpot horizon, you are going under.
    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry
    (this means in plain English there would be NO LIGHT emanating from such an entity for gravity to "pull back")
    Keep speaking latin, I understand it better than your english, and it will only fool 12 years old, at make laugh anyone older. You are truly entertaining thou, and I thank you for that.
    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry
    I have no prejudice or agenda or bias...I read things, I think about them, and reach MY OWN conclusions. I'm not a scientist, or have any ambitions or inclinations to be one.*
    So, in plain inn-glee-ish, your agenda is not to do science, but to self declare yourself the prophet of Albert. That is my conclusion, and not only my own.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry
    YES, I have an answer. The "tensor metrics" of gravity itself will not allow Mercury to "escape" or "fall"...that is the only reasonable, logical answer.*What is the "tensor metric" of gravity? Simple. "Gravity" exists as both "potential" and "actuality"...the "actuality" being matter and mass, from which no velocity or momentum of mass can escape...there is no "where" of "no potential of gravity". As long as matter and mass exist, they are affected by gravity...no velocity can overcome this factor, nor momentum
    Do you actually have any rational definition (that means mathematics) for representing/computing "actuality" ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry
    Just what are you implying by "free pass?" And "I want the same". I hate to "bust your bubble', but in America "we say what we want". This not true in the rest of the World, or at least the majority of it! If you don't like it...too bad. (get on a "faith-based" site devoted to theory, if all you want is pedantic dogma)
    In my bubble, people say what they are able to, everywhere in ever FoR. Badly educated people speak there mind whenever possible about whatever possible. Internet is a good amplifier for that. I doubt that statistically American would diverge from the norm. But your dogma about American exceptional-ism is quite delusional, and a personal sorry excuse for your own behavior. Cowardice incarnated.

    And I am starting right now a petition for the "return" key to be removed from your keyboard, together with the period key. Period...

    And now I am gonna be expelled for the site for trolling... I won't cry, I deserve it.
    (Thanks for reading!)
     

  22. #22  
    Senior Member Boing3000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    194
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsigh
    My motivation is to fight a rising ride of ignorance and cargo-cult woo.
    A cargo-cult woo is that a maverick will come and set things right. You are a fractal embodiment of cargo-cult woo.
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsigh
    I always answer the critics. And I provide evidence and references, and make a convincing case. Then I get censored. This isn't BS:
    Again this quote from an article you don't understand, even when explain by Physicist, Physbang and Markus.

    I am going to explain it to you:
    Quote Originally Posted by Article too complicated for Farsight
    Still, we can say that light in the presence of gravity does have a position-dependent "pseudo speed". In that sense, we could say that the "ceiling" *pseudo* speed of light in the presence of gravity is higher than the "floor" *pseudo* speed of light.
    *Pseudo* courtesies of Boing.
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsigh
    Light can't escape the black hole because at the event horizon gravitational time dilation is infinite, so a light clock never ticks. Because the speed of light is zero. So light doesn't move upwards. It's that simple.
    There is a difference with being simple and being a simpleton. It's that simple.

    Quote Originally Posted by Farsigh
    Oh yeah? The apple's downward speed increases by 9.8m/s. What happens to a light beam pointed downwards?
    I think the frequency change (increase) because energy increase because speed can't, because light always travel at top speed in 4D Minkowsky space, or in Maxwell equations... I am not sure thouh, I will stand corrected ...

    And when pointed tangent to the gravitational field, it will fall at 9.8m/s. Or at least during the very few pico second, before the beam quit the field forever. That's how I understand how light are deflected by gravity. Then again, I will stand corrected...
     

  23. #23  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by Boing3000 View Post
    ...Then again, I will stand corrected...
    No you won't. And I reiterate: my motivation is to fight a rising ride of ignorance and cargo-cult woo. Only I'm not doing to well, am I? LOL!
     

  24. #24  
    x0x
    x0x is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    737
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    No you won't. And I reiterate: my motivation is to fight a rising ride of ignorance and cargo-cult woo.
    Delusions, delusions.
     

  25. #25  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    341
    In reply to Boing3000, re: your #21 post.

    I don't know your motivations for attacking me on a PERSONAL basis, and don't care...you have shown you have nothing but contempt to work with, so that is what you use.

    My interest in physics is principally "causality" and not endless debates of the semantics of SR. I would like to know the "truth of things" and since I cannot find any in most published

    works of the modern era (post 1955) I have to assess everything on my own...and you don't like that.

    ......

    You say I'm in thrall to A.E. and you are right! (find someone who was or is a "better thinker" and you will have my undivided attention)

    ......

    You want me to define numerically the parameters of a "potential that exists every where/when of the known Universe" Okay.>>>(pi)<<<

    (Thanks for reading!)
     

  26. #26  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    Greetings again Farsight,

    but once again I see you are in trouble with Big Al's Prohibition Era 'authorities'.

    Thus I can agree with your sentiments in blue, and that Fizbang is a 'mainstreamer' with the intellectual finesse of Monty Python's Mr Creosote...
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    It's dreadful. The "moderator" gives free rein to abusive trolls like PhysBang, and he uses the "mainstream" excuse to censor any challenge to his incorrect physics that contradicts Einstein.

    My motivation is to fight a rising ride of ignorance and cargo-cult woo.

    I always answer the critics. And I provide evidence and references, and make a convincing case. Then I get censored. This isn't BS:

    "Given this situation, in the presence of more complicated frames and/or gravity, relativity generally relinquishes the whole concept of a distant object having a well-defined speed. As a result, it's often said in relativity that light always has speed c, because only when light is right next to an observer can he measure its speed—— which will then be c. When light is far away, its speed becomes ill-defined. But it's not a great idea to say that in this situation "light everywhere has speed c", because that phrase can give the impression that we can always make measurements of distant speeds, with those measurements yielding a value of c. But no, we generally can't make those measurements. And the stronger gravity is, the more ill-defined a continuum of observers becomes, and so the more ill-defined it becomes to have any good definition of speed. Still, we can say that light in the presence of gravity does have a position-dependent "pseudo speed". In that sense, we could say that the "ceiling" speed of light in the presence of gravity is higher than the "floor" speed of light.

    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".


    Light can't escape the black hole because at the event horizon gravitational time dilation is infinite, so a light clock never ticks. Because the speed of light is zero. So light doesn't move upwards. It's that simple.


    Oh yeah? The apple's downward speed increases by 9.8m/s. What happens to a light beam pointed downwards?
    ...but what you have in red (as far I can tell, logically speaking, but not physically speaking, it is not BS) is merely a development of a pre-existing cargo-cult woo - and general (i.e. physics community) ignorance.

    Instead of wasting arguments with Einsteinians (like cincirob does in the Rolling Roadkill Thread) you could consider making backward inferences so as to ask: What is the basis for the confusion in SR? What is/are its fundamental principles & presumptions and what is the evidence for them?. I know you can do this - you would hardly have called yourself 'Farsight' otherwise.

    TFOLZO
    Last edited by TFOLZO; 08-20-2014 at 10:31 AM.
     

  27. #27  
    Senior Member Boing3000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    194
    What is the basis for the confusion in SR? What is/are its fundamental principles & presumptions and what is the evidence for them?
    Yes, an excellent question. There is way too much cargo-cult woo in this universe.
    Can you or Farsight say what is this theory ? Remember, it is a personal-theory-hypothesis thread. No 'authorities' here can turn you down, not even logic.

    After that, I'll will explain my rainbow theory
     

  28. #28  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    Greetings Boing3000,

    From these words you sound much more sane than my above snide aside would imply - rather clever Hercule Poirot instead!?
    Quote Originally Posted by Boing3000 View Post
    What is the basis for the confusion in SR? What is/are its fundamental principles & presumptions and what is the evidence for them?
    Yes, an excellent question. There is way too much cargo-cult woo in this universe.
    Can you or Farsight say what is this theory ? Remember, it is a personal-theory-hypothesis thread. No 'authorities' here can turn you down, not even logic.

    After that, I'll will explain my rainbow theory
    This theory is the Doppler Ensemble Theory but your mention of "rainbow theory" already suggests this to me. Perhaps you are coming up with the same ideas, though I thought, perhaps mistakenly, that you believed in relativity - as Farsight once told me he did.

    I also remember your 'Boing' picture too - it was on my old Amiga computer, my very first.

    That the Doppler Ensemble Theory is correct is easily established from the fact that it uses the Voigt Doppler Equation for what it was intended. Instead, the three stooges (Poincare, Fitzgerald & Lorentz) hijacked this very equation to 'explain' time-dilation-&-length-contraction (TD&LC). Hence I can trash SR with absolute confidence.

    Looking forward to your reply - & Farsight's!

    TFOLZO
     

  29. #29  
    Senior Member Boing3000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    194
    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO
    From these words you sound much more sane
    Sorry that I have mislead you then. There is a dimension you ignore an cannot observe. A dimension I am very fluent in and feel comfortable with. That dimension is irony, and I am absolutely NOT confident of that.
    If I were, there would be a contradiction, and I like that (or not).

    Iron, as you probably know, is the most stable of element, so irony is the definitive zero state level when it comes to baloney. That's why rainbow have so many colors, because light speed change, so when rays of light get atop of each other (for reason not worth mentioning, young audience oblige, I don't want to beep myself) they will form a beautiful arc of >>(pi)<<. If not, rainbow would be straight line, and there could not be any happiness in the universe.

    Can you provide some link/ref about something ?
    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO from the future
    Nope
    [/QUOTE]
    See ?
     

  30. #30  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO View Post
    ...Instead of wasting arguments with Einsteinians (like cincirob does in the Rolling Roadkill Thread) you could consider making backward inferences so as to ask: What is the basis for the confusion in SR? What is/are its fundamental principles & presumptions and what is the evidence for them?. I know you can do this - you would hardly have called yourself 'Farsight' otherwise.
    The confusion in SR in conflating what you measure with what really changed. For example you always measure the speed of light to be the same. But when it slows down you slow down too. Then light's going slower but you think it isn't. Another example is when you accelerate towards a light source. You claim the light is blue-shifted, but it didn't change, you did. See The Other Meaning of Special Relativity by Robert Close for more. Note that special relativity isn't "wrong", just as Pythagoras's' theorem isn't wrong. It's just that people don't understand it.
     

  31. #31  
    x0x
    x0x is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    737
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    The confusion in SR in conflating what you measure with what really changed. For example you always measure the speed of light to be the same. But when it slows down you slow down too.
    You two should write a (self-published) book together. It will be a smash, you would sell all of your 22 copies to ALL the members of your respective families.
     

  32. #32  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    Ha ha ha! Your problem Farsight, is that you understand SR...The confusion in SR in conflating what you measure with what really changed. For example you always measure the speed of light to be the same. But when it slows down you slow down too.
    ...too well!

    Then light's going slower but you think it isn't.
    And you also notice that a Doppler shift has occurred but that the light is STILL moving at c relative to you!

    Another example is when you accelerate towards a light source. You claim the light is blue-shifted, but it didn't change, you did.
    But you know from basic Doppler physics that when you change your speed (accelerating towards a light source) the color of the light is blue-shifted. The light's speed didn't change but its color did!

    See The Other Meaning of Special Relativity by Robert Close for more. Note that special relativity isn't "wrong", just as Pythagoras's' theorem isn't wrong. It's just that people don't understand it.
    In OEMBS Einstein subjects the Doppler effect to mere mathematical treatment late in the text. He fails to consider the Doppler Effect before launching into SR - creating all the TD&LC drivel in the process, and appealing to all the morons who believed in the absolute ether reference frame. That's why Pythogoras Theorem does not lead to logical paradoxes but SR does.

    TFOLZO
     

  33. #33  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    280
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    The confusion in SR in conflating what you measure with what really changed. For example you always measure the speed of light to be the same. But when it slows down you slow down too. Then light's going slower but you think it isn't. Another example is when you accelerate towards a light source. You claim the light is blue-shifted, but it didn't change, you did. See The Other Meaning of Special Relativity by Robert Close for more. Note that special relativity isn't "wrong", just as Pythagoras's' theorem isn't wrong. It's just that people don't understand it.
    Sure, we could adopt the metaphysical principles of Farsight and say that there really is an absolute reference frame that we do not have access to, but why bother?

    But Farsight-Relativity doesn't stop there: it also makes predictions (ones that Farsight has never shown us) about the rotation curves of galaxies.

    So, please Farsight, show us your predictions or shut up about how scientists are wrong about galaxy rotation curves. The same should go for any physics that you claim to know.
     

  34. #34  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    Dear Farsight,

    Robert Close, by abandoning spacetime, has done the right thing, but he has to reconceptualise the nature of light by including the Doppler Effect. The Doppler Ensemble Theory on this forum is the answer you require.

    There is no absolute reference frame either, whatever Fizbang might assert.

    TFOLZO
     

  35. #35  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    997
    OK, I'm playing devils advocate here. But consider this. If I, the traveller head off for A. Centauri at 0,866 c , the distance in my reference frame from the final destination and the point of departure will be halved. However for the stay at home person the distance between himself and the traveller won't be. Where has the symmetry gone?
     

  36. #36  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    Well that's just the point, Jilan.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jilan View Post
    OK, I'm playing devils advocate here. But consider this. If I, the traveller head off for A. Centauri at 0,866 c , the distance in my reference frame from the final destination and the point of departure will be halved. However for the stay at home person the distance between himself and the traveller won't be. Where has the symmetry gone?
    There is no symmetry since SR contrives its answers. When the traveller is traveling to Alpha Centauri the space in front of him supposedly length contracts - which would imply that he should get to his destination sooner!

    The 'normal' answer is that TD&LC are reciprocal hence generate logical paradoxes. Alternatively, to try to avoid the paradox, the travelled-twins scenario often invokes one of the twins being at rest & the other in (implicitly absolute) motion - hence the twin at rest is TRULY old while the YOUNGER travelled twin returns to meet him.

    None of these notions are correct - based as they are on SR or Lorentzian Relativity.

    The only correct answer is: Galilean Relativity.

    TFOLZO
     

  37. #37  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    280
    Quote Originally Posted by Jilan View Post
    OK, I'm playing devils advocate here. But consider this. If I, the traveller head off for A. Centauri at 0,866 c , the distance in my reference frame from the final destination and the point of departure will be halved. However for the stay at home person the distance between himself and the traveller won't be. Where has the symmetry gone?
    What symmetry?
     

  38. #38  
    x0x
    x0x is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    737
    Quote Originally Posted by PhysBang View Post
    What symmetry?
    Jilan is in the same league as Farsight.
    Jilan and TFOLZO like this.
     

  39. #39  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    997
    Quote Originally Posted by PhysBang View Post
    What symmetry?
    If the travelling twin measures the distance between himself and his twin to be halved why doesn't the stay at home twin given that there should be no preferred reference frame.?
     

  40. #40  
    x0x
    x0x is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    737
    Quote Originally Posted by Jilan View Post
    If the travelling twin measures the distance between himself and his twin to be halved why doesn't the stay at home twin given that there should be no preferred reference frame.?
    You sound more and more like Farsight with each post. Actually, Farsight sounds more coherent than your above gibberish.
    TFOLZO likes this.
     

  41. #41  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    997
    Quote Originally Posted by x0x View Post
    You sound more and more like Farsight with each post. Actually, Farsight sounds more coherent than your above gibberish.
    It's an honest question for which I'm looking for an answer. If you can't help that's OK. I don't think less of you for it.
     

  42. #42  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    Jilan! Much as I hate to admit it, that bovine x0x has a real point this time.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jilan View Post
    If the travelling twin measures the distance between himself and his twin to be halved why doesn't the stay at home twin ??????? given that there should be no preferred reference frame.?
    I cannot understand what your sentence means - so I have inserted ???? where I lose the sense of what you mean. There should be a verb or auxiliary verb at that point, one NOT connected with the participle 'given' but I cannot guess what it might be.

    TFOLZO
     

  43. #43  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    997
    TFOLZO. I mean - why doesn't the stay at home twin also measure the distance between himself and his brother to be halved? (Since there is not a preferred reference frame why is the situation not symmetrical?)
     

  44. #44  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    652
    Because there is a de-facto preferred reference frame, which is the reference frame of the CMB. See CMB dipole anisotropy. If you were to move very fast through the universe, you'd see the CMBR blue-shifted ahead of you and red-shifted behind you. You're smart enough to work out that you're moving through the universe. And you're smart enough to appreciate that the distance from you to some star doesn't shrink just because you stepped on the gas. You measure the distance to be reduced, but you changed, not space. A spherical star doesn't actually length-contract into a pancake just because you move towards it.
     

  45. #45  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    280
    Quote Originally Posted by Jilan View Post
    If the travelling twin measures the distance between himself and his twin to be halved why doesn't the stay at home twin given that there should be no preferred reference frame.?
    You do realize that even though no frame is preferred, the distances in different frames are different?
     

  46. #46  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    280
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    Because there is a de-facto preferred reference frame, which is the reference frame of the CMB.
    And here we go with the crazy.

    Yes, please see that and read it. ANd maybe read some texts on cosmology to see what they say about it insteadof noted internet crackpot Farsight.

    The CMB dipole anisotropy is a perfect example of how different frames are different: in some frames, you see the anistropy and in some frames you don't. It depends on how you make your measurements. You can make a detector that never sees the anisotropy, you just have to give it a certain motion relative to our galaxy (in other words, no motion relative to the average dynamics of the CMB).

    But that doesn't make the CMB frame preferred for anything but viewing the CMB. So too there is no preferred reference frame for the distance to a star. If we want the maximal distance, then we might look to the frame where the star is at rest, but there will be few other objects that are at rest in that frame. It is doubtful that Earth is at rest relative to Alpha Centauri.

    If you were to move very fast through the universe, you'd see the CMBR blue-shifted ahead of you and red-shifted behind you.
    This is simply not true. Right now, we are all moving very fast through the universe. We just happen to be moving not very fast at all relative to the rest frame of the CMB. Remember, Farsight wants to lie to you about relativity theory, he wants to replace it with his own, pet theory where there is an absolute reference frame. A theory which has no evidence, which has no equations. A theory of fantasy and self-importance for Farsight.

    You're smart enough to work out that you're moving through the universe. And you're smart enough to appreciate that the distance from you to some star doesn't shrink just because you stepped on the gas. You measure the distance to be reduced, but you changed, not space. A spherical star doesn't actually length-contract into a pancake just because you move towards it.
    The problem with this is that if we were to be moving very fast relative to the CMB, then we would become at rest relative to many other objects. So then we would have to say, given Farsight's physics, that many stars are not spherical, that they were really non-spherical and they only appear spherical because we are moving so fast.

    Now standard relativity says that the shape of an object is dependent on system of coordinates chosen, but Farsight has no way of telling you how that could work to produce good physics results. All he has are his fantasy and his lies to try to sucker people into buying in to his fantasy.
     

  47. #47  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    Thank you Jilan...
    Quote Originally Posted by Jilan View Post
    TFOLZO. I mean - why doesn't the stay at home twin also measure the distance between himself and his brother to be halved? (Since there is not a preferred reference frame why is the situation not symmetrical?)
    ...now I know what you mean. We have practical as well as theoretical issues here. According to SR - in this particular dualistic interpretation - the traveling twin is moving relative to some absolute reference frame (ARF) such as 'the universe as a whole', 'the stagnant luminiferous ether' or the 'CBR (microwave background radiation).

    The paradox you real is thus quite correct. The true resolution however is that SR is bunk so there no such thing as the contraction of space in the direction of one's motion - either relative motion or absolute motion. The issue is a contrived one based on Einstein's Naturwissenschaften article that I referenced on the main forum - and which paper will leave you feeling quite Wissenschafted - i.e. filled with abstract 'knowledge'!

    Those on this thread who are claiming otherwise simply do not understand the implications of new physical discoveries. But watch them howl as it is revealed.

    TFOLZO

    Note that I had to edit in blue because SR can more commonly be interpreted 'mutually' or 'solipsistically', i.e. that TD&LC is mutual, resulting in Minkowski Muddlegrams, individual worldlines & as a 'physical' result: parallel & daughter universes.
    Last edited by TFOLZO; 08-21-2014 at 03:05 PM.
     

  48. #48  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    The bits in blue are correct, but not the bits in red! The CBR in our region does constitute a reference frame but NOT a preferred (absolute) reference frame, so it does NOT control the velocity of light nor length contraction supposedly induced by SR in space by motion relative to it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    Because there is a de-facto preferred reference frame, which is the reference frame of the CMB. See CMB dipole anisotropy. If you were to move very fast through the universe, you'd see the CMBR blue-shifted ahead of you and red-shifted behind you. You're smart enough to work out that you're moving through the universe. And you're smart enough to appreciate that the distance from you to some star doesn't shrink just because you stepped on the gas. You measure the distance to be reduced, but you changed, not space. A spherical star doesn't actually length-contract into a pancake just because you move towards it.
    Your claims of 'measurement' Farsight are merely conjectural. How could you measure this distance to be reduced? From the blueshifted Doppler Effect? That is an effect seen with light NOT the contraction of space supposedly due to SR. It is not some optical illusion or personal experience, i.e. not "but you changed, not space" but rather built-in to the nature of light, the nature of the photon itself.

    TFOLZO
     

  49. #49  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    I'm sure, Jilan, that you realize that the Fizbanger's question...
    Quote Originally Posted by PhysBang View Post
    You do realize that even though no frame is preferred, the distances in different frames are different?
    ...is designed to hook you back into believing SR & the multiform BS that derives from it.

    As decidedly anti-Einstein relativity, and so a Galilean relativist, my answer can only be: it is true that NO frame is preferred but distances in different frames remain the same because distances, measures of space, exist objectively (i.e. independently) and so remain unchanged with observer motion.

    In that way you take the PHYS out of all the BANGing on in favour of Big Al Einstein, supreme gangster of the Prohibition Era in Physics!

    OZLOFT
     

  50. #50  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    280
    I'm sure that nazi said some funny, crazy stuff. But he's too hateful for me to take off ignore.
    TFOLZO likes this.
     

  51. #51  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    362
    Quote Originally Posted by Jilan View Post
    TFOLZO. I mean - why doesn't the stay at home twin also measure the distance between himself and his brother to be halved? (Since there is not a preferred reference frame why is the situation not symmetrical?)
    I gather that you might not be all that interested in an actual answer, given that you are addressing TFOLZO, of all people. But for others happening upon this thread from a search engine, say, it's important to provide our standard "public service announcement" to disregard TFOLZO and Farsight, as they suffer from an overdose of self-confidence that is equal in magnitude to their level of scientific ignorance. It's the Dunning-Kruger effect on full display.

    And yes, TFOLZO, real scientists will of course "howl" at crap, in derision as much as anything else. It's nothing for you to be particularly proud of.

    The answer to your question, of course, is that the situation is not symmetrical. One twin undergoes an acceleration; the other does not. That makes the situation manifestly asymmetrical. That asymmetry does not in any way imply the existence of a preferred frame. Indeed, for the laws of nature to be the same for both twins requires this asymmetry.

    I recommend, as a start, reading the wikipedia entry on the twin paradox and various ways to view the resolution of the apparent paradox.
    x0x likes this.
     

  52. #52  
    x0x
    x0x is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    737
    Quote Originally Posted by Jilan View Post
    It's an honest question for which I'm looking for an answer. If you can't help that's OK. I don't think less of you for it.
    Gibberish does not constitute a "question". Honest or otherwise. I see you are in the appropriate company: Farsight, Gerry anf Zoloft. I'll leave you to learn SR from them.
     

  53. #53  
    x0x
    x0x is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    737
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post

    I recommend, as a start, reading the wikipedia entry on the twin paradox and various ways to view the resolution of the apparent paradox.
    I already pointed Jilan to the appropriate wiki page, she's not interested in learning, she has an agenda. She hopes to get the answer she's hoping for from the likes of TFOLZO, this is why she's here. She didn't like the mainstream answer.
     

  54. #54  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    So when you become a believer in SR, thinking ONLY in mathematical terms ...
    Quote Originally Posted by x0x View Post
    Gibberish does not constitute a "question". Honest or otherwise. I see you are in the appropriate company: Farsight, Gerry and Zoloft. I'll leave you to learn SR from them.
    ...Gibberish certainly constitutes the answer , as our bovine 0x0 cube so strikingly reveals.

    TFOLZO
    Jilan likes this.
     

  55. #55  
    x0x
    x0x is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    737
    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO View Post
    So when you become a believer in SR, thinking ONLY in mathematical terms ...
    ...Gibberish certainly constitutes the answer , as our bovine 0x0 cube so strikingly reveals.

    TFOLZO
    You forgot to take your Zoloft again.
    Jilan likes this.
     

  56. #56  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    997
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    I gather that you might not be all that interested in an actual answer, given that you are addressing TFOLZO, of all people. But for others happening upon this thread from a search engine, say, it's important to provide our standard "public service announcement" to disregard TFOLZO and Farsight, as they suffer from an overdose of self-confidence that is equal in magnitude to their level of scientific ignorance. It's the Dunning-Kruger effect on full display.

    And yes, TFOLZO, real scientists will of course "howl" at crap, in derision as much as anything else. It's nothing for you to be particularly proud of.

    The answer to your question, of course, is that the situation is not symmetrical. One twin undergoes an acceleration; the other does not. That makes the situation manifestly asymmetrical. That asymmetry does not in any way imply the existence of a preferred frame. Indeed, for the laws of nature to be the same for both twins requires this asymmetry.

    I recommend, as a start, reading the wikipedia entry on the twin paradox and various ways to view the resolution of the apparent paradox.
    Thanks tk421. The original question wasn't aimed at anyone in particular. TFOLZO didnt understand what I meant so I was clarifying it for him. I am very interested in the actual answer. As far as reading the wiki entry I've read it and many many other articles and education websites.

    I'm afraid nothing as yet has resolved it for me. I thought for a while that the acceleration type argument was correct , but then it was pointed out that it still happens when the is no acceleration as with the triplet experiment where they just synchronise clocks as they fly past each other. Then I thought that the length contraction solved it, but couldnt see how it could only work one way (ie for the moving twin) as SR is symmetrical.

    I am optimistic at getting there soon and very pleased to know that the faster you go the thinner and younger you are.
     

  57. #57  
    x0x
    x0x is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    737
    Quote Originally Posted by Jilan View Post
    . I thought for a while that the acceleration type argument was correct , but then it was pointed out that it still happens when the is no acceleration as with the triplet experiment where they just synchronise clocks as they fly past each other.
    Actually, there is acceleration in the "triplet" example. But it is hidden, the "triplet" formulation hides the frame jumping from the outbound twin frame to the inbound twin frame.


    Then I thought that the length contraction solved it, but couldnt see how it could only work one way (ie for the moving twin) as SR is symmetrical.
    There is no explanation based on length contraction. The explanation is based on asymmetry: either acceleration or frame-jumping (which is a form of acceleration, infinite acceleration).
     

  58. #58  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    341
    In reply to post #52.

    "Derision"...the last refuge of pseudo-intellectual trolls who know how to count beads, but understand nothing. You always answer w/ snide comments whenever you are faced w/ something

    that confuses you, as in "I pointed out this and that" to someone, so there's an end to it...thus "side-stepping" any response from you on a personal level, the "run and hide behind teacher"

    approach to problem solving.

    This is your "I know everything" stance, because "I looked it up on Wiki from reputable sources whose numbers work"...this is all of you? Have you nothing of your own?

    I notice you NEVER answer anything w/ any input from yourself...just quotes and snotty comments of "I told you so!" as if you yourself created the information rather than Wiki!

    If someone questions further...you write back "one-liners" that accuse others of being "unreasonable" or "refusing to see things the right way", your stock-in-trade.

    This way, if something's wrong...you can respond w/ "it's not my fault the source was in error" or accusations of "You're not understanding it right!"

    .....

    Your constant accusations of "LIAR" are going to trip you up at some point...likely a suspension. Your assessments of "liar" are based on opinion, not fact...and calling other people "liars"

    constantly means you are using "strawman" logic to valid validate yourself as a "fount of truth" when in fact your answers are nothing more than "quotes", nothing that originated

    from yourself...yet you want others to believe "I looked it up, so that means I know as much as the person(s) who wrote it".<this is illogical logic and "Munchausen by proxy" syndrome.

    ......

    (just what are "you" trying to prove?)


    (Thanks for reading!)
     

  59. #59  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    280
    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry Nightingale View Post
    Your assessments of "liar" are based on opinion, not fact.
    Not in the case of Farsight. He continually makes claims that contradict each other. For example, he claims that he is presenting mainstream physics, yet he then says that no mainstream physicists agree with what he says. This would be a simple contradiction save for the fact that Farsight only claims to be presenting mainstream physics when he is trying to keep his claims out of alternative physics categories. He is otherwise quite happy insulting the work of mainstream physicists.

    So there is clearly selfish motivation behind the claims that Farsight makes.
     

  60. #60  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    Hey Jilan & Gerry,

    Have you noticed when things get tough, that the 'pictured' members - identified by pictures of e.g. cats, Daleks or flower girls - tend to be the first ones to disappear?

    TFOLZO
     

  61. #61  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    997
    Quote Originally Posted by x0x View Post
    There is no explanation based on length contraction. The explanation is based on asymmetry: either acceleration or frame-jumping (which is a form of acceleration, infinite acceleration).
    The explanation as to how a twin might get to Alpha Centuri and back and just one be year older after the trip does require length contraction otherwise he would have exceeded the speed of light. So he measures the distance of travel as being much shorter than the 8 or so light years that the round trip really is. So the twins must disagree on their mutual separation at the point just before the turnaround.
    TFOLZO likes this.
     

  62. #62  
    x0x
    x0x is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    737
    Quote Originally Posted by Jilan View Post
    The explanation as to how a twin might get to Alpha Centuri and back and just one be year older after the trip does require length contraction otherwise he would have exceeded the speed of light.
    Has nothing to do with the twins paradox.

    So the twins must disagree on their mutual separation at the point just before the turnaround.
    Few ideas but fixed.
     

  63. #63  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by Jilan View Post
    Thanks tk421. The original question wasn't aimed at anyone in particular. TFOLZO didnt understand what I meant so I was clarifying it for him. I am very interested in the actual answer. As far as reading the wiki entry I've read it and many many other articles and education websites.
    I gave it to you. The CMBR gives you the reference frame of the universe. It isn't an absolute frame in the purist sense of the word, but the universe is as absolute as it gets. So it's a de-facto preferred frame.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jilan View Post
    I'm afraid nothing as yet has resolved it for me. I thought for a while that the acceleration type argument was correct , but then it was pointed out that it still happens when the is no acceleration as with the triplet experiment where they just synchronise clocks as they fly past each other. Then I thought that the length contraction solved it, but couldnt see how it could only work one way (ie for the moving twin) as SR is symmetrical.
    The twins "paradox" is where we pass each other at some relativistic speed, without knowing which one is at rest. I claim that your clocks are going slower than mine, and you claim my clocks are going slower than yours. But it's not really a paradox, it's only like when we're separated by distance rather than motion, and I say you look smaller than me whilst you say I look smaller than you.

    When it comes to distances and the twins, adding stars means you can say that one of the twins is moving. He's the one who has no motion relative to the stars. Or the CMBR, which provides your de-facto preferred frame.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jilan View Post
    I am optimistic at getting there soon...
    It's really simple stuff. Once it clicks you'll be amazed at how people manage to make it sound complicated.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jilan
    The explanation as to how a twin might get to Alpha Centuri and back and just one be year older after the trip does require length contraction otherwise he would have exceeded the speed of light. So he measures the distance of travel as being much shorter than the 8 or so light years that the round trip really is. So the twins must disagree on their mutual separation at the point just before the turnaround.
    They don't disagree. They both understand relativity. They know that your measurements change when you move fast. They both know that Alpha Centauri doesn't concertina towards the Earth when you accelerate towards it. Just as they both know that a fast moving light clock ticks slower because the local motion and the macroscopic motion always adds up to c as per the simple inference of time dilation. And because of the light and matter are made of the same essence, the same applies to the travelling twin.
     

  64. #64  
    x0x
    x0x is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    737
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    I gave it to you. The CMBR gives you the reference frame of the universe.
    First off, Duffield, CMBR is not a "frame".
    Therefore, it cannot be a "reference frame", more less "the reference frame of the universe".




    The twins "paradox" is where we pass each other at some relativistic speed, without knowing which one is at rest. I claim that your clocks are going slower than mine, and you claim my clocks are going slower than yours. But it's not really a paradox, it's only like when we're separated by distance rather than motion, and I say you look smaller than me whilst you say I look smaller than you.
    Wrong again, Duffield, the clocks of the two twins show DIFFERENT elapsed times. So , it isn't "like when we're separated by distance rather than motion, and I say you look smaller than me whilst you say I look smaller than you".


    It's really simple stuff. Once it clicks you'll be amazed at how people manage to make it sound complicated.
    But in all these years, it never "clicked" for you, John. You are as ignorant as when you started spamming the internet.
     

  65. #65  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    652
    Ye Gods, you don't know any physics at all, do you? The twins "paradox" is said to be a paradox because my clocks go slower than yours and your clocks go slower than mine. Once the travelling twin has come home the symmetry is broken, and it isn't a paradox any more. And see CMBR dipole anisotropy on Wikipedia:

    "From the CMB data it is seen that our local group of galaxies (the galactic cluster that includes the Solar System's Milky Way Galaxy) appears to be moving at 369±0.9 km/s relative to the reference frame of the CMB (also called the CMB rest frame, or the frame of reference in which there is no motion through the CMB) in the direction of galactic longitude l = 263.99±0.14°, b = 48.26±0.03°.[81][82] This motion results in an anisotropy of the data (CMB appearing slightly warmer in the direction of movement than in the opposite direction)"

    Now try to understand this stuff instead of showing your eye-watering ignorance and playing the naysayer troll.

    Edit: on second thoughts, everybody please ignore this guy. Please do not feed the troll. Shame on this forum for permitting such people to sling abuse and make a negative contribution to what ought to be sensible interesting discussions.
     

  66. #66  
    x0x
    x0x is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    737
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    Ye Gos, you don't know any physics at all, do you? The twins "paradox" is said to be a paradox because my clocks go slower than yours and your clocks go slower than mine.
    Wrong again, Duffield. Try again.
     

  67. #67  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    157
    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO View Post
    Hey Jilan & Gerry,

    Have you noticed when things get tough, that the 'pictured' members - identified by pictures of e.g. cats, Daleks or flower girls - tend to be the first ones to disappear?

    TFOLZO
    I, however, have not been confined to the personal theories section, thank you very much. I believe some members are. This helps me not throw temper tantrums.
     

  68. #68  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    280
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    The twins "paradox" is where we pass each other at some relativistic speed, without knowing which one is at rest. I claim that your clocks are going slower than mine, and you claim my clocks are going slower than yours. But it's not really a paradox, it's only like when we're separated by distance rather than motion, and I say you look smaller than me whilst you say I look smaller than you.

    When it comes to distances and the twins, adding stars means you can say that one of the twins is moving. He's the one who has no motion relative to the stars. Or the CMBR, which provides your de-facto preferred frame.
    This is complete foolishness, as anyone who does any reading on the subject will discover. I find it hard to believe that after all his blathering on as a "physics expert", Farsight makes stupid mistakes about the nature of something that he can easily read about.

    We can do the twin "paradox" without any stars or objects other than the twins. The asymmetry in the "paradox" comes about because there is no one inertial reference frame in which we can describe one of the twins, while there is for the other. This makes all the difference and is the reason why nobody who does physics thinks its a paradox.

    It's really simple stuff. Once it clicks you'll be amazed at how people manage to make it sound complicated.
    It is very simple if you never read it all the way through.
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    Ye Gods, you don't know any physics at all, do you? The twins "paradox" is said to be a paradox because my clocks go slower than yours and your clocks go slower than mine. Once the travelling twin has come home the symmetry is broken, and it isn't a paradox any more.
    No, that's a completely wrong description. In the scenario, one twin's clocks definitely go slower on average than the other. That's the "problem". Just read through a textbook, Farsight. Or even the full wikipedia entry.
     

  69. #69  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    341
    In reply to TFOLZO, re: your #60 post.

    I LIKE being on the "alternate theory" section...after all, almost nothing I write is "mainstream!" Let the trolls play over at "physorg"...they are the admins. "pets" there, allowing them to

    goad people he doesn't like, thus giving him "due cause" to "ban" a respondent that's had enough! (very clever, yes?) I notice Alex G. has backed off, w/ the exception of posting the same

    critique of Farsight's book (just who's critique' is this anyway? It's been posted 5x and counting! What is the source, what publication?)

    ......

    Since this a "hard science" forum, then by definition anything that deviates by a SINGLE WORD constitutes a "breach of rules" regarding posts, and by that dicta everything that so much as

    dares to question a single "jot" of holy doctrine should be on another thread...on this I agree absolutely!!! 100%! In fact, I wonder why there is a "hard science" section at all...the only

    allowable posts are accepted doctrine, such as textbook answers...anyone can memorize these and be Einsteins' superior!!! After all...SR suppositions ARE ALL the "truth" there is!

    (Thanks for reading!)
     

  70. #70  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    341
    In reply to #64 post, re: "frame".

    Any "set" or "condition" can be considered a "frame"...it is irrelevant whether the "frame" is composite of "real' or "suppositional" factors...or in the case of SR, "applied magic".

    A "FoR" is anything which is stated to be a "part" of the "FoR".


    Ta ra!
     

  71. #71  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    Exactly so, GerryN...
    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry Nightingale View Post
    In reply to TFOLZO, re: your #60 post.

    I LIKE being on the "alternate theory" section...after all, almost nothing I write is "mainstream!" Let the trolls play over at "physorg"...they are the admins. "pets" there, allowing them to

    goad people he doesn't like, thus giving him "due cause" to "ban" a respondent that's had enough! (very clever, yes?) I notice Alex G. has backed off, w/ the exception of posting the same

    critique of Farsight's book (just who's critique' is this anyway? It's been posted 5x and counting! What is the source, what publication?)

    ......

    Since this a "hard science" forum, then by definition anything that deviates by a SINGLE WORD constitutes a "breach of rules" regarding posts, and by that dicta everything that so much as

    dares to question a single "jot" of holy doctrine should be on another thread...on this I agree absolutely!!! 100%! In fact, I wonder why there is a "hard science" section at all...the only

    allowable posts are accepted doctrine, such as textbook answers...anyone can memorize these and be Einsteins' superior!!! After all...SR suppositions ARE ALL the "truth" there is!

    (Thanks for reading!)
    ...because the proof against SR (& thus GR & all derivative nonsense) is now decisive.

    The 'ascended masters' on the main forum have to discipline by suspension etc. because the hold of Einstein over physics threatens to break down at every moment.

    The reason for this is not merely the logical paradoxes created by TD&LC but the fact that they have to tell the challenger to believe the Einstein-authority-sanctioned answer since said answer itself is anything but self-evident. The answer itself is now reduced to mere mathematics without 1:1 physical significance which otherwise would clear up matters immeasurably better.

    When we learn other physical theories outside relativity e.g. thermodynamics and quantum theory (the latter however polluted by relativity), we find rough edges but a comprehensible physical description hence the understanding and the maths become self-evident & uncontroversial. This however is NEVER the case with SR, whose claims are anything but self evident - hence the requirement for authority to continue disciplining even the believers.

    The classic case here is cincirob who began the Rolling Roadkill II thread - where the inability of Einstein's SR to explain the shape of a relativistically (very fast) rolling wheel is underscored by the ambiguity of which mathematics to apply! Hence he is continually disciplined by the SR authorities.

    Thanks for writing

    TFOLZO
     

  72. #72  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    341
    In reply to TFOLZO, re: your #71 post.

    The "rolling wheel" scenario is a farce of mathematical absurdities...simply because there can NEVER be a "definitive answer!" The 'shifting paradigms" of each FoR is in a "constant state of

    increasing velocity" and thus renders any singular observation false. You cannot "freeze-frame" a velocity at any point and expect to resolve "what is happening where" to an individual

    portion that in effect is now "stopped!"

    Just "how" does anyone expect to "stop and observe the effect/affect of a relativistic velocity???" Certainly, you can produce a mathematical "best guess" but what of it? All you really need

    is some logic and plain-Jane arithmetic for a solution...there is no arcane "mystery" involved, just common sense.

    ......

    TFOLCZO...stop blaming Albert for the mess in SR! You have studied so you know damn well he NEVER meant for his GR "addition" to be used as a springboard into theoretical mayhem!

    You know this as well as I do! You can accuse Einstein of just about anything you want...but NEVER of being STUPID!!! (do you really think he didn't realize the implications of SR?)

    Everything you attribute to A.E.'s SR is a deliberate distortion of his ORIGNAL work by other so-called "experts" in theory...and I know that YOU know this! (don't be coy, now)


    (Thanks for reading!)
     

  73. #73  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    Dear GerryN,

    I sure agree with you about the Rolling Roadkill Thread so I have edited it out here.

    In reply to TFOLZO, re: your #71 post.


    TFOLCZO...stop blaming Albert for the mess in SR! You have studied so you know damn well he NEVER meant for his GR "addition" to be used as a springboard into theoretical mayhem!

    Einsteinians after Big Al himself used GR & its derivatives to speculate widely. But Einstein gave sanction to this since he ultimately intended relativity to be three-part theory viz.

    1) Special Relativity (SR) - to muddle together matter, space & time as 'stuff' (Stofftheorie).
    2) General Relativity (GR) - to conflate gravity with inertial forces like centrifugal force.
    3) Unified Field Theory - to muddle together gravitational fields with electromagnetic fields.

    He never made headway on part 3 - & neither has anyone else, it now being termed 'Grand Unified Theories'.


    You know this as well as I do! You can accuse Einstein of just about anything you want...but NEVER of being STUPID!!! (do you really think he didn't realize the implications of SR?)

    You misread me GerryN. I am not anywhere accusing Einstein of being stupid - just playing dumb where it suited him. He did not see the use of Minkowskian diagrams when his old maths teacher pointed them out - but he finally did see the use for them when 'explaining' GR, just as Einsteinians on the Rolling Roadkill thread continue to bait cincirob with Minkowski Muddlegrams.

    Everything you attribute to A.E.'s SR is a deliberate distortion of his ORIGNAL work by other so-called "experts" in theory...and I know that YOU know this! (don't be coy, now)


    (Thanks for reading!)

    Big Al Einstein's original work on SR (i.e. OEMBS) and on GR (mainly found in The Principle of Relativity by Einstein, Lorentz, Weyl & Minkowski) shows how in the main he led others around by the nose. This is because Einstein had a masterful understanding of philosophy which almost all other physicists lacked.

    Einstein's underlying intent in creating SR was not genuine scientific aspiration either. Einstein had a pathological hatred of electromagnetism due to his bizarre family fortunes, so used his philosophical comfort readings to pervert science at the deepest level of physics. If you start with Pais's biography, and that of White & Gribbin then consider The Private Lives of Albert Einstein by Highfield & Carter you can start to piece together what really motivated the young Einstein.

    And it wasn't merely simple things like compasses either!

    Thanks for writing

    TFOLZO
     

  74. #74  
    Senior Member Boing3000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    194
    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO
    The 'ascended masters' on the main forum have to discipline by suspension etc. because the hold of Einstein over physics threatens to break down at every moment.
    Yeah, it's not like the 'masters' had some interest in reprinting another round of their book, and get out on another trip of seminar. They already bath in so much money and fame that they own the world.
    The last think any master would do it to enslave their innocent victims in exchange of good old cash.

    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO
    The reason for this is not merely the logical paradoxes...
    There is no paradox anywhere but in the head of people with a weak logical apparatus, like yours.
    There is no paradox in the observable universe... even your nonsense is not paradoxical. Delusions have very logical causes.

    Sadly, you have also been a victim of marketing propaganda. A huge percentage of a population would click on anything but "paradox solved", "Must SEE", "Truth unveiled" and other misleading (agenda driven) tactics...
    Now, you have already admitted your are a pastafarianist, and everything should be shaped in the form of an Italian recipe.
    But here are some clues:
    "Evolution" vs "Natural selection"
    "Twin paradox" vs "Clock divergence"
    "Dark energy" vs "The unbelievably large amount of energy required to accelerate everything from each other in our cosmological observations"

    The formers are the sexy honey words that are supposed to draw attention from students, or increase audience for entertained sheep. They are lies.
    The laters are the real thing.

    Science is a very human discipline, and I am afraid has too much used the "marketing" language.

    But Crackpotery like your has no place on this forum. I suggest you go on another place to sell your crap.
     

  75. #75  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    You can see from his enraged tone how threatened he feels...
    Quote Originally Posted by BoingBoing3000 View Post
    Yeah, it's not like the 'masters' had some interest in reprinting another round of their book, and get out on another trip of seminar. They already bath in so much money and fame that they own the world.
    The last think any master would do it to enslave their innocent victims in exchange of good old cash.


    There is no paradox anywhere but in the head of people with a weak logical apparatus, like yours.
    There is no paradox in the observable universe... even your nonsense is not paradoxical. Delusions have very logical causes.

    intermediate blather edited out
    Science is a very human discipline, and I am afraid has too much used the "marketing" language.

    But Crackpotery like your has no place on this forum. I suggest you go on another place to sell your crap.
    ...so I suggest we even found an Anti-Relativity Political Party targeting people like him. The Filipinos had a good one, and only a slight variant is needed i.e.

    Anybody but Boing Boing.

    No attempt at discussion or logic from him - apart from standard harangue & abuse, just empty Einstein-sanctioned idle (maths-based) speculation, about as useful as another pair of Imelda Marcos's shoes!

    TFOLZO
     

  76. #76  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    280
    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.
     

  77. #77  
    Senior Member Boing3000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    194
    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO
    No attempt at discussion or logic from him - apart from standard harangue & abuse, just empty Einstein-sanctioned idle (maths-based) speculation, about as useful as another pair of Imelda Marcos's shoes!
    ROTFLMPO. The very notion that you think I am enraged and feel threatened, is hilarious (in every FoR). In fact is is a good measure of the sentiments that goes trough your brain.
    Mine if filled with joy and delicious senses of irony(remember ?). I don't need Monty Python's nor HHG2G anymore to make my day. Just read your prose brings me enjoyment. Please keep it going, by any mean possible.

    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO
    No attempt at discussion or logic from him
    That's for sure. If guys like Physbang cannot explain things to you, how can I ? How can I even try to begin to explain to you what logic is ?

    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO
    apart from standard harangue & abuse, just empty Einstein-sanctioned idle (maths-based) speculation
    That's a lie. My "harangue"s are quite unique and special. You hurt my (sacred) feeling by saying otherwise. And people who does that are bad people [hence you and I are bad]. Nobody have thought to mock anyone before me. I am the unique and very special person that even Einstein could not begin to understand. I am so smart that everybody else is wrong.
    If natural selection have permit fool to roam the earth, it is not because it is a successful meme. It's because God have a great sense of humor, and does not play dice [That's the original quote].

    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO
    about as useful as another pair of Imelda Marcos's shoes!
    I totally agree with that. Like this whole thread content, and your petty ranting.
    x0x likes this.
     

  78. #78  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    341
    In reply to TFOLZO, re: your #73 post.

    Now. now..."T", you don't get off that easy, sidetracking w/ "Juden" philosophy again! Just suppose for minute that you were Albert in the 1930's...and suddenly you are confronted w/ the

    info that "not only is the Universe much larger than we thought...apparently the "outer regions" are approaching relativistic speeds!" Seriously, if you were he...WTH would do? Go hide

    under a blanket and refuse to answer the door? I would!!!

    I mean, c'mon "T"...the man has NOTHING to "work with" in terms of GR!!! If the observations are true, then given the distances involved the only real option left is either ignore the

    evidence and deny it OR search for some mathematical construct to "explain it"...so he did.

    ......

    You neglect to mention that A.E. described "SR" as a "bastard, conceived in haste and desperation, which hopefully will be subject to much revision" in letters that are still available to

    scholars and others if you really want "the good stuff" of his private thoughts.

    "SR" was the ONLY possible avenue of approach AT THAT TIME (30's and 40's) that had any hope of preserving anything w/ regard to theory (as you surely know) Think on it, "T".

    What could you or he have done differently at that time?

    You could either submit to what seems "overwhelming evidence" OR try to write out something that from a mathematical perspective at least has some chance of redemption!

    ( think about it...what else was available? He had to form SOMETHING to answer to what seems insoluble...so he used what he knew)

    ......

    I'm shocked that anyone here got the "Bongbong" reference besides me!!! That's over 30yrs. ago...imagining the "Bonger" running the show from "Malapanang Palace" (in the U.S. we call

    such structures "hillbilly room additions")


    (Thanks for reading!)
     

  79. #79  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    In reply to TFOLZO, re: your #73 post.

    Now. now..."T", you don't get off that easy, sidetracking w/ "Juden" philosophy again! Just suppose for minute that you were Albert in the 1930's...and suddenly you are confronted w/ the info that "not only is the Universe much larger than we thought...apparently the "outer regions" are approaching relativistic speeds!" Seriously, if you were he...WTH would do?

    In the 19th century as atheism came forth in the wake of the French Revolution it was quite OK to think of the universe as infinite in space and time. Hence to find the universe to be "much larger than we thought" is merely the position of those who did not accept the infinity of the universe e.g. those influenced by traditional religions - though not Galileo who had no problem with an infinite universe. So not everyone would be shocked at the demonstration of ever greater distances revealed within the observable cosmos. In contrast you wonder if the budding Einsteinian would...

    Go hide under a blanket and refuse to answer the door? I would!!!

    I mean, c'mon "T"...the man has NOTHING to "work with" in terms of GR!!! If the observations are true, then given the distances involved the only real option left is either ignore the evidence and deny it OR search for some mathematical construct to "explain it"...so he did.

    ......Why not accept the universe as infinite as a physical fact - an infinite amount of matter existing an infinite time and being infinite in space. What is wrong with that, eh, GerryN!!!!?????

    You neglect to mention that A.E. described "SR" as a "bastard, conceived in haste and desperation, which hopefully will be subject to much revision" in letters that are still available to scholars and others if you really want "the good stuff" of his private thoughts.

    "SR" was the ONLY possible avenue of approach AT THAT TIME (30's and 40's) that had any hope of preserving anything w/ regard to theory (as you surely know) Think on it, "T".

    Why you write 30's & 40's puzzles me, since SR was concocted before 1910 & GR essentially complete by 1920. I don't know what letter of Einstein's is referred to where he calls SR a 'bastard' but his real dislike was his genuine contribution to quantum theory - explaining the photoelectric effect. His explanation was correct - but he always tried to overthrow his own explanation because he truly hated the quantum as Pais reveals.

    So what do you mean by SR being the only possible avenue of approach ... of preserving anything with regard to theory? Whatever theory do you mean. In the 1930s & 40s SR was already the standard theory so it would merely be preserving itself. I think however you could only be referring to the theoretical constructs that led to SR - i.e. those by Ernst Mach as well the three stooges (Fitzgerald, Poincare & Lorentz). IOW the 'theory' to which you refer is the erroneous notion of an ARF, a stagnant ether, Newton's absolute space, relative to which objects move but upon such moving objects this absolute entity acts (e.g. to create TD&LC so as to explain the null MM experiment).

    Why not just accept Galilean Relativity - which when light theory added, predicts a null MM experiment.


    What could you or he have done differently at that time?

    Answer: follow the line of Walter Ritz who saw that light was projected into space, not propagated in a medium (the 'mulch' of the stagnant ether).

    You could either submit to what seems "overwhelming evidence" OR try to write out something that from a mathematical perspective at least has some chance of redemption!

    There's your overwhelming evidence. There is no ARF hence the three stooges' theorizings are bogus. The answer is not the Lorentz Equations but what they derive from, the Voigt Doppler Equations - and you can see that my Doppler Ensemble Theory (DET) flatly refutes SR, by applying the Voigt Doppler Equations (VDE) to light without a stagnant aether (=ARF)! I worked it out by following Ritz - and that is what Einstein should have done too, because unlike SR it does not invoke TD&LC hence it does NOT lead to logical paradoxes like those of SR.

    Mathematics is but a secondary consideration for quantitative answers AFTER the qualitative conditions are outlined.


    ( think about it...what else was available? He had to form SOMETHING to answer to what seems insoluble...so he used what he knew)

    ......He had a one-page argument with Ritz before the latter died from TB in 1909. Ritz flatly rejected SR and the mathematical prediction of 'advanced waves' i.e. 'waves' of predestination predetermining otherwise undecided outcomes. Ritz kept to the physical reality of 'retarded waves.' Retarded waves are what we see when we throw a stone in the water; waves appear radiating outward from the stone. They follow the stone in time, hence they are retarded waves. Einstein however regarded past and future "as an illusion", effectively denying the 2nd law of thermodynamics when it suited him.

    I'm shocked that anyone here got the "Bongbong" reference besides me!!! That's over 30yrs. ago...imagining the "Bonger" running the show from "Malapanang Palace" (in the U.S. we call such structures "hillbilly room additions")

    (Thanks for reading!)
    Indeed, Markos was so awful, wasn't he - but the son would have even been worse as you say. Luckily we have only Boing Boing here to bounce up trivia whenever it suits him. He's more fun than e.g. (I'll hide their names under euphemisms) Catspaw, Beer scull & Dalekboy, that's for sure!

    Thanks for writing.

    TFOLZO
     

  80. #80  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    997
    TFOLZO, all this talk of advanced and retarded waves reminded me that I meant to ask you whether if the Wheeler Feynman absorber theory fits into all of this.
    Wheeler
     

  81. #81  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    Thank you for the appropriate reference, Jilan
    Quote Originally Posted by Jilan View Post
    TFOLZO, all this talk of advanced and retarded waves reminded me that I meant to ask you whether if the Wheeler Feynman absorber theory fits into all of this.
    The issue of advanced versus retarded waves in the Ritz-Einstein debate is very definitely referring to the same issue. Your reference is very clear too, viz.

    The requirement of time reversal symmetry, in general, is difficult to conjugate with the principle of causality. Maxwell's equations and the equations for electromagnetic waves have, in general, two possible solutions: a retarded (delayed) solution and an advanced one. Accordingly, any charged particle generates waves, say at time t_0=0 and point x_0=0, which will arrive at point x_1 at the instant t_1=x_1/c (here c is the speed of light) after the emission (retarded solution), and other waves which will arrive at the same place at the instant t_2=x_1/c before the emission (advanced solution). The latter, however, violates the causality principle: advanced waves could be detected before their emission. Thus the advanced solutions are usually discarded in the interpretation of electromagnetic waves. In the absorber theory, instead charged particles are considered as both emitters and absorbers, and the emission process is connected with the absorption process as follows: Both the retarded waves from emitter to absorber and the advanced waves from absorber to emitter are considered. The sum of the two, however, results in causal waves, although the anti-causal (advanced) solutions are not discarded a priori.

    Feynman and Wheeler obtained this result in a very simple and elegant way. They considered all the charged particles (emitters) present in our universe, and assumed all of them to generate time-reversal symmetric waves.


    F&W, as is shown in the highlighted comments definitely deny causality in their advocacy of advanced waves. Ritz discarded them as nonsense since they deny the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Adding both kinds of waves into a situation does not resolve the issue for causality however since the advanced waves predate the decision for the action. E.g. if I throw a stone in the water, instead of just the retarded waves emanating from the stone, there should also have been advanced waves someone, coming from the past somewhere or doing something bizarre with the stone or my mind or whatever.

    Better still show me a pond where waves suddenly emanate from an edge & form a circular pattern which shrinks on itself until it finally throws up a stone at the point of coalescence! Then you have some chance of getting me to believe such counterintuitive BS!

    Advanced waves are mere theoretical schlock - but loved by Einsteinians because they deny the 2nd law of thermodynamics, F&W offering false hope to the FWs who think that entropy means decay rather than evolution (because the latter do not understand that an infinite universe does not decay to a final state).

    If we abandon causality we abandon all understanding whatsoever - hence the crippled condition of the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum theory and the confusion & mystical mumbo-jumbo it has created. Hence W-F absorber theory is just the sort of 'blowfly heaven' that Bong Bong et al. love to fly around.

    TFOLZO
     

  82. #82  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    997
    Ah, that's a "not" then. It did occur to me that if the speed of a particular photon must always be c with regard to the absorber it would need to have such a connection.
     

  83. #83  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    341
    In reply to TFOLZO re: your #78 reply.

    "What do I mean by 30's & 40's...observations, et al.....? I mean A.E. was forced to react to THE IMPLICATIONS that the Universe was/is, in essence..."moving faster than light itself!!!"

    (Expansion theory) What possible answer is there to such observations and conclusions? (then) "GR" is not only useless as a comparison model...so is "action and re-action" as well as

    any sort of reasonable "causality"...!

    "Expansion theory" (as interpreted now by "leading figures") is COMPLETE and UTTER DRIVEL in terms of "explanations" and "causality". "SR" cannot explain the basic causality of "why the

    the Universe keeps running away from ITSELF! (in response to what stimulus? "vacuum pressure" tensors from some unknown, unexplained "outside" continuum???)

    Such propositions deny GR and the base functions of "how things work"...and A.E. did not want to "chase his own tail" w/ regard to explanations.

    You know as well as I do that almost all of his writings in the 30's and 40's were in reaction to such absurd conclusions of "moving faster than light" scenarios...that is "what I mean" when

    I write of his SR extrapolations in the those decades. (I know history also, "T", and you leave things out regarding Albert you "don't like"...very naughty)

    ......

    (Thanks for reading!)
     

  84. #84  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    It depends on the nature of light.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jilan View Post
    Ah, that's a "not" then. It did occur to me that if the speed of a particular photon must always be c with regard to the absorber it would need to have such a connection.
    An absorber of light is always moving at c relative to the light. However with DET (Doppler Ensemble Theory) you have wavelengths of all possible lengths - but only the one traveling at c relative to the absorber is the wavelength actually absorbed.

    TFOLZO
     

  85. #85  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    Sounds very interesting, Gerry N.

    In reply to TFOLZO re: your #78 reply.

    "What do I mean by 30's & 40's...observations, et al.....? I mean A.E. was forced to react to THE IMPLICATIONS that the Universe was/is, in essence..."moving faster than light itself!!!"

    (Expansion theory) What possible answer is there to such observations and conclusions? (then) "GR" is not only useless as a comparison model...so is "action and re-action" as well as any sort of reasonable "causality"...!

    "Expansion theory" (as interpreted now by "leading figures") is COMPLETE and UTTER DRIVEL in terms of "explanations" and "causality". "SR" cannot explain the basic causality of "why the the Universe keeps running away from ITSELF! (in response to what stimulus? "vacuum pressure" tensors from some unknown, unexplained "outside" continuum???)

    Such propositions deny GR and the base functions of "how things work"...and A.E. did not want to "chase his own tail" w/ regard to explanations.

    You know as well as I do that almost all of his writings in the 30's and 40's were in reaction to such absurd conclusions of "moving faster than light" scenarios...that is "what I mean" when I write of his SR extrapolations in the those decades. (I know history also, "T", and you leave things out regarding Albert you "don't like"...very naughty)

    It is certainly true that Einstein did not want to accept any faster-than-light (FTL) implications for the motion of matter or for the speed of information transfer, but in the 30s & 40s, decisive evidence of FTL motion was restricted to observations of oppositely directed light-beams. Neutrinos were predicted but not yet known. Einstein's believers tried to avoid the question by claiming that 'space expanded' i.e. shifting the goalposts rather than admitting that matter was actually moving at that speed through space.

    ......

    (Thanks for reading!)

    Plasma cosmologists such as Winston Bostick first came up with the idea that galactic recession was due to magnetic repulsion. Einstein remained safe because new evidence was not in at the time. Words like 'expansion' are dangerous in regard to space, since the universe itself is not expanding. Rather, galaxies are receding into space, receding from each other faster than light too!

    Thanks for writing

    TFOLZO
     

  86. #86  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    997
    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO View Post
    It depends on the nature of light.
    An absorber of light is always moving at c relative to the light. However with DET (Doppler Ensemble Theory) you have wavelengths of all possible lengths - but only the one traveling at c relative to the absorber is the wavelength actually absorbed.

    TFOLZO
    You could take it one stage further than that and say it is not actually emitted unless there is an absorber for it.
     

  87. #87  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    I would have to disagree strongly there.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jilan View Post
    You could take it one stage further than that and say it is not actually emitted unless there is an absorber for it.
    The emission of light is not conditional on whether the light will ever be absorbed. Light is simply emitted when physically necessary - the absorption of such light is an independent contingent process reflecting the fundamental disorder of the universe.

    Your 'one stage further' words sound very 'Buddhist' to me - as when people are punished for their sins by being reincarnated as snakes or flies by an impersonal but 'just' universe. That is, it gives the impression of the universe being a thoroughly ordered 'justice-imbued' machine - something that certainly appeals to the mathematical SR-soaked mind.

    TFOLZO
     

  88. #88  
    Senior Member Boing3000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    194
    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO
    It is certainly true that Einstein did not want to accept any faster-than-light (FTL) implications for the motion of matter or for the speed of information transfer
    Absolutely not. Einstein would have loved to have its high definition lcd screen display the local tv-station live from Alpha Centauri. Nothing at all prevent that from happening. Especially not GR.

    But what GR use is a postulate (not a proof, a hypothesis) that there is a cosmic speed limit. That postulate has been quite useful, especially if you don't like paradox, and prefer to live in a universe where causality is not for God to decide, and on which you can do computations and observations.

    Incidentally, other (like Maxwell) had some number popping out of other equations and measurement. That number being a "speed of light" without even a notion of relative to what it should be measured. Thus, after much deeper reflection, it was decided that light should indeed move at the cosmic speed limit. And it is not the other way around.

    Now, if you have a radio tuned on the now-of-Alpha-Centauri, please explain how it works, or cut the crap.
     

  89. #89  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    Absolutely not. Einstein would have loved to have its high definition lcd screen display the local tv-station live from Alpha Centauri. Nothing at all prevent that from happening. Especially not GR.

    Well if Einstein wanted the broadcast live, Boinky, he would have to think up a theory that permits IAAD (Instantaenous Action at a Distance. Instead, he conjured up a theory that states the exact opposite!

    But what GR use is a postulate (not a proof, a hypothesis) that there is a cosmic speed limit. That postulate has been quite useful, especially if you don't like paradox, and prefer to live in a universe where causality is not for God to decide, and on which you can do computations and observations.

    The cosmic speed limit is hinted at in Epicurus & used by Galileo for the equal rate of falling bodies in a vacuum. Einstein however absolutizes it since he denies vacuum so reconceptualises the universe on pre-medieval i.e. Parmenidean lines.

    Incidentally, other (like Maxwell) had some number popping out of other equations and measurement. That number being a "speed of light" without even a notion of relative to what it should be measured. Thus, after much deeper reflection, it was decided that light should indeed move at the cosmic speed limit. And it is not the other way around.

    Now, if you have a radio tuned on the now-of-Alpha-Centauri, please explain how it works, or cut the crap.

    IAAD is required to make gravity work, as Newton saw to his embarrassment. IOW gravity does not propagate but acts instantaneously. Likewise the entanglement of quantum interactions.

    Light always observed at c, what changes when the observer velocity changes is the Doppler Effect, hence it is the Doppler Ensemble Theory that explains light, not SR nor GR.

    TFOLZO
     

  90. #90  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    341
    In reply to TFOLZO, re : your #89 post.

    Are you still thinking of "light" in terms of "pseudo-particle states?" I'm curious how you reconcile DET w/ the "discrete packets of energy" that are not "subject to time delay in regard to

    transit" and how an observer can "observe" a relativistic condition, and in so doing affect it's speed.

    This sounds just a teeny bit "fishy" to me.

    (just how does an observer "change" an FoR of light by the mechanism of the observers' "movement"...are you stating a condition of "frame-dragging?")


    (Thanks for reading!)
     

  91. #91  
    Senior Member Boing3000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    194
    Quote Originally Posted by tfolzo
    Well if Einstein wanted the broadcast live, Boinky, he would have to think up a theory that permits IAAD (Instantaenous Action at a Distance.
    lol, you've no idea what a theory is, don't you ? Theories are no "conjured" to "make reality", it is the other way around. That very sentence is a proof that your brain is not apt to do science, let alone process causality. But still, your are hilarious, this thread is sooo delicious (**)
    Quote Originally Posted by tfolzo
    Instead, he conjured up a theory that states the exact opposite!
    Indeed, he had the guts to stop doing Parmenidean science, were believe make reality. So he take some facts of reality and 'venture' into saying it should be an axiom. It turned out to be a very prolific idea. Kudos to him.

    Quote Originally Posted by tfolzo
    Einstein however <lie removed to protect the innocent trespasser> since he <another lie removed>
    Removing all your misconceptions about Einstein makes your sentences quite empty. Some may even pretend your sentence are vacuum incarnated. A paradox ? no.

    Quote Originally Posted by tfolzo
    IAAD is required to make gravity work, as Newton saw to his embarrassment. IOW gravity does not propagate but acts instantaneously.
    I don't think Newton was the least embarrassed that this theory does not need to contains any limits about force action. Because his formulas does not need it to work perfectly well (at the time, and now still, and forever).
    Now he may have certainly wondered at how this process work, because he was not only smart, but curious. Both quantities you lack of enormously.

    Quote Originally Posted by tfolzo
    Likewise the entanglement of quantum interactions
    Please let entanglement alone. It is even more out of your league than falling apples. Some information for you, there is no FTL actions in entanglement.

    Quote Originally Posted by tfolzo
    Light always observed at c,...
    Finally you get it. Thank you. But it is not very funny. Where is my FTL tv station?

    Quote Originally Posted by tfolzo
    the Doppler Ensemble Theory
    Why don't you give us some link on a comprehensive explanation of what that is ? After having notice that failure many times, I am beginning to conjure a theory in my head, about what's in yours... It will be (**)Parmesan science. There will be delicious prosciutto, sweet melon, and of course Parmesan.
     

  92. #92  
    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.
    Do you have any observational evidence to back this statement?
    Jilan likes this.
    A tensor equation that is valid in any coordinate system is valid in every coordinate system.
     

  93. #93  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    861
    Quote Originally Posted by Boing3000 View Post
    But what GR use is a postulate (not a proof, a hypothesis) that there is a cosmic speed limit.
    I wouldn't say the notion of a "cosmic speed limit" is a postulate. The postulate is actually that the speed of light in a vacuum is the same regardless of motion. The notion of a "cosmic speed limit" then becomes a consequence.
    A tensor equation that is valid in any coordinate system is valid in every coordinate system.
     

  94. #94  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    861
    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO View Post
    Light always observed at c, what changes when the observer velocity changes is the Doppler Effect, hence it is the Doppler Ensemble Theory that explains light, not SR nor GR.
    Special relativity is derived from two postulates: the constancy of the speed of light in a vacuum, and the constancy of the laws of physics, both with respect to different observers moving relative to each other. That is, given these two postulates are true, special relativity follows as a consequence. In other words, one can't have a different theory emerging from these two postulates, and invalidating special relativity means invalidating one or both of these postulates.
    A tensor equation that is valid in any coordinate system is valid in every coordinate system.
     

  95. #95  
    Senior Member Boing3000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    194
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW
    I wouldn't say the notion of a "cosmic speed limit" is a postulate.
    I shouldn't either, thanks for the correction. The "cosmic speed limit" is a consequence of the postulate of relativity (every body should agree on distance between event), and causality (event occurs in the same orders for everybody). But those distance in Minkowsky geometry (45° angle in parabolic space /light cones) is the cosmic speed limit, as far as I understand it. Is it correct ? So nothing should be able to cross those lines, else it would break causality.

    Did really GR need any postulate on the speed of light ? I thought is was only for SR...

    What I really mean is that everything that managed to speed across a Minkowsky 4D space at 'top' speed would have to spent the least amount of the 4 vector on the time axis, so to spent the most amount on the spaces axis (quite the definition of speed ). That is what light is doing (apparently), but not only light, gravitational wave, or anything that have no mass.
    So is it correct to say that speed of light follow the cosmic speed limit, and it is not the other way round?
     

  96. #96  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    Good question GerryN

    In reply to TFOLZO, re : your #89 post.

    Are you still thinking of "light" in terms of "pseudo-particle states?" I'm curious how you reconcile DET w/ the "discrete packets of energy" that are not "subject to time delay in regard to

    transit" and how an observer can "observe" a relativistic condition, and in so doing affect it's speed.

    This sounds just a teeny bit "fishy" to me.

    It certainly sounds fishier the way you describe it. The quantum 'discrete packets of energy' are not localised but extended through space. The 'discrete packets' also vary within the photon itself - i.e. all possible wavelengths are capable of being observed, the actual wavelength depending on the velocity of the observer relative to the emitter.

    (just how does an observer "change" an FoR of light by the mechanism of the observers' "movement"...are you stating a condition of "frame-dragging?")


    (Thanks for reading!)
    Definitely NOT frame-dragging as that is an SR-based notion. Observer movement (i.e. change in velocity) merely changes the observed wavelength from a light source. Go back to my original image of a beam of light observed by relatively stationary, moving away & moving towards observers, and what they observe of the light's speed and especially of its wavelength.

    To this you now have to add quantum theory, to show that all the wavelengths of the photon comprise what I call a 'Doppler Ensemble.'

    Eventually this will be accepted as normal physics - since it does not lead to logical paradoxes. And you are going to need this physics to help solve the energy crisis by inventing workable nuclear fusion.

    Thanks for writing.

    TFOLZO
     

  97. #97  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    Thank you KLW Superman for this succinct presentation of SR!
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    Special relativity is derived from two postulates:

    1) the constancy of the speed of light in a vacuum, and
    2) the constancy of the laws of physics, both with respect to different observers moving relative to each other.

    That is, given these two postulates are true, special relativity follows as a consequence.
    The first of your two postulates is correct since it is demonstrable experimentally.
    However the second postulate is just presumptuous waffle since whatever is meant by "the laws of physics." When we consider relative motion we usually mean Galilean Relativity.

    Einsteinian Relativity does not replace Galilean Relativity by "the constancy of the laws of physics" but by introducing rigmarole about the stagnant ether, the earth's motion relative to it, and the resulting deduction of supportive hypotheses to explain the non-observance of the stagnant ether (null MM-experiment). These supporting hypotheses are time dilation & length contraction (TD&LC), hypothesized on the basis of Lorentzian Relativity.

    Hence your conclusion is invalid viz.
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    In other words, one can't have a different theory emerging from these two postulates, and invalidating special relativity means invalidating one or both of these postulates.
    Your second postulate, KLW Superman, is merely BS as it is not experimentally derived but a mere kludge of words, ignoring the resulting SR-based difficulties such as MUTUAL length contraction & MUTUAL time dilation.

    Einstein then dismisses Lorentzian Relativity but clings to the TD&LC instead, using it as the centrepiece of his own philosophical solipsism. IOW Einstein's SR is merely a tendentious reinterpretation of Lorentzian Relativity - the latter already false. SR is invalid too because it promotes TD&LC, both of which lead essentially to logical paradoxes, demonstrating the falsehood of SR as science.

    The only genuine relativity remains Galilean Relativity - and Doppler Ensemble Theory (DET) upholds Galilean Relativity.

    TFOLZO
     

  98. #98  
    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
    Special relativity is derived from two postulates:

    1) the constancy of the speed of light in a vacuum, and
    2) the constancy of the laws of physics, both with respect to different observers moving relative to each other.

    That is, given these two postulates are true, special relativity follows as a consequence.
    The first of your two postulates is correct since it is demonstrable experimentally.
    Good.


    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO View Post
    However the second postulate is just presumptuous waffle since whatever is meant by "the laws of physics." When we consider relative motion we usually mean Galilean Relativity.
    "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. 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.
    Boing3000 likes this.
    A tensor equation that is valid in any coordinate system is valid in every coordinate system.
     

  99. #99  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    341
    In reply to KJW, re: your #98 reply.

    I agree, in general, w/ regard to the last paragraph of your post.

    The problem I have is "setting-up the parameters of test conditions and results"...when a "meme-mindset" is involved, as in "I think we'll find what hope to find w/ this higher application

    of energy". The "experiment" is biased BEFORE it ever takes place! To me, this is an example of "Heisenberg Philosophy" coupled with "pre-determined" test parameters...one aspect denies

    the other! For example; I perform a test with same parameters time after time, and on some occasions I add more "force" (electromagnetic energy) to see what will happen.

    My "tests" show no variation no matter how many times I conduct it...until I add more energy.

    The tests w/more energy show a greater deviational result than "normal" energy tests...and what have I "proved?" At least with regard to "new theory?" NOTHING.

    ......

    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?" Trying to create a "sustained fusion reaction" from a specified amount of matter, such as "artificial particles" is a complete

    denial of the "Laws of Physics"...surely I cannot be the "only one" who sees this!!! (the "Emperors' New Clothes")

    "There is no free lunch" and "You can't get something for nothing!" should be taught and posted everywhere there are physics researchers.

    ......

    How then is it that the people who believe in "sustained fusion from a small amount of matter" are allowed to dictate "what is true" in theoretical physics...why? Because they are famous?

    What "proof" do they offer, other than future speculation and supposition? NONE...because there is none. "They" have proved "not much of anything" other than "this machine really is

    something when we floor it!" I am not impressed, or even convinced anything of real substantive value is occurring when they "floor it".

    I just don't see it.


    (Thanks for reading!)
     

  100. #100  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    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. Sunlight as it ages will tend to pass thru the dark spaces without ever being absorbed. Beyond the Hubble distance galaxies are receding from us faster than light. I.e. light is disappearing into regions beyond the edge of the cosmos. This fact is even more true for neutrinos which can pass thru lightyears of rock.

    Furthermore, there is no evidence to the contrary, i.e. that light has to have a future site of absorption before it is emitted (how could nature 'police' such a thing?)- especially as such a notion denies causality by working backwards like typical SR-based reasoning.

    TFOLZO
     

Page 1 of 3 123 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
  •