A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: PD on 15 Feb 2010 16:05 On Feb 15, 2:29 pm, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 15, 3:20 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 15, 1:50 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 15, 2:17 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 15, 1:05 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Feb 15, 1:44 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 11:36 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 12:12 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 7:40 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 1:20 am, "Peter Webb" > > > > > > > > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > > > > > > > > >news:16bd20be-baaa-459a-90d2-f763cba4f366(a)b36g2000pri.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 12:27 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2/14/10 11:23 PM, mpc755 wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > How do you measure your speed relative to the ether? > > > > > > > > > > > > What ether? > > > > > > > > > > > The aether which is the reason for the observed behaviors in every > > > > > > > > > > double slit experiment ever performed. > > > > > > > > > > > A C-60 molecule is in the slit(s). Detectors are placed at the exits > > > > > > > > > > to the slits while the C-60 molecule is in the slit(s). Every time the > > > > > > > > > > C-60 molecule exits the slit(s) it is detected exiting a single slit. > > > > > > > > > > > When the detectors are placed and removed from the exits to the slits > > > > > > > > > > the C-60 molecule is able to create an interference pattern. > > > > > > > > > > > How is this possible without the C-60 molecule having an associated > > > > > > > > > > aether displacement wave? > > > > > > > > > > > ______________________________________ > > > > > > > > > > Or, more to the point, how is this possible without the C-60 molecule having > > > > > > > > > > an associated pan-galactic gargleblaster pressure wave? Well? > > > > > > > > > > Yes, here we are once again with another poster who champions the > > > > > > > > > greatness of the Copenhagen interpretation of QM and yet is unwilling > > > > > > > > > and unable to answer such a simple question. > > > > > > > > > > Only one poster on this forum who chooses to believe nature physically > > > > > > > > > behaves according to the Copenhagen interpretation of QM has been > > > > > > > > > willing to answer this question and their answer was the future > > > > > > > > > determines the past. The C-60 molecule will enter one or multiple > > > > > > > > > slits depending on their being, or not being, detectors at the slits > > > > > > > > > in the future. Now, obviously, this is absurd nonsense, > > > > > > > > > On what basis is it obvious that it is absurd nonsense? How do you > > > > > > > > personally determine what is nonsense and what is not nonsense, MPC? > > > > > > > > > I'll give you a sample statement: The speed of light from a source is > > > > > > > > always c as seen by an observer, whether the source is standing still > > > > > > > > relative to the observer, moving away from the observer, or moving > > > > > > > > toward the observer. > > > > > > > > > Now, the question to you is -- how do you determine whether this > > > > > > > > statement is absurd nonsense or not? > > > > > > > > > > but you do > > > > > > > > > have to give that poster credit, at least they answered the question. > > > > > > > > First off, the C-60 molecule is a particle > > > > > > > Well, that's what YOU say. Physicists say that it has some properties > > > > > > of a particle and other properties not like a particle, and these > > > > > > properties are *observed* in real experiments. There are a number of > > > > > > things that are like that, and they inhabit a new class of objects > > > > > > called quantum objects. > > > > > > > Now, you claim that this is not so and that C-60 molecules are > > > > > > particles, period. Yet you cannot say how it is that you know this. > > > > > > You just assert that it is so. > > > > > > > > and as such it always > > > > > > > enters and exits a single slit. So, to think a particle is physically > > > > > > > able to enter and exits multiple slits in and of itself is physical > > > > > > > nonsense to begin with, but it is not absurd nonsense. > > > > > > > > The C-60 molecule is about to enter the slit(s). We will disregard the > > > > > > > obvious which is the C-60 molecule always enters and exits a single > > > > > > > slit and go along with the nonsense of the Copenhagen interpretation > > > > > > > of QM for now. > > > > > > > > You are saying that the C-60 molecule enters one or multiple slits > > > > > > > depending upon what has not occurred yet. You really believe the C-60 > > > > > > > molecule is going to enter one slit, or multiple slits, depending upon > > > > > > > what has yet to occur. You choose to believe the C-60 molecule will > > > > > > > enter one or multiple slits depending upon their being, or not being, > > > > > > > detectors at the exits to the slits in the future. > > > > > > > > That is absurd nonsense. > > > > > > > We're back to you just SAYING something is absurd nonsense, without > > > > > > having any rational scheme for determining what is absurd nonsense and > > > > > > what is not. Scientists don't operate on that basis, just asserting > > > > > > this or asserting that. > > > > > > > > The fact that you choose to believe in absurd nonsense in order to > > > > > > > maintain the illusion the Copenhagen interpretation of QM isn't > > > > > > > physical nonsense to begin with just adds to the absurdity of what you > > > > > > > choose to believe. > > > > > > > See? You haven't answered the question at all. > > > > > > You don't have any method, even in your own mind, for determining what > > > > > > is absurd nonsense and what is not. > > > > > > To you, it is all just a matter of what you WANT to believe, and so > > > > > > what you CHOOSE to believe. > > > > > > That's called faith, not science. > > > > > > Are we going to have this conversation yet again? What is more 'faith > > > > > like'? Understanding light propagates through a medium and this medium > > > > > is material or believing the future determines the past? > > > > > You can't tell just by looking at the two statements and deciding. > > > > Of course you can. One statement discusses the aether as a physical > > > material the light propagates through. As a physical material it is > > > displaced by matter. > > > > The other statement, where a C-60 molecule will enter one or multiple > > > slits depending upon what occurs in the future, is absurd nonsense. > > > Sorry, but just SAYING it's absurd nonsense doesn't make it absurd > > nonsense. > > We've been around and around and around the block on this and you are > > still too dense to figure it out. > > How do you KNOW it's absurd nonsense, other than just SAYING it's > > absurd nonsense. > > If you don't have a method for independently determining that, then > > it's just an empty assertion. > > > > > That's the point. You have to have an independent method for > > > > *checking* which of the two statements is more likely. > > > > > What's your method for that independent determination? > > > > My method for that independent determination is the observed behaviors > > > in every double slit experiment ever performed. > > > Bullshit, and we've been around and around and around on this too. > > Your SAYING it doesn't make it so. > > Just out of curiosity, why do you and other knowledgable people waste > your time trying to explain things to people like mpc755? He's > probably on medication, probably lives alone and is constantly > paranoid that someone is out to get him, and probably has very little > capability to deal with the real world around him. The kind of > delusions that he and some other people here display seem to go beyond > misunderstandings of the physical world to living in a fantasy world-- > which they probably live in full time--and which is quite sad, > really. I mean, does anyone HONESTLY believe that Androcles, for > example, is a normal, well adjusted human being in everyday life? > > At least with Ste, he has shown the capability to write coherently and > admit fault in his beliefs, and hasn't quite gone around making up > absurdities in the same way that mpc, BURT, and others have. I really > don't think the latter group could ever change because I don't think > they're mentally healthy enough. And I gather that after years of > arguing with them, you've probably determined the same thing. > > So, just out of curiosity, why do you continue to argue with them? > I'm not faulting you for it, I'm just curious. Sometimes I ask myself the same question. I don't bother with the ones that are so far gone that they are incoherent, and there are a few: Mitch Raemsch, bert, Kurt Stocklmeier, Magnetic, etc. There are also a few that are simply self-appointed ointment insects and hecklers that are worth only passing pokes, as they quickly just drift into obscenities and invective: Androcles, Jonas Torvalds, etc. You're right. NoEinstein, Ken Seto, MPC, spaceman, James Harris, Ralph Rabbidge, Porat, and others like them are probably shuttered, emotional trainwrecks, and there's no teaching them. In the case of Seto and spaceman, they can be at it for a decade or more and be completely unable to make any forward progress at all. They have varying motivations, which only a month or so of observation will reveal. So I'm certainly not trying to convince them of anything about physics. But what I *can* do is to lay out, in as simple an expression as I can muster, why what they are doing is not really science. Sometimes, they've entered into the hobby with some basic misunderstanding of what science IS and why it is scientists believe what they do. They think it is all about original ideas, and not at all about how those ideas are developed and tested, and what form the ideas must take for them to be testable. Reiterating with them that what they are doing is a pretense, a paper-mache imitation of what they *think* science is about, gets at the root of the matter. Eventually, some of them get it, at least to the point where they realize this isn't cracking up to be the kind of fun they thought it would be, and they quit. Basically, we keep prying up their masks, and they were hoping just to play the masquerade. This is also important for lurking readers who may or may not have a clear idea of what science is about. And then this conversation serves to draw a clear line between science and pseudoscience or, worse, just squawking noise that vaguely resembles science. That way, those readers don't get confused about whether the issue is the politics of new ideas or persecution of heretics, or whether those ideas are really as plausible or as considerable as real scientific theories. Again, it isn't about the alternative ideas. It's about science vs. pseudoscience. New ideas are certainly encouragable, especially if the proponent is willing to do what is necessary to make it a *scientific* idea. Ste is a good example of someone who would learn from that very exercise, and is already doing that. PD
From: PD on 15 Feb 2010 16:06 On Feb 15, 2:38 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Feb 15, 12:27 pm, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 15, 6:54 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 14 Feb, 23:46, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 14, 2:03 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > I'm afraid you're easily satisifed Tom. As I say, I'm not really > > > > > interested in learning geometry, or talking about completely > > > > > hypothetical "grooves in spacetime". > > > > > And as many people have repeatedly tried to explain to you, the answer > > > > simply is geometry. When you accellerate, you rotate in spacetime. > > > > Why? Because that's what accelleration means. That's what it means > > > > to be travelling with a certain velocity with respect to something > > > > else. It means that you're both "facing different directions". Every > > > > effect predicted by relativity can be explained simply by the fact > > > > that two different observers at different speeds are "facing different > > > > directions" in spacetime--because that's what it means to be moving > > > > with respect to something else. It means that you have a different t > > > > and x axis. > > > > Mark, if you consider this an answer, then you simply haven't > > > understood the question.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > And if you think there's more to it than that, then you haven't > > understood the answer. The above explains everything about relativity > > and there's no ambiguity when you understand it. > > > Going back to the fitting a ladder into a barn analogy, it's like you > > have a ladder to long to fit into the barn, you turn it at an angle, > > and it fits, and then someone starts asking you what "physically" > > happened to the ladder. You say "well, it got rotated, so it's > > shorter in the horizontal direction". Then the person keeps demanding > > a physical explanation, and you say you just rotated the ladder, so it > > takes up a bit more space in the vertical and less in the horizontal > > but the total length of the ladder didn't change. > > In this case you are not fitting the length of the ladder through a > narrow door way. You are fitting a skinny side of the ladder through a > wider door way. > This is not the same as an 80 ft long material pole can fit into a 40 > ft long material barn with both doors close simultaneously. In this > case material contraction must occur. That's thee reason why modern > interpretation of length contraction in Sr is merely a geometric > effect instead of material or physical effect as asserted by the > runts of the SRians such as PD and you. "Material" does not mean the same thing as "physical", Ken. This has been pointed out even in the common dictionary. If you can't let go of your mistakes, Ken, you'll never get off square one. > > Ken Seto > > > And then the person > > you're talking to says that he refuses to believe that mathematical > > things like angles can affect the things that you can put the ladder > > inside of So then, you try to say that it's like trying to pack a box > > and turning all of the objects so they fit into the box the best way. > > And then he says "well, there's no doubt that rotating objects is > > useful for packing boxes but it doesn't explain what physically > > happened to the ladder," so you try to explain one more time and he > > says you didn't understand the question. And when you tell him that > > you can even *calculate* the length and height of the ladder after > > rotating it, he says that's an abstract mathematical question and has > > no bearing on what's physically happening. > > > Velocity is rotation, just rotation in a way that you're not used to > > being able to rotate. There's nothing else to explain. You > > accellerate something, it rotates. That's a physical answer.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -
From: PD on 15 Feb 2010 16:10 On Feb 15, 2:52 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 15, 3:29 pm, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 15, 3:20 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 15, 1:50 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 15, 2:17 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Feb 15, 1:05 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 1:44 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 11:36 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 12:12 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 7:40 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 1:20 am, "Peter Webb" > > > > > > > > > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > > > > > > > > > >news:16bd20be-baaa-459a-90d2-f763cba4f366(a)b36g2000pri.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 12:27 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2/14/10 11:23 PM, mpc755 wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How do you measure your speed relative to the ether? > > > > > > > > > > > > > What ether? > > > > > > > > > > > > The aether which is the reason for the observed behaviors in every > > > > > > > > > > > double slit experiment ever performed. > > > > > > > > > > > > A C-60 molecule is in the slit(s). Detectors are placed at the exits > > > > > > > > > > > to the slits while the C-60 molecule is in the slit(s). Every time the > > > > > > > > > > > C-60 molecule exits the slit(s) it is detected exiting a single slit. > > > > > > > > > > > > When the detectors are placed and removed from the exits to the slits > > > > > > > > > > > the C-60 molecule is able to create an interference pattern. > > > > > > > > > > > > How is this possible without the C-60 molecule having an associated > > > > > > > > > > > aether displacement wave? > > > > > > > > > > > > ______________________________________ > > > > > > > > > > > Or, more to the point, how is this possible without the C-60 molecule having > > > > > > > > > > > an associated pan-galactic gargleblaster pressure wave? Well? > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, here we are once again with another poster who champions the > > > > > > > > > > greatness of the Copenhagen interpretation of QM and yet is unwilling > > > > > > > > > > and unable to answer such a simple question. > > > > > > > > > > > Only one poster on this forum who chooses to believe nature physically > > > > > > > > > > behaves according to the Copenhagen interpretation of QM has been > > > > > > > > > > willing to answer this question and their answer was the future > > > > > > > > > > determines the past. The C-60 molecule will enter one or multiple > > > > > > > > > > slits depending on their being, or not being, detectors at the slits > > > > > > > > > > in the future. Now, obviously, this is absurd nonsense, > > > > > > > > > > On what basis is it obvious that it is absurd nonsense? How do you > > > > > > > > > personally determine what is nonsense and what is not nonsense, MPC? > > > > > > > > > > I'll give you a sample statement: The speed of light from a source is > > > > > > > > > always c as seen by an observer, whether the source is standing still > > > > > > > > > relative to the observer, moving away from the observer, or moving > > > > > > > > > toward the observer. > > > > > > > > > > Now, the question to you is -- how do you determine whether this > > > > > > > > > statement is absurd nonsense or not? > > > > > > > > > > > but you do > > > > > > > > > > have to give that poster credit, at least they answered the question. > > > > > > > > > First off, the C-60 molecule is a particle > > > > > > > > Well, that's what YOU say. Physicists say that it has some properties > > > > > > > of a particle and other properties not like a particle, and these > > > > > > > properties are *observed* in real experiments. There are a number of > > > > > > > things that are like that, and they inhabit a new class of objects > > > > > > > called quantum objects. > > > > > > > > Now, you claim that this is not so and that C-60 molecules are > > > > > > > particles, period. Yet you cannot say how it is that you know this. > > > > > > > You just assert that it is so. > > > > > > > > > and as such it always > > > > > > > > enters and exits a single slit. So, to think a particle is physically > > > > > > > > able to enter and exits multiple slits in and of itself is physical > > > > > > > > nonsense to begin with, but it is not absurd nonsense. > > > > > > > > > The C-60 molecule is about to enter the slit(s). We will disregard the > > > > > > > > obvious which is the C-60 molecule always enters and exits a single > > > > > > > > slit and go along with the nonsense of the Copenhagen interpretation > > > > > > > > of QM for now. > > > > > > > > > You are saying that the C-60 molecule enters one or multiple slits > > > > > > > > depending upon what has not occurred yet. You really believe the C-60 > > > > > > > > molecule is going to enter one slit, or multiple slits, depending upon > > > > > > > > what has yet to occur. You choose to believe the C-60 molecule will > > > > > > > > enter one or multiple slits depending upon their being, or not being, > > > > > > > > detectors at the exits to the slits in the future. > > > > > > > > > That is absurd nonsense. > > > > > > > > We're back to you just SAYING something is absurd nonsense, without > > > > > > > having any rational scheme for determining what is absurd nonsense and > > > > > > > what is not. Scientists don't operate on that basis, just asserting > > > > > > > this or asserting that. > > > > > > > > > The fact that you choose to believe in absurd nonsense in order to > > > > > > > > maintain the illusion the Copenhagen interpretation of QM isn't > > > > > > > > physical nonsense to begin with just adds to the absurdity of what you > > > > > > > > choose to believe. > > > > > > > > See? You haven't answered the question at all. > > > > > > > You don't have any method, even in your own mind, for determining what > > > > > > > is absurd nonsense and what is not. > > > > > > > To you, it is all just a matter of what you WANT to believe, and so > > > > > > > what you CHOOSE to believe. > > > > > > > That's called faith, not science. > > > > > > > Are we going to have this conversation yet again? What is more 'faith > > > > > > like'? Understanding light propagates through a medium and this medium > > > > > > is material or believing the future determines the past? > > > > > > You can't tell just by looking at the two statements and deciding.. > > > > > Of course you can. One statement discusses the aether as a physical > > > > material the light propagates through. As a physical material it is > > > > displaced by matter. > > > > > The other statement, where a C-60 molecule will enter one or multiple > > > > slits depending upon what occurs in the future, is absurd nonsense. > > > > Sorry, but just SAYING it's absurd nonsense doesn't make it absurd > > > nonsense. > > > We've been around and around and around the block on this and you are > > > still too dense to figure it out. > > > How do you KNOW it's absurd nonsense, other than just SAYING it's > > > absurd nonsense. > > > If you don't have a method for independently determining that, then > > > it's just an empty assertion. > > > > > > That's the point. You have to have an independent method for > > > > > *checking* which of the two statements is more likely. > > > > > > What's your method for that independent determination? > > > > > My method for that independent determination is the observed behaviors > > > > in every double slit experiment ever performed. > > > > Bullshit, and we've been around and around and around on this too. > > > Your SAYING it doesn't make it so. > > > Just out of curiosity, why do you and other knowledgable people waste > > your time trying to explain things to people like mpc755? > > You really believe the reason for the observed behavior in a double > slit experiment are because the future determines the past? It doesn't hinge on what one chooses to believe. You think it does. It doesn't. > > > He's > > probably on medication, probably lives alone and is constantly > > paranoid that someone is out to get him, and probably has very little > > capability to deal with the real world around him. The kind of > > delusions that he and some other people here display seem to go beyond > > misunderstandings of the physical world to living in a fantasy world-- > > which they probably live in full time--and which is quite sad, > > really. I mean, does anyone HONESTLY believe that Androcles, for > > example, is a normal, well adjusted human being in everyday life? > > > At least with Ste, he has shown the capability to write coherently and > > admit fault in his beliefs, and hasn't quite gone around making up > > absurdities in the same way that mpc, BURT, and others have. I really > > don't think the latter group could ever change because I don't think > > they're mentally healthy enough. And I gather that after years of > > arguing with them, you've probably determined the same thing. > > > So, just out of curiosity, why do you continue to argue with them? > > I'm not faulting you for it, I'm just curious.
From: PD on 15 Feb 2010 16:13 On Feb 15, 2:53 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 15, 3:20 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 15, 1:50 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 15, 2:17 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 15, 1:05 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Feb 15, 1:44 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 11:36 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 12:12 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 7:40 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 1:20 am, "Peter Webb" > > > > > > > > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > > > > > > > > >news:16bd20be-baaa-459a-90d2-f763cba4f366(a)b36g2000pri.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 12:27 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2/14/10 11:23 PM, mpc755 wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > How do you measure your speed relative to the ether? > > > > > > > > > > > > What ether? > > > > > > > > > > > The aether which is the reason for the observed behaviors in every > > > > > > > > > > double slit experiment ever performed. > > > > > > > > > > > A C-60 molecule is in the slit(s). Detectors are placed at the exits > > > > > > > > > > to the slits while the C-60 molecule is in the slit(s). Every time the > > > > > > > > > > C-60 molecule exits the slit(s) it is detected exiting a single slit. > > > > > > > > > > > When the detectors are placed and removed from the exits to the slits > > > > > > > > > > the C-60 molecule is able to create an interference pattern. > > > > > > > > > > > How is this possible without the C-60 molecule having an associated > > > > > > > > > > aether displacement wave? > > > > > > > > > > > ______________________________________ > > > > > > > > > > Or, more to the point, how is this possible without the C-60 molecule having > > > > > > > > > > an associated pan-galactic gargleblaster pressure wave? Well? > > > > > > > > > > Yes, here we are once again with another poster who champions the > > > > > > > > > greatness of the Copenhagen interpretation of QM and yet is unwilling > > > > > > > > > and unable to answer such a simple question. > > > > > > > > > > Only one poster on this forum who chooses to believe nature physically > > > > > > > > > behaves according to the Copenhagen interpretation of QM has been > > > > > > > > > willing to answer this question and their answer was the future > > > > > > > > > determines the past. The C-60 molecule will enter one or multiple > > > > > > > > > slits depending on their being, or not being, detectors at the slits > > > > > > > > > in the future. Now, obviously, this is absurd nonsense, > > > > > > > > > On what basis is it obvious that it is absurd nonsense? How do you > > > > > > > > personally determine what is nonsense and what is not nonsense, MPC? > > > > > > > > > I'll give you a sample statement: The speed of light from a source is > > > > > > > > always c as seen by an observer, whether the source is standing still > > > > > > > > relative to the observer, moving away from the observer, or moving > > > > > > > > toward the observer. > > > > > > > > > Now, the question to you is -- how do you determine whether this > > > > > > > > statement is absurd nonsense or not? > > > > > > > > > > but you do > > > > > > > > > have to give that poster credit, at least they answered the question. > > > > > > > > First off, the C-60 molecule is a particle > > > > > > > Well, that's what YOU say. Physicists say that it has some properties > > > > > > of a particle and other properties not like a particle, and these > > > > > > properties are *observed* in real experiments. There are a number of > > > > > > things that are like that, and they inhabit a new class of objects > > > > > > called quantum objects. > > > > > > > Now, you claim that this is not so and that C-60 molecules are > > > > > > particles, period. Yet you cannot say how it is that you know this. > > > > > > You just assert that it is so. > > > > > > > > and as such it always > > > > > > > enters and exits a single slit. So, to think a particle is physically > > > > > > > able to enter and exits multiple slits in and of itself is physical > > > > > > > nonsense to begin with, but it is not absurd nonsense. > > > > > > > > The C-60 molecule is about to enter the slit(s). We will disregard the > > > > > > > obvious which is the C-60 molecule always enters and exits a single > > > > > > > slit and go along with the nonsense of the Copenhagen interpretation > > > > > > > of QM for now. > > > > > > > > You are saying that the C-60 molecule enters one or multiple slits > > > > > > > depending upon what has not occurred yet. You really believe the C-60 > > > > > > > molecule is going to enter one slit, or multiple slits, depending upon > > > > > > > what has yet to occur. You choose to believe the C-60 molecule will > > > > > > > enter one or multiple slits depending upon their being, or not being, > > > > > > > detectors at the exits to the slits in the future. > > > > > > > > That is absurd nonsense. > > > > > > > We're back to you just SAYING something is absurd nonsense, without > > > > > > having any rational scheme for determining what is absurd nonsense and > > > > > > what is not. Scientists don't operate on that basis, just asserting > > > > > > this or asserting that. > > > > > > > > The fact that you choose to believe in absurd nonsense in order to > > > > > > > maintain the illusion the Copenhagen interpretation of QM isn't > > > > > > > physical nonsense to begin with just adds to the absurdity of what you > > > > > > > choose to believe. > > > > > > > See? You haven't answered the question at all. > > > > > > You don't have any method, even in your own mind, for determining what > > > > > > is absurd nonsense and what is not. > > > > > > To you, it is all just a matter of what you WANT to believe, and so > > > > > > what you CHOOSE to believe. > > > > > > That's called faith, not science. > > > > > > Are we going to have this conversation yet again? What is more 'faith > > > > > like'? Understanding light propagates through a medium and this medium > > > > > is material or believing the future determines the past? > > > > > You can't tell just by looking at the two statements and deciding. > > > > Of course you can. One statement discusses the aether as a physical > > > material the light propagates through. As a physical material it is > > > displaced by matter. > > > > The other statement, where a C-60 molecule will enter one or multiple > > > slits depending upon what occurs in the future, is absurd nonsense. > > > Sorry, but just SAYING it's absurd nonsense doesn't make it absurd > > nonsense. > > Saying the future determines the past is absurd nonsense. > > > > > We've been around and around and around the block on this and you are > > still too dense to figure it out. > > How do you KNOW it's absurd nonsense, other than just SAYING it's > > absurd nonsense. > > If you don't have a method for independently determining that, then > > it's just an empty assertion. You see? All you have is the ASSERTION that it is absurd. You have no way of determining independently, other than to just repeat over and over and over again, "It's absurd, it's absurd, it's absurd. Absurd, absurd, absurd." > > > > > That's the point. You have to have an independent method for > > > > *checking* which of the two statements is more likely. > > > > > What's your method for that independent determination? > > > > My method for that independent determination is the observed behaviors > > > in every double slit experiment ever performed. > > > Bullshit, and we've been around and around and around on this too. > > Your SAYING it doesn't make it so. > > Inventing a new type of object because you do not realize a 'particle' > has an associated aether wave is absurd. There you go again. > > > > > > My method for that independent determination is, beside the absurd > > > nonsense of QM, a particle travels a single path and waves propagate > > > available paths. > > > But a C-60 molecule is neither a particle or a wave. > > Just SAYING the C-60 molecule is a particle doesn't make it so. > > > > A moving C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. > > > > > Or do you just CHOOSE based on what you LIKE? > > > > > > > > A moving C-60 molecule is a particle of matter and has an associated > > > > > > > aether displacement wave.
From: Androcles on 15 Feb 2010 16:31
"Unified_Perspective" <agallist(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:501533ac-d96e-497f-8eaa-c554fc936629(a)b9g2000pri.googlegroups.com... On Feb 13, 7:29 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: Q: "it's clear that the speed of light (where light is either considered in the form of a ballistic photon, or a wave-cycle) cannot, physically, be constant in all relative frames, and at the same time be constant when traveling between two objects in two different frames. It's a physical and logical impossibility." A: You are correct. It is an impossibility in a physic universe that is linear in nature. That is fundamental reason why the equations of relativity are non-linear equations. While the math is fundamentally different the terms we use to describe the math need to be familiar so there is understanding. Although Einstein and pretty much everyone since has referred to "c" as a constant it could better be referred to as an asymptote. This is the correct mathematical term for a limit that can be infinitely closely approached but not exceeded. In the calculus of relativity "c" is an asymptote and not a normal constant as that term is used in algebra. For a given frequency of light the speed of propagation nearly perfectly approaches a fixed limiting velocity which is believed to be invariant or unchanging and so is often referred to as a constant - meaning the limiting value does not vary. Varying the degree of perfection in the "perfect" vacuum has a very large effect on the limiting value and this fact is important even if it is often not well understood. There is another sense in which the speed of light is invariant. A photon is emitted when an excited electron falls from a higher orbital to a lower one. Quantum conservation of energy demands that this occur instantaneously. Mechanically this is impossible so a small rupture in space, time, electric, magnetic, and thermal fields occurs. A photon is the term we use to describe the propagation, or radiation of this disturbance. The self propagating nature of the photon means that it literally consumes space-time as it goes and so its rate of propagation is dependent on the density of space-time through which it passes. This effect explains why its rate of propagation can never exceed the rate it approaches in a perfect vacuum and also why its rate of propagation in denser media appears measurably slower to an observer in an external frame of reference. From the photon's frame of reference it always consumes space-time at a constant rate and so when it passes from dense media to less dense media it appears to us to speed up while in fact from the photon's frame of reference its rate of propagation remains constant. This explains how the internal energy of the photon remains quite constant while it appears to us to be changing. Upon reflection or refraction the internal energy as measured by the wavelength of the light do change but this change is balance by a equivalent change in the heat, charge, or chemical properties of the reflecting, refracting, or reacting atomic elements. I should warn you that this "world view" is what I came up with after considerable headaches and head scratching when I was in school. I find it helpful, useful, internally consistent and explanatory of all physical and chemical experimental results of which I am aware. However, I have very seldom published my views and so you will find they are not known or accepted. If however you find them helpful in terms of improving your understanding of things you are certainly welcome to make any use of them you choose, including discarding them as utter nonsense. Most Sincerely, Mr. Gee ============================================== Thank you, Mr. McGoo. I'll choose the later option, including your method of misunderstanding asymptotes. |