Notices
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 301 to 337 of 337
Like Tree34Likes

Thread: The Varying Speed of Light

  1. #301  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    341
    In reply to Jilan, re: your#300 post.

    But your explanation of "frame of reference" falls apart when applied to the specific values attributed to BlackBody/BlackHole examples!!! This was/is my point in #298.

    "Light" being "pulled back" by gravity is an impossible scenario...it predicates that a mass could NOT emit under any circumstance, and therefore there is no point in debating c as

    any value...the idea that "one quantum factor can overwhelm another quantum factor" (gravity vs. energy) would inherently imply NOTHING could be emitted in the first instance!

    .....

    Carried thru to it's full meaning, atoms of a "dense" body are essentially rendered INERT...and this simply cannot be! Gravity does NOT "potentiate" ITSELF.

    (no electron orbits? No action/reaction?)



    Cheerio!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #302  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    997
    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry Nightingale View Post
    In reply to Jilan, re: your#300 post.

    But your explanation of "frame of reference" falls apart when applied to the specific values attributed to BlackBody/BlackHole examples!!! This was/is my point in #298.

    "Light" being "pulled back" by gravity is an impossible scenario...it predicates that a mass could NOT emit under any circumstance, and therefore there is no point in debating c as

    any value...the idea that "one quantum factor can overwhelm another quantum factor" (gravity vs. energy) would inherently imply NOTHING could be emitted in the first instance!

    .....

    Carried thru to it's full meaning, atoms of a "dense" body are essentially rendered INERT...and this simply cannot be! Gravity does NOT "potentiate" ITSELF.

    (no electron orbits? No action/reaction?)



    Cheerio!
    Gerry, I think is is wrong to think of light as being pulled back by gravity. It's more that all the possible paths it can take all lead one way.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #303  
    x0x
    x0x is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    737
    Quote Originally Posted by Jilan
    Could you not apply the same argument to the concept of time dilation or length contraction too? If different reference frames are not physically meaningful we would have no requirement for relativity, don't you think?
    You are confusing SR with GR. IN SR each reference frame covers the whole (flat) space, so it makes sense to try to correlate measurements taken from different frames . In GR the frames are purely local, they do not overlap, so , attempting to correlate the measurements makes no sense.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #304  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    997
    I see it may have somewhat less relevance, unless you are programming global positioning systems of course.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #305  
    x0x
    x0x is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    737
    Quote Originally Posted by Jilan
    I see it may have somewhat less relevance, unless you are programming global positioning systems of course.
    GPS has nothing to do with "variable" speed of light. In another thread I have shown how the frequencies of the receiver/transmitter are adjusted. You may want to go have a look.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #306  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    341
    In reply to Jilan, re: your #302 post.

    "Toe-MAY-Toe/"Toe-MAH-Toe".

    Your response is valid...however, it still maintains that "light is being dictated to" by the emission sources' gravity. "All possible paths?" NO...not in this example. Gravity is mandating the

    only de facto "path" is lights' origin of emission. The direct implication being that there could be NO "emission" in the first instance, as gravity would not "allow" it!

    ......

    (think back on "wave" mechanics; i.e. "the closer to a source, the greater the strength of the field")


    Cheerio! (if we are bowling...I think I'm getting more "pins" ha-ha!)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #307  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    997
    Thanks X0X, If as you say, it's meaningless, Why all the discussions about event horizons etc.? Is there anything it's good for?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #308  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    997
    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry Nightingale View Post
    In reply to Jilan, re: your #302 post.

    "Toe-MAY-Toe/"Toe-MAH-Toe".

    Your response is valid...however, it still maintains that "light is being dictated to" by the emission sources' gravity. "All possible paths?" NO...not in this example. Gravity is mandating the

    only de facto "path" is lights' origin of emission. The direct implication being that there could be NO "emission" in the first instance, as gravity would not "allow" it!

    ......

    (think back on "wave" mechanics; i.e. "the closer to a source, the greater the strength of the field")


    Cheerio! (if we are bowling...I think I'm getting more "pins" ha-ha!)
    Gerry, this is not a bowling competition, lol! I don't think gravity effects much locally, being a pretty weak force. There is a singularity at the centre of a black hole though, and there all bets are off!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #309  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    341
    In reply to Jilan, re: your #308 post.

    Okay...I think I'll just "let it go". I cannot understand any of the logic involved with QM in any event. (I do not know how to counter "belief/faith/magic" supported by maths...someone

    sees something in the great depths of space and now many extrapolate conclusions that can NEVER be debated...it's a "win/win" for the "magic" side. How did things come to this?)


    Cheerio!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #310  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    428
    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry Nightingale View Post
    In reply to Jilan, re: your #308 post.

    Okay...I think I'll just "let it go". I cannot understand any of the logic involved with QM in any event. (I do not know how to counter "belief/faith/magic" supported by maths...someone

    sees something in the great depths of space and now many extrapolate conclusions that can NEVER be debated...it's a "win/win" for the "magic" side. How did things come to this?)


    Cheerio!
    Well, Gerry, what you call "belief/faith/magic" is what others call "science," the process by which experiment is used to falsify hypotheses, hopefully leaving us with a survivor. You have to come to terms with the fact that our simian brains did not evolve to intuit physics in either the quantum or relativistic regime, so requiring a theory to "feel intuitively correct" is actually to believe in faith or magic. A little humility leads to the realisation that we should not reject ideas if they have evidential support, even if our inutition is dissatisfied, especially if the associated mathematical framework helps us to subsume a larger universe of ideas that were once thought unconnected.

    In an earlier post you commented that you cannot accept time dilation, despite having tried. I am frankly astonished by that statement, for there is abundant and unambiguous experimental evidence for it. Aside from many generations of particle accelerators (which would simply not function without their quantitative accommodation of time dilation and other relativistic effects), large-screen television CRTs (with acceleration voltages as large as 50-60kV) have to account for relativistic effects as well. A classic "experiment," continuously run for us by nature, concerns muon lifetime, and is a terrific demonstration of time dilation (see, e.g., Muon Experiment in Relativity). The Hafele-Keating experiment (and its considerably refined descendants) showed dilation directly. And of course, GPS would fail spectacularly without correcting for relativistic effects as well.

    Because the effects we measure are in full quantitative agreement with time dilation predictions, one cannot reject the notion of time dilation and still remain within the domain of science.

    Now, as to your defense of Farsight, you must understand that he is the focus of ridicule and pity because he asserts strongly without "showing us the goods." Unless you can provide quantitative support for your ideas, you don't have a theory. You simply have an opinion. He's certainly entitled to as many opinions as he wishes, but by insisting that he is doing science, he is inviting the criticism that he is getting.

    In science, not all opinions have equal merit. Experiment is the arbiter. Mere passionate advocacy of one's opinions is manifestly not.
    x0x likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #311  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    341
    In reply to tk421, re: your #310 post.

    I have no intention of engaging in "opinion vs. informed science theory" debate...there is nothing, as you point out, to debate. I "have no goods" to prove anything regarding QM hypothesis or

    theory. As I wrote, one cannot debate with "faith and belief in the rightness" of things...nor am I "allowed" to write the "why" of what I think is the "true condition" of matter/energy/gravity.

    ( I have been "WARNED" already)

    .....

    "I CANNOT be in the realm of science if I don't believe in time dilation?" My answer? (NOT ALLOWED) The "dilation of time is demonstrated by muons?" Okay...like I wrote on another

    thread..."If the hypothesis demands it, just create another particle to "explain" how it works!"

    (I HAVE all of the Universe to "back up" my own theories, as well as Relativity...but, as you say "not all opinions have equal merit" and in any event, (NOT ALLOWED)

    .....

    As far as the issue of "Farsight" and his "postings" are concerned, I do not agree with his VLS conclusions...my point being he has something to say and I would like to read it!

    (Einstein was in Jerusalem in the 20's and he remarked that "my Hasidic brethren "davening" at the Wall, worshipping a dead past...fills me with disgust")

    I am not going to "worship" the conclusions of QM because "all the best minds agree" and therefore I must agree also...Farsight is questioning everything, and that interests me.

    I cannot have belief in "self-fulfilling prophecies of results" supported by the mandates of mathematical equations that were predicted in advance of results!!!

    This is neither experiment nor true observation...it is "seeing what you want to see" and disregarding anything else that is contrary.

    LHC "experiments?" can and will PROVE ANYTHING anyone wants it to under the mandates and protocols of current "research?"

    I cannot debate such things as "magic"...you're right. You are correct with regard to "Farsight" also...like me, he questions too much, and dares too much, and writes far too much

    heresy! (It seems all the "Yes, Teacher" trolls have formed a very effective coalition, especially the one who claims he is "firmly entrenched w/ Princeton as well as Stanford" with regard

    to their physics research...the funny thing is I did a LOT of research on this "physics authority" and his name does not come up ANYWHERE on student lists/undergrads/graduates/research

    fellows/ or even any mailing lists from either of these Universities) These are people that want Farsight banned...they spend every moment of their time on this site and others

    "getting rid" of people they don't like...their other hallmark is they NEVER POST anything of their own in terms of physics theory.

    At least Farsight is trying to establish something that may have merit...whereas trolls have nothing.


    (Thanks for reading!)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #312  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    428
    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry Nightingale View Post
    At least Farsight is trying to establish something that may have merit...whereas trolls have nothing.


    (Thanks for reading!)
    Merely challenging the status quo may seem heroic to you, but it's actually a feeble activity most often engaged by the ignorant and inept. You seem to be of the curious (and absurd) opinion that scientists don't question things, so I must conclude that you are not a scientist. Scientists don't run experiments that are designed to confirm their beliefs. Indeed they are richly rewarded for finding the unexpected. They give Nobels for that, you know. So instead of impugning an entire community with a coarse caricature based on evident ignorance, you would benefit by actually studying how science has been, and is, carried out.

    Many ideas "may have merit." How do we separate the wheat from the chaff? It's not by the armchair philosopher who only tells tales that feel good or "make sense to me." It's by experiment. It's by comparing the outcomes of those experiments against the predictions of your theory.

    So many experiments have been run, over such a vast dynamic range of many phenomena, and the corresponding theories so refined, that anyone proposing a new idea has, necessarily, a very high bar to clear. The new theory must agree with the old in every domain -- and to at least the same accuracy -- covered by the old, while at the same time doing something new (and correct). You simply cannot construct a new theory without a comprehensive understanding of what the old theory says. And you cannot rely on "common sense" as a guide. I do not value Farsight's self-important ramblings for the simple reason that he rejects the very basis on which science is built. So, although a blind squirrel does occasionally find a nut, purposefully blinding oneself is hardly a good strategy for finding a nut. Farsight has chosen to blind himself.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #313  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    341
    In reply to tk421, re: your # 312 reply.

    I have no idea what anyone in theoretical physics is like personally, so I cannot assign personal characteristics to any of them of "personal goals" or "beliefs". All I'm able to know is

    what is written...and much of what I read I don't agree with, regardless of who wrote it or questionable (to me) experiments that "prove" this or that "particle exists" and therefore "all

    of our observations are confirmed". (or so I read)

    I am not "ignorant" of new findings or observations...I just cannot force myself to agree with much, and in many cases all of "new findings". (I still believe in logic and proportion and

    "common sense" and, first and last...empirical reality) I am still waiting for any sort of effective gravity theory to explain continuous orbit and rotation. QM offers none that have any

    "testable" proof, nor has high-energy particle-accelerators experiments revealed any "fundamental secrets of the Universe" that can be easily "proven".

    .....

    If the owners/administrators of this "site" want only "approved" theories posted, I have no problem with that...there are MANY other forums that do (although I see many problems

    involved with generating any revenue or interest on a site that wants only Hawking and t'Hooft posting on it. I think they have their own sites.)

    .....

    You are correct with your statement of "I'm not a scientist". I have no ambition to become one either. I just think about things a lot...say forty years or so. You are also correct that

    I have no standing or merit that qualify me to speak on the topic of QM theory. You say one must have a thorough knowledge of old theory, and on this I agree.

    My question would then be "which "old" theories must I know first?"

    I think I will stay with A.E. for awhile longer...or is "Relativity" too old?

    ......

    (Thanks for reading!)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #314  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    428
    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry Nightingale View Post
    In reply to tk421, re: your # 312 reply.

    I have no idea what anyone in theoretical physics is like personally, so I cannot assign personal characteristics to any of them of "personal goals" or "beliefs". All I'm able to know is

    what is written...and much of what I read I don't agree with, regardless of who wrote it or questionable (to me) experiments that "prove" this or that "particle exists" and therefore "all

    of our observations are confirmed". (or so I read)
    Hmmm...That stance sounds suspiciously like "I don't like certain experimental results, so I will call them 'questionable' and thus disregard them." Of course no one can compel you to accept anything, but I am pointing out that the full basis of your position is, essentially "my tastes rule." I would suggest that much more self-doubt should inform one's position in science.

    I am not "ignorant" of new findings or observations...I just cannot force myself to agree with much, and in many cases all of "new findings". (I still believe in logic and proportion and

    "common sense" and, first and last...empirical reality)
    "Common sense" has objectively been shown not to be reliable. Indeed, there isn't even uniformity among individuals as to what common sense is, so it isn't common. Functionally, it is a synonym for personal opinion. In other words, it is a means for distorting "empirical reality," which one accesses only through experiment, not the exercise of an ill-defined and demonstrably unreliable "common sense."

    I am still waiting for any sort of effective gravity theory to explain continuous orbit and rotation. QM offers none that have any

    "testable" proof,
    Science is not about proof. All scientific theories are falsifiable. There is always the possibility that an experiment we run tomorrow will reveal that a given theory is wrong. You can have proofs in mathematics, but not in physics.

    Second, QM currently says nothing about gravity. There have been ongoing efforts to develop quantum theories of gravity, but these are all works-in-progress. So if you are looking for QM to explain continuous orbit and rotation, you probably have a long wait. In the meantime, Newton does a perfectly respectable job for most purposes. We got to the moon and back with Newtonian physics, and have sent probes beyond the solar system with same. GR subsumes Newton, and goes beyond. In all the regimes we've been able to access experimentally, GR has passed all tests.

    nor has high-energy particle-accelerators experiments revealed any "fundamental secrets of the Universe" that can be easily "proven".
    Again, experiments can only disprove things. At best, experiments merely provide confirmation that a theory has not yet been found wrong.

    If the owners/administrators of this "site" want only "approved" theories posted, I have no problem with that...there are MANY other forums that do (although I see many problems
    This site is a physics forum, of course, so there is a need to acknowledge a difference between ideas that are merely personal opinion, and those that are well supported by experimental evidence. As long as one doesn't attempt to claim that unsupported ideas are of the same status as those that have support, the operators of this site have shown great open-mindedness. Farsight has been banned from numerous other fora, for example, so the fact that he is permitted to run several threads simultaneously with substantial freedom tells you how liberal the site operators are. A similar comment applies to several other posters with distinctly non-mainstream views. The mods here tread lightly, compared to those in many other places.

    You are correct with your statement of "I'm not a scientist".
    Noted.


    I have no ambition to become one either. I just think about things a lot...say forty years or so. You are also correct that

    I have no standing or merit that qualify me to speak on the topic of QM theory. You say one must have a thorough knowledge of old theory, and on this I agree.

    My question would then be "which "old" theories must I know first?"
    It depends greatly on how much effort you wish to put into the enterprise, and what you personally want out of the effort you will expend. In the absence of any specific knowledge about those factors, I would suggest a couple of possibilities:

    Faraday to Maxwell, Heaviside and Hertz, for classical E&M to acquire a feeling for the shape of field theory
    Einstein, Lorentz, Hilbert and Minkowski, for intro to relativity
    Boltzmann and Planck, to appreciate how thermodynamics (and stat mech) set the stage for QM
    Bohr, Heisenberg, Born, Pauli, and Dirac, to trace the evolution of QM into a more modern form

    That will get you to the threshold of WWII. If your head hasn't exploded by then, post back. Others will no doubt offer their own opinions about what should be on the list; I've left out a lot, as you might expect. And without knowing your preferences, I've no doubt emphasised certain topics that aren't of particular interest to you, and neglected others.

    There are also several eminently readable histories of physics. A few authors have managed to strike a good balance between accessibility to a lay audience and not mangling the physics. I can recommend a few of those if you'd like.

    I think I will stay with A.E. for awhile longer...or is "Relativity" too old?
    Like the works of Shakespeare (or Euclid), relativity is never too old!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #315  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    551
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421
    Merely challenging the status quo may seem heroic to you, but it's actually a feeble activity most often engaged by the ignorant and inept. You seem to be of the curious (and absurd) opinion that scientists don't question things, so I must conclude that you are not a scientist. Scientists don't run experiments that are designed to confirm their beliefs. Indeed they are richly rewarded for finding the unexpected. They give Nobels for that, you know. So instead of impugning an entire community with a coarse caricature based on evident ignorance, you would benefit by actually studying how science has been, and is, carried out.
    Well said! It's a shame that so many non-scientists think that scientists believe whatever we're told and are so anxious to confirm what we already believe is true. A physicist who puts forward his idea is anxious to see his theory proven right. It's his co-workers who are trying hard to test it. If they break it then something exciting has happened!! I recall that in the 20th century physicists thought that the universe was expanding at a rate that was slowing with time. Then at the beginning of the 21st century we learned that the universe was expanding at an accelerating rate. Wow! How awesome and exciting that was.

    I know that when I learn a new field I do my best to try and "break it." I.e. to find something wrong with it. A good physicists learns by taking out a pen and paper and works through all the details that the author of his text is spitting out. It's too hard to do in your head and its unwise to assume the author hasn't made a mistake. In fact I've caught many mistakes in textbooks like that. The authors are always very happy to hear that an error was found so he can correct it.

    So thanks for this great summary tk421. Nicely done!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #316  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    341
    In reply to tk421, re: your #314 post.

    No...421. My personal "tastes" have no influence over what I believe physics theory...logic and Einstein do. (you must sit on the "naughty step" for this assessment)

    I agree in toto with your suggested reading material...most of "what I believe" is grounded in the pre-war era.

    .....

    I am extremely leery of the "Copenhagen-Bonn" interpretations of "what can be said of reality" and Heisenberg's "kicking the door of logic and proportion into flinders" philosophy of

    "that which we call reality" (I wonder if his pet deuterium-bomb actually worked? There is questionable evidence that he managed to detonate a small-yield weapon in the Harz mountains

    in '44...but it would have to have been assembled on-site due to being very large and heavy and by it's nature, a "use it or lose it" weapon. Good little Nazi, ja?) I think he would be very

    pleased with his own "works" surpassing Einstein with regard to modern QM.

    ......

    My personal favorite "physics" book is "Einstein; His Life and Universe" by Walter Isaacson. (a very "good read")


    (Thanks for reading!)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #317  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    428
    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry Nightingale View Post
    ...

    I am extremely leery of the "Copenhagen-Bonn" interpretations of "what can be said of reality" and Heisenberg's "kicking the door of logic and proportion into flinders" philosophy of

    "that which we call reality"
    It's important to separate the equations from their various interpretations. The equations are what actually constitute the theory. The interpretations are a verbal narrative that helps some "explain" what is going on. I would say that most physicists actually feel as you do, that one or another interpretation leaves them dissatisfied. One symptom of that dissatisfaction is the emergence of the "shut up and calculate" school ("stop worrying about what it all means; you can still figure out what a given experiment is going to do").

    Since the predictions of QM are not embedded in the interpretations, you are free to construct your own interpretation as long as it is consistent with the equations, which must remain unchanged.

    (My personal preference is a modified Everett "many worlds" interpretation, not the Copenhagen interpretation, despite MWI seemingly somewhat out of fashion these days.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #318  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    551
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    It's important to separate the equations from their various interpretations. The equations are what actually constitute the theory. The interpretations are a verbal narrative that helps some "explain" what is going on.
    An interpretation tells you what the results mean. While the equations are important in a theory, they're of no use if you don't know what to do with the results. Also the interpretation is important when it comes to telling you something about acceptable results. For example; a wave function which isn't normalizable doesn't represent a physically realizable quantum state since it'd mean that the total probability of finding the particle somewhere isn't 1.

    Is what I just said consistent with what you meant when you said helps some "explain" what is going on?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #319  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    280
    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry Nightingale View Post
    At least Farsight is trying to establish something that may have merit...whereas trolls have nothing.
    If Farsight really wants to produce physics of merit, then he will produce the relevant equations for his proposals that establish that they correspond to the world as we experience it.

    If Farsight merely wants to present himself as some sort of physics expert, he will leave as soon as there is a real demand put on him to justify his positions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #320  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    341
    In reply to PhysBang, re: your #319 post.

    If Farsight were to produce "equations" that support his contentions...would you accept them? Or would you then reply "the initial premise is invalid, and therefore so is the equation".

    (for instance, if I were to state that gravity is a "thing of self", a potential that exists as a "continuum that is present in any possible frame-of-reference" how shall I describe it in

    mathematical terms? A "potential" that has neither beginning nor end?)

    .....

    I personally do not support Farsight's premises of "variable light-speed" (for reasons of my own, not because "all the smart people know better") and yet his "tack" presents some interesting

    possibilities to pursue w/ regard to other theories...this alone makes it worth the reading!

    The fact that someone may touch on something of value...such as looking at a mirror while shaving and thinking "if I were moving as fast as light...could I still see myself to shave?" has

    an intrinsic value that needs no justification, no "established mainstream theory" to "support it". It is a suppositional thought based on a suppositional observation, without the benefit

    of previous "doctrine" from established science...a "thought experiment" that might have relevance to "conditions".


    (Thanks for reading!)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #321  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    280
    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry Nightingale View Post
    In reply to PhysBang, re: your #319 post.

    If Farsight were to produce "equations" that support his contentions...would you accept them? Or would you then reply "the initial premise is invalid, and therefore so is the equation".
    For the equations to be valid, they have to match both what Farsight has been saying is in the content of his theory/interpretation and they have to match the observations that we have available to us.

    I asked Farsight for an example of where the variable speed of light was used and he gave me an equation that used a constant speed of light, so that was invalid.

    (for instance, if I were to state that gravity is a "thing of self", a potential that exists as a "continuum that is present in any possible frame-of-reference" how shall I describe it in

    mathematical terms? A "potential" that has neither beginning nor end?)
    That would seem to be your problem. If you want to do physics, then you have to do physics, i.e., produce a way to describe the physical world in a way amenable to studying the physical world.

    Science does not progress because of doctrine, it progresses because of evidence.

    Farsight is fond of saying that science as a social enterprise changes only when scientists die, but the evidence shows us that scientists change their minds based on evidence. Not perfectly, of course, but they do for the most part change.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #322  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    341
    In reply to PhysBang, re: your #321 post.

    A "new theory or interpretation" would "have to MATCH current observations?" Okay. then. (meet the new boss...same as the old boss)

    .....

    I have "no problem" defining the meanings of my own conclusions w/ regard to the concept of "quantum-gravity". Others do.

    .....

    Here is an apt observation..."Watching Jerry Lee Lewis play piano DOES NOT serve as a predicate that if you listen enough...you can get a piano and play just like him!"

    (rote memorization is not talent, it is mimicry...the ability to "quote-mine" does not mean the "miner" knows "just as much" as the person(s) they are quoting)

    Farsight is following his own path...right or wrong, as I do also. Right or wrong, at least he is trying to "write something new" w/ regard to theory.

    .....

    Cheerio!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #323  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    280
    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry Nightingale View Post
    In reply to PhysBang, re: your #321 post.

    A "new theory or interpretation" would "have to MATCH current observations?" Okay. then. (meet the new boss...same as the old boss)
    Do you think that we should throw away all our experimental results every day? Or just whenever someone comes up with a new theory?

    Farsight is following his own path...right or wrong, as I do also. Right or wrong, at least he is trying to "write something new" w/ regard to theory.
    If you mean that he is doing performance art, then I suppose I can agree. However, there is little sign that he is ding science.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #324  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    341
    In reply to PhysBang, re: your #323 post.

    Do I think "we should throw away results everyday?" Where do I advocate this? This is a false analogy...you're attempting, in essence, to say that "anything that does not originate from an

    approved source has no merit or substance" and that "people who are not professors of physics should not write anything that criticizes physics theory as it is currently accepted".

    Okay...then. I have a solution for "reading things you don't approve of"...STOP reading them!!! Stay with "textbooks" and that way you won't be annoyed!!!

    ......

    Speaking of "performance art"...what do you think of physics professors who do everything they can to "cultivate" a media following? Especially the ones that get on television and

    make allusions to "fantastic things to come...as revealed by astrophysics observations and hadron colliders!!!" Are they "real scientists?" According to whom?

    "They" may have a Phd. and legions of followers...but the claims they make!!! The fantasies of "what is to come!"

    No...Farsight is really going to have to "step-up his game" to compete with any of them, at least in terms of "performance art!"


    (Thanks for reading!)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #325  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    280
    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry Nightingale View Post
    In reply to PhysBang, re: your #323 post.

    Do I think "we should throw away results everyday?" Where do I advocate this? This is a false analogy...you're attempting, in essence, to say that "anything that does not originate from an

    approved source has no merit or substance" and that "people who are not professors of physics should not write anything that criticizes physics theory as it is currently accepted".

    Okay...then. I have a solution for "reading things you don't approve of"...STOP reading them!!! Stay with "textbooks" and that way you won't be annoyed!!!
    I wrote that new theories about physics have to match existing observations and you have some weird problem with that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #326  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    341
    In reply to Physbang, re: your #325 post.

    Ummm...actually, the real persistent "problem" I have currently is a "lack of money' due to REALLY expensive engine work!!! (loose shackle on #4 piston rod) $1,187.81 YIKES!!!

    As for being "weird"...well, all things are "Relative" to the observer!<(I could not resist this)


    (Thanks for reading!)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #327  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    551
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    You can have proofs in mathematics, but not in physics.
    In math you rely on axioms just like you do in physics. All proofs are based on axioms, whether they're in math or physics. The propositions that theorems are based on are either axioms or the results of another theorem. Given the truth of the starting propositions one makes logical deductions resulting in the results. Even in math there are postulates. In physics there are theorems which are derived just like in math, i.e. based on axioms/other theorems. Newton's shell theorem is such an example. So is Einstein's derivation of E = mc2.

    Just as physical axioms can be wrong, so too is it possible that a mathematical axiom can be wrong as well.
    Last edited by Physicist; 07-26-2014 at 10:36 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #328  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    341
    Do dreams possess "theorem" or perhaps mathematical axioms? What of "thought itself?" Does it have any "provable" aspects or quantities?

    .....

    If you really want to know "all of reality"...then dreams and thought must also be considered as "real".

    Consider that in memory, the time is always "NOW"...past/present/and future are all occurring as "ONE".

    How is this possible? is there any math axiom for this?

    (Thanks for reading!)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #329  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    551
    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry Nightingale
    Do dreams possess "theorem" or perhaps mathematical axioms? What of "thought itself?" Does it have any "provable" aspects or quantities?
    No. Why would you ask such a question?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #330  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    341
    In reply to Physicist, re: your #329 post.

    "NO" to "what?" Does "no" mean there is "no mathematical formula" possible for "thought?" There is an excellent (to me) reason why I would ask..."thought" would inhabit the same

    parameters of existence as "light" itself, as in "there/not there".


    (Thanks for reading!)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #331  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    551
    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry Nightingale
    "NO" to "what?"
    You asked Do dreams possess "theorem" or perhaps mathematical axioms? The answer is no.

    You asked What of "thought itself?". The answer is no, thought does not possess a theorem or a mathematical axiom.

    You asked Does it have any "provable" aspects or quantities? Assuming that you're asking whether dreams and/or thought has any provable aspects of quantities, then as far as I understand it, no. There are no theorems or axioms related to dreams and thought so you can't prove anything about them. At least not to my knowledge. However you might be better off going to a psychology forum. They'd know better since those aren't physics questions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry Nightingale
    ..."thought" would inhabit the same parameters of existence as "light" itself, as in "there/not there".
    I don't understand. Is this your response to my question about why you asked? If so I don't understand it. Can you explain it better to me? What does "...inhabit the same parameters...." mean?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #332  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    997
    Gerry, perhaps you might enjoy some of the many philosophy forums. It appears to be your strong point.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #333  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    341
    In reply to 331 & 332 posts.

    Yes, Physicist...it is very difficult to assign values of measurable significance to "thought and dreams". I believe they are "part and parcel" of the same metric as light or ANY other form

    of what could be considered as "quantum energy".

    Don't be so quick to judge this is "not appropriate to theoretical physics" Jilan and Physicist. It has EVERYTHING to do with it!

    .....

    Yes...brain activity can and has been measured for many decades now, at least in terms of very low voltage and amperage...and no, I'm not referring to mere chemical reactions, such as

    can be exhibited by a potatos' milliamp voltage ability. I am referring to actual, measurable increase in measurable voltage due to an increase in stimulus originating from the brain itself

    in response to stimulus, such as pain or stress...this is at least one area of significance to physics.


    Another significant area where "thought and physics" can be considered as "real" is memory storage...the organic brain itself has many trillions of interface-contact regions where

    memory can be stored...but "trillions" is far to low a number in relation to the amount of "input" from both internal and external sources. The input factor is both constant and immeasurable.

    There is NO limit to "storage capacity!" Where is the mind "storing" memory? It cannot be considered as an "organic function" as there is most definitely a limit there, no matter if there

    were a Googolplex of organic permutations possible...it is not enough, since input is CONSTANT. No mind could "retrieve" stored-memory fast enough for effective responses to an

    immediate condition, and yet we can...especially if it involves a "threat" to the physical body.

    In theory...no one should be to ride a bicycle! Action and reaction are occurring so quickly no chemical process is "fast" enough to allow the mind to "think" (if the chemical process were any

    biologically "faster", the organic components would be damaged from excess heat) so how is the brain coping so readily with the staggering amount of input from bike riding so easily?

    .....

    I think the answer lays in the "quantum-dimension" of energy...a form of which the organic mind is capable of accessing at all times, where the "capacity of storage" has no limit, and the

    "speed of thought" is limited only by organic "limits" of the brain itself.

    (by these parameters, "thought/speed" and "light/speed" are the same)


    ......

    Jilan, my "strong point" (if I have any) is "pure theory"...such as "what if this is true, or that is true and if so, what does it mean?"

    .....

    Since this is an "alternative" thread-site, I feel safe in writing some conjecture...If I wanted nothing but "absolute proof and absolute facts concerning ALL things in physics" I would stay

    with "approved textbooks" and memorize them...then I could write dogmatic responses to everything that NEVER EVER deviate from "accepted theory".

    I would also never join an internet physics site...what would be the point?

    There would never be anything to debate. Ever. (This was made very clear to me in a WARNING...some people of frightened of having anything challenged "that they know so much about

    because they read about it in class and read it in a textbook" so therefore it (QM) cannot be questioned by the likes of my supposedly illiterate self")


    "Philosophy", Jilan? I expect better of you than this assessment of my knowledge regarding physics...you forget, I can quote cant just as well as anyone else!


    (Thanks for reading!) Cheerio!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #334  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    997
    Gerry, I wasn't trying to say that you don't know Physics, just that you might find more like -minded individuals on the philosophy forums (where they do also discuss Physics just in a different way). At university there was a subject called Physics and Philosophy, you would have aced it!
    Gerry Nightingale likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #335  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    280
    No, philosophers would have even less patience with Gerry than he gets here.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #336  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    341
    In reply to PhysBang, re: your #335 post.

    "Thou hast wounded me with thy rebukes" (not) You and pmb would go together like "peas and carrots" or perhaps "peas from the same pod".

    Other than Jilan and couple of others, no one here has exhibited any courtesy to me whatsoever. A "critique" that may be harsh is to be expected...personal attacks are not.

    (I believe Jilan is English...and this explains much. Even the average "scouser" is practiced at being polite...or one would soon find ones teeth re-arranged! They are the same in Canada.

    People are civil to each other there...even as anonymous internet personaes. I guess the old saying of "breeding tells" has some truth to it)

    .....

    Jilan has years of education behind her involving physics, and can prove it. When she critiques someone, her rationales are always "spot on" esp. in her questions to others.


    I always read her stuff...there usually is something of interest for me to think over.

    As for me...consider me "self-taught" in virtually anything. (no formal training in physics...Einstein tells me all I need know concerning theory)


    (Thanks for reading!) Cheerio!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #337  
    Administrator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    1,378
    If different reference frames are not physically meaningful we would have no requirement for relativity, don't you think?
    All coordinate systems are physically meaningful, but only locally. For example, Schwarzschild coordinates are physically meaningful in a very far away stationary reference frame, because that is what they are based on; if you try to apply those far-away stationary notions of time and space to some other frame, such as an observer freely falling into the black hole, they loose all physical meaning. A Schwarzschild observer is hence merely a "bookkeeper", in that he is far away from the black hole and everything that happens there, and does not physically measure what happens in frames that are remote to him. He only calculates and deduces, but does not measure, except in his own local frame.

    This is simply because all notions of time and space are local, so the concept of time and the concept of space of a far-away stationary reference observer may not be the same as the concept of time and space as some other arbitrary observer. For example, an observer falling freely from rest at infinity ( i.e. far away ) towards a central body does not use the Schwarzschild metric, but the so-called "rain metric" ( Gullstrand-Painleve metric ). It's analytically more complicated since it involves cross-diagonal terms, but it accurately describes the local physics of a "rain frame", including the fact that such a rain drop measures a finite and well defined amount of time between any two radii, both above and below and across the horizon :



    in geometrised units. An in-depth explanation and derivation for this can be found in Taylor/Wheeler, Exploring Black Holes, which comes highly recommended as a beginner's textbook on black hole physics.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •