A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: mpalenik on 18 Feb 2010 11:56 On Feb 18, 11:51 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 18, 11:47 am, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 18, 11:43 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 18, 9:51 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 17, 7:22 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Feb 17, 12:36 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 16, 6:35 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Feb 16, 10:24 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Did you notice the poster you're responding to refuses to answer my > > > > > > > > > question as to the validity of your 'understanding' of the behaviors > > > > > > > > > in a double slit experiment with a C-60 molecule is due to the future > > > > > > > > > determining the past? > > > > > > > > > And you take his refusal to answer you to be assent to your claim that > > > > > > > > it's absurd? > > > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > Good for you. You're a nutjob. Enjoy your medications. > > > > > > Of course the posters refusal to answer the question shows they think > > > > > your notion of the C-60 molecule entering one or multiple slits > > > > > depending upon detectors being placed at the exits or not in the > > > > > future is absurd. > > > > > So if people ignore you, then they are agreeing with you? > > > > Why don't you ask the poster directly, and not make any conclusion > > > > until you have an answer? > > > > Or do you make up answers in the absence of evidence? Why yes, yes you > > > > do. > > > > > > Why wouldn't the poster simply respond with a 'yes' if they agreed > > > > > with your absurd nonsense? The poster's non-answer demonstrates they > > > > > suffer from delusional denial just like you do. > > > > > So a non-answer means "no"? > > > > > Nice. So if nobody responds to you at all, you'll take that as > > > > implicit agreement with everything you say? > > > > > Have you had a change in medication lately? > > > > The other posters says they are ignoring my posts when it comes to > > > their having to respond to the future determining the past being the > > > reason for the observed behaviors in a double slit experiment with > > > C-60 molecule and then the poster asks a question as to the speed of > > > light with respect to objects moving with respect to the aether. > > > > Either the poster has a short term memory loss issue or the poster > > > knows the future does not determine the past. > > > > > > A C-60 molecule is a particle of matter and has an associated aether > > > > > displacement wave. The displacement wave enters and exits the > > > > > available slits and creates interference when exiting the slits. The > > > > > interference alters the direction the C-60 molecule travels. Detectors > > > > > at the exits to the slits causes decoherence of the associated > > > > > displacement wave (the waves are turned into chop) and there is no > > > > > interference. > > > > > > > > > > I guess the poster realizes it is absurd nonsense also. > > > > > > > > > On what basis would he realize that? You don't have a basis either. > > > > > > > > You just make the empty assertion that it's "absurd, absurd, absurd, > > > > > > > > just absurd nonsense". Empty assertion. > > > > > > > > If the poster agreed with you that the future determines the past why > > > > > > > didn't he just respond stating so? The posters silence is deafening. > > > mpc755, I do not agree with anything you have said on this newsgroup > > ever about any subject. Based on your posts, however, I don't believe > > it's possible to have a rational discussion with you, so I am not > > going to. Do not take that as a sign of my implicit agreement with > > what you say. > > I'm not asking you to agree with anything I have said. But the fact > that you are unwilling to say that, yes, you believe the C-60 molecule > enters one slit or multiple slits depending upon their being detectors > at the exits to the slits, or not, when the C-60 molecule gets there > in the future speaks volumes in terms of the absurdity to which you > think that is. > > You silence is deafening. I understand quantum mechanics, PD understands quantum mechanics, you clearly do not understand quantum mechanics. And it's pointless trying to discuss it in this ambiguous popular science-lingo. I also don't believe that you would properly understand any response I could give you. The presence of a detector will determine whether or not there is an interference pattern. This is due to how the wave function collapses as it passes through the slits. This determines whether the particle passes through one slit or both. There are no "aether-displacement waves". This is all I'm saying on the subject. I'm not going to get sucked into a pointless discussion.
From: mpc755 on 18 Feb 2010 11:59 On Feb 18, 2:30 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:8e724cb5-1db0-47c2-aa3d-5ed7150295ea(a)f15g2000yqe.googlegroups.com... > On Feb 18, 12:40 am, "Peter Webb" > > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:c7b417f4-cdc4-414a-a24c-3f2e7fc4c67d(a)t42g2000vbt.googlegroups.com.... > > On Feb 16, 11:55 pm, "Peter Webb" > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > >news:3c8112b0-e86e-4fdb-a9f6-6c390200aa01(a)b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com.... > > > On Feb 16, 9:26 pm, "Peter Webb" > > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > > > > __________________________________ > > > > > > My tabletop is not in a spaceship, and there is no train on the > > > > > > spaceship. > > > > > > > Here is my question. Lets just take the first half this time: > > > > > > > 1. We place two atomic clocks on a tabletop at the centre of a 1 > > > > > > metre > > > > > > ruler. We separate them very slowly so they are at either end of > > > > > > the > > > > > > one > > > > > > metre ruler. We record the time taken (according to the clocks) > > > > > > for > > > > > > light > > > > > > to > > > > > > travel 1 metre in a vacuum. Will the speed of light measured in > > > > > > this > > > > > > manner > > > > > > be c or some other value? > > > > > > Is the aether at rest with respect to the table top? > > > > > > _________________________________ > > > > > No. The tabletop is moving at speed of v relative to the ether. > > > > > The the tabletop is the train. > > > > > __________________________________ > > > > No, a tabletop is a tabletop. Its not a train. And you haven't > > > > answered > > > > my > > > > question. Will the speed of light measured in this manner be c or some > > > > other > > > > value? It is a pretty simple question. Why won't you answer it? > > > > I have answered it several times. If you want to understand how the > > > clocks on the tabletop behave read my posts and replaced 'train' with > > > 'tabletop'. > > > > _______________________________________ > > > Or, you could simply answer my question. Its pretty simple. Will the > > > speed > > > be measured as c, or some different value. > > > > I will make it easy for you: > > > > If the earth is moving at velocity v with respect to the ether, and we > > > perform the very simple experiment above, then will the measured speed > > > of > > > light in a vacuum be measured as c in a laboratory on earth? > > > > Well? > > > Replace 'earth' with 'train' and read my responses if you want to know > > the answer. > > > ____________________________ > > So you refuse to answer (again). Shows how much confidence you have in > > your > > own theories. > > I have a great deal of confidence in my theory but why am I going to > waste my time having to go back through my posts and replace 'train' > with 'tabletop', or replace 'train' with 'Earth'? > > __________________________________ > Nobody is asking you to. I am asking you a very simple question about your > theory. Say the earth is moving at speed v relative to the ether. The speed > of light in the direction the earth is travelling is measured in a > laboratory on earth. What is its measured speed? > > If you think the clocks being moved on a moving tabletop or the clocks > being moved on the flat bed cars of a moving train makes a difference > then this 'conversation' is pointless. > > _________________________________ > There are in fact 4 possibilities: > > a) c > b) c+v > c) c-v > d) something else. > > You could just answer 'a', 'b', 'c' or 'd'. That is only typing a single > character; that's not too much work for you, is it? If you want to understand how the Observers on an object moving at 'v' with respect to the aether determine the speed of light based upon 'synchronized' clocks, read my posts discussing the simultaneity of lightning strikes as determined by Observers on a train. Simply answering the question above is not going to get us anywhere. You have to understand what is physically occurring in nature to the atomic clocks and the light with respect to the aether in order to understand how it is the Observers on the train 'measure' the speed of light.
From: mpc755 on 18 Feb 2010 12:04 On Feb 18, 11:56 am, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 18, 11:51 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 18, 11:47 am, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 18, 11:43 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 18, 9:51 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Feb 17, 7:22 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 17, 12:36 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Feb 16, 6:35 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Feb 16, 10:24 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Did you notice the poster you're responding to refuses to answer my > > > > > > > > > > question as to the validity of your 'understanding' of the behaviors > > > > > > > > > > in a double slit experiment with a C-60 molecule is due to the future > > > > > > > > > > determining the past? > > > > > > > > > > And you take his refusal to answer you to be assent to your claim that > > > > > > > > > it's absurd? > > > > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > > Good for you. You're a nutjob. Enjoy your medications. > > > > > > > Of course the posters refusal to answer the question shows they think > > > > > > your notion of the C-60 molecule entering one or multiple slits > > > > > > depending upon detectors being placed at the exits or not in the > > > > > > future is absurd. > > > > > > So if people ignore you, then they are agreeing with you? > > > > > Why don't you ask the poster directly, and not make any conclusion > > > > > until you have an answer? > > > > > Or do you make up answers in the absence of evidence? Why yes, yes you > > > > > do. > > > > > > > Why wouldn't the poster simply respond with a 'yes' if they agreed > > > > > > with your absurd nonsense? The poster's non-answer demonstrates they > > > > > > suffer from delusional denial just like you do. > > > > > > So a non-answer means "no"? > > > > > > Nice. So if nobody responds to you at all, you'll take that as > > > > > implicit agreement with everything you say? > > > > > > Have you had a change in medication lately? > > > > > The other posters says they are ignoring my posts when it comes to > > > > their having to respond to the future determining the past being the > > > > reason for the observed behaviors in a double slit experiment with > > > > C-60 molecule and then the poster asks a question as to the speed of > > > > light with respect to objects moving with respect to the aether. > > > > > Either the poster has a short term memory loss issue or the poster > > > > knows the future does not determine the past. > > > > > > > A C-60 molecule is a particle of matter and has an associated aether > > > > > > displacement wave. The displacement wave enters and exits the > > > > > > available slits and creates interference when exiting the slits.. The > > > > > > interference alters the direction the C-60 molecule travels. Detectors > > > > > > at the exits to the slits causes decoherence of the associated > > > > > > displacement wave (the waves are turned into chop) and there is no > > > > > > interference. > > > > > > > > > > > I guess the poster realizes it is absurd nonsense also. > > > > > > > > > > On what basis would he realize that? You don't have a basis either. > > > > > > > > > You just make the empty assertion that it's "absurd, absurd, absurd, > > > > > > > > > just absurd nonsense". Empty assertion. > > > > > > > > > If the poster agreed with you that the future determines the past why > > > > > > > > didn't he just respond stating so? The posters silence is deafening. > > > > mpc755, I do not agree with anything you have said on this newsgroup > > > ever about any subject. Based on your posts, however, I don't believe > > > it's possible to have a rational discussion with you, so I am not > > > going to. Do not take that as a sign of my implicit agreement with > > > what you say. > > > I'm not asking you to agree with anything I have said. But the fact > > that you are unwilling to say that, yes, you believe the C-60 molecule > > enters one slit or multiple slits depending upon their being detectors > > at the exits to the slits, or not, when the C-60 molecule gets there > > in the future speaks volumes in terms of the absurdity to which you > > think that is. > > > You silence is deafening. > > I understand quantum mechanics, PD understands quantum mechanics, you > clearly do not understand quantum mechanics. And it's pointless > trying to discuss it in this ambiguous popular science-lingo. I also > don't believe that you would properly understand any response I could > give you. > > The presence of a detector will determine whether or not there is an > interference pattern. This is due to how the wave function collapses > as it passes through the slits. This determines whether the particle > passes through one slit or both. There are no "aether-displacement > waves". This is all I'm saying on the subject. I'm not going to get > sucked into a pointless discussion. The fact that you will not answer the question speaks volumes. I asked you how it is the C-60 molecule is always detected exiting a single slit and how it is the C-60 molecule is able to create an interference pattern on the screen when the detectors are removed from the exits while the C-60 molecule is in the slit(s). Obfuscation, denial, delusion. In other words, more of the same from the Copenhageners. The question is very simple. The other poster believes the C-60 molecule enters one slit or multiple slits depending on their being detectors at the exits, or not, in the future. Do you agree with this? Instead of posting the absurd nonsense above you could have simply responded with a 'yes' or 'no'. Of course that is all you are willing to say on the subject because you know the future does not determine the past and to think such is absurd nonsense.
From: Ste on 18 Feb 2010 12:04 On 18 Feb, 14:47, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 18, 8:03 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > I simply disagree. Physicists *do* call "string theory" a theory. > > Not to each other, generally. I simply don't accept this Paul. I've read enough academic and scientific papers to know how the word is used. Indeed, a quick search on Arxiv has turned up many uses of the phrase "string theory" within the headline results. > To laypeople, sure, because they're > using the *conventional* and loose meaning of that word, which I > believe is what you were *asking* physicists to do, and as a result > there is confusion about the term, which is exactly what you buy into > when conventional language is used. I don't believe I did ask physicists to do any such thing. I said experts should be ready to identify and acknowledge their specialised meanings, such as in the case of "rotation into time". I didn't say they couldn't use those words. > > > > and > > > > indeed you don't commit yourself any stronger than talking of the > > > > "generally accepted definition". And yet, as I say, this convention is > > > > regularly flouted, and it just becomes ludicrous to justify it in > > > > terms of "well they are a minority", "that was a popularisation", etc. > > > > On the contrary, I just got through explaining to you that scientists > > > DO use conventional language in popularizations, with full risk that > > > it may introduce verbal ambiguity and lead to misconceptions, because > > > the aim of popularization is not to teach but to inspire readers to > > > read more carefully prepared materials suitable for teaching. > > > Rubbish. Words mean what people understand them to mean > > Not entirely. Words mean what people INTEND them to mean, as well. > When there is synchronization between what people understand them to > mean and what people intend them to mean, then there is solid > communication. And when there is not, it is not. Yes, I concede you are correct. What I was getting at is that the definition of a word is the generally employed meaning of the word (with regards to the context, of course). People can use words outside of their generally accepted definition, and thereby intend a meaning that is different from the meaning actually conveyed. But that is besides the point here. The point I'm making is that "theory" does not have a consistent specialised meaning even *within* physics. > > - the idea > > that physicists "speak a different language at work", or go into some > > sort of mode of "serious discussion" where they use only the special > > meanings, is just ludicrous. > > I'm sorry, but it's true. There is a distinct difference in the > language used in professional literature intended for intra-field > communication and the the language used in popularizations. I simply don't accept this. > > > > Broadly I agree that words should be used within their correct > > > > definitions, and this is one situation where a correction would be in > > > > order. > > > > > But there is no argument that words, like "theory", should be given an > > > > unwarranted narrower definition than their legitimate everyday > > > > meaning, simply because one is talking to a specialist - unless, of > > > > course, it is expressly stipulated that the narrower definition will > > > > be used for the time being for the sake of necessary accuracy. > > > > I disagree. In a teaching environment, that is EXACTLY the stipulation > > > that is made, over and over again as the terms come up in the course > > > of study. "Momentum", "velocity", "energy", "heat", "field", > > > "potential", "mass" are all examples of terms that are very carefully > > > segregated from conventional usage in the context of physics. > > > But the point is that, within physics, words like velocity *are* used > > very consistently in their specialised meaning, and they have a very > > rigorous definition. > > Yes, although that definition is not understood by the "ordinary man", > who would readily make the mistake of thinking that something that is > going at a constant 20 mph has a constant velocity. Hence a mismatch. I agree, but in this case the ordinary man must give way to the specialised meaning, because it *does* have an accurate specialised definition and is used consistently by experts. Not so for the word "theory". > > "Theory" is completely the opposite - it is > > consistently used as loosely as the everyday meaning even amongst > > professionals, and it's alleged specialised meaning is very ill- > > defined. > > I disagree. You may not be familiar with the definition, or you may > choose to believe that if the definition exists, it is not used in > connotation. I recognise a specialised definition where there is a distinction between a mere "hypothesis", which implies that it is speculative and to a certain extent off-the-cuff, and a "theory" which is more substantive and systematic. The dividing line between them is blurred and basically a matter of judgment. This is contrary to the everyday meaning, where "hypothesis" to a certain extent may be considered synonymous with "theory", and both may imply a high degree of speculation and uncertainty. Beyond that, I don't recognise any consistent specialised meaning to the word "theory". It certainly is not used at all consistently in the sense of "a falsifiable, quantatively-predictive theory that has empirical evidence in its support and wide acceptance amongst the mainstream scientific community", which I think basically sums up what you've previously argued the word to mean.
From: Ste on 18 Feb 2010 12:13
On 18 Feb, 15:22, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > I don't hold that alternate dimensions are a real possibility, so of > course I don't accept that theories that employ them are credible. > > ____________________________ > > Well, firstly that is because you have no real idea of what a dimension is > in physics. > > Also, you are not used to the mathematical representation of surfaces of > different dimensions being equivalent to equations, so you don't easily > "see" how dimensions pop out of Special Relativity as rotations - lets be > frank here, your knowledge of rotation matrices is pretty slim I'm guessing. > So you can't "see" whats going on because you are not sufficiently > mathematically sophisticated. > > Secondly, SR does not postulate any additional dimensions - just the four > normal one of three in space and on in time that probably even you have > noticed, its just that you think you have an orthogonal view; you don't, > your view is tilted by the speed you are going ... a fact quite easily > demonstrated by SR and proved a thousand times a day. I didn't say SR postulated any additional dimensions. > If you are having trouble understanding the concepts of different > dimensions, read Flatland by Edwin Abbott. You will be relieved to hear that > it contains almost no mathematics in the sense you probably understand it, > but a great deal in a sense you don't. I laugh that you take your inspirations and arguments from a novel, a pure work of fiction. |