Prev: Quantum Gravity 357.91: Croatia Shows That Probability of Vacuum Energy Density is More Important than its Vacuum Expectation Value (VEV) of the Hamiltonian Density, in line with Probable Causation/Influence (PI)
Next: Hubble Views Saturn's Northern/Southern Lights
From: Ste on 4 Mar 2010 03:48
On 3 Mar, 22:45, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 3, 11:05 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > However, as with most religions, there are a set of beliefs that one who is
> > > to be a member of a religion must hold to be true, whether or not there is
> > > any evidence or proof of those beliefs.
>
> > Indeed. And the same is true of science! The "scientific method" is
> > about as correspondent with reality as the Bible.
>
> :>)
> I'm sure you wrote that to just get a reaction.

It is of course a rhetorical style, but that should not be confused
with a lack of sincerity. As far as I am concerned, there is no one
here (or elsewhere) who has been able to establish that science is
defined by falsificationism. Even you concede that string theorists
are pursuing their course of research on the basis of hope and belief
that the theory will in time become falsifiable.

Insofar as anyone has tried to articulate the features of "science" or
the "scientific method", counterexamples have abounded. As I've said,
it appears to me that the only means of demarcating science from
religion is naturalism, which good scientists hold axiomatically (at
least in respect of their field of study, if not generally).



> One might argue that the Bible and science deal with very different
> aspects of reality.

In some respects perhaps, but then again not really. Religion has, at
one time or another, made claims in all areas that are now considered
the domain of scientific study.
From: Inertial on 4 Mar 2010 04:27

"Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4d889857-3cea-4245-9afe-e37db0690469(a)q21g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On 3 Mar, 20:01, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 3, 12:52 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > No. In SR, clocks *appear* to run slower as you are increasing your
>> > distance from the clock. The effect is entirely apparent in SR.
>>
>> You must just go through the entire thread and not pay any attention
>> to what anybody says. Ever.
>>
>> 1) What you've stated above is not an effect of SR. It is an effect
>> of propagation delay, which was used to calculate c from the motion of
>> the moons of jupiter hundreds of years ago.
>
> Ok.
>
>
>
>> 2) If you were to move TOWARD the clock, it would appear to run
>> faster. But SR says nothing about whether you are moving toward or
>> away from an object.
>
> <suspicious eyebrow raised> Ok.
>
>
>
>> 3) The amount that the clock would appear to slow down is DIFFERENT
>> from the amount that SR predicts the clock *actually* slows down
>
> Really? I'm growing increasingly suspicious. In what way does SR
> predict the "actual" slowdown, as opposed to the "apparent" slowdown?
> And for example, if we racked up the value of 'c' to near infinity,
> would SR still predict an "actual" slowdown, even though the
> propagation delays would approach zero?

I thought you said SR was correct .. yet you don't even know what it
predicts or why. That seems rather foolish



From: Inertial on 4 Mar 2010 04:28

"Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8984b4b4-92e9-466a-ad51-20e6b4e815bc(a)u9g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> On 3 Mar, 22:23, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:64d02f70-01e4-44a5-a5ab-41429bf37f71(a)q15g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > I'm sure I said something about the ludicrous assertions that some
>> > people here have made about the conceptual basis of SR. That is,
>> > assertions that verge on meaningless, like "rotation into time" as an
>> > explanation for length contraction. Or even observed time dilation (in
>> > SR) being "real" as opposed to merely a function of propagation
>> > delays. But none of this fundamentally challenges SR.
>>
>> Time dilation isn't anything to do with propagation delays .. they do NOT
>> cause time dilation. It IS real in that it has been measured
>> experimentally.
>>
>> Your denial of reality is another trademark of a crackpot.
>
> I'm not denying it. I'm saying experiments that involve acceleration
> are the realm of GR (as I understand it),

GR is a superset of SR. SR handles accelerations just fine.

> and that acceleration is the
> cause of "real" time dilation.

No .. its change of reference frame. You can get the effect without any
acceleration invovled

> We're talking about SR,

yes we are

> and therefore
> we cannot be talking about any experiment that involves acceleration.

Dead wrong. You really are ignorant.


From: Inertial on 4 Mar 2010 04:32

"Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4b40c1ce-92fb-47f8-8cec-e97dbde07cd9(a)b7g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> On 3 Mar, 22:31, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >> and 80 foot ladders can fit through 40 feet barns,
>>
>> > It remains slightly unclear, but I'm inclined to say no,
>>
>> Then you do not understand or accept SR.
>>
>> > although it
>> > can certainly be made to appear to happen in certain circumstances.
>>
>> So if you close the doors simultaneously on a barn and the rod is inside
>> you
>> think that means it is not REALLY inside?
>
> The question is of measuring simultaneity. I can accept that, from
> certain perspectives, the doors would appear to close simultaneously
> with the ladder inside, but that in fact the distant door opened
> before the nearest door even shut (and hence the ladder was never
> physically inside with both doors shut). This also explains why, from
> the ladders perspective, the barn can get apparently *even smaller*,
> and yet the ladder can still pass through.
>
> To conceive of length contraction being real, it would surely be
> detectable already, and moreover it would indicate a preferred frame
> of reference (because even from the ladder's frame, the ladder would
> have to shrink relative to the barn - which would manifest itself as
> the barn growing to apparently twice its real size).
>
>
>
>> >> If, on the other hand, you do not believe in the twin "paradox"
>> >> actually
>> >> happening, you don't believe in SR.
>>
>> > We resolved the twins paradox months ago. The astronaut twin undergoes
>> > asymmetrical acceleration, and that is why he returns younger.
>>
>> >> If you do believe the predictions of SR
>> >> that one twin is older, then you believe that time dilation is more
>> >> than
>> >> some mathematical fiction, its what actually happens in the real
>> >> world.
>>
>> > On the contrary. The involvement of acceleration, which is the domain
>> > of GR, makes me wonder why this is held to be a paradox in SR at all.
>>
>> SR handles acceleration just fine
>
> I doubt it. Otherwise you'd get a contradiction in the twins paradox.
>
>
>
>> > And yes, the acceleration causes real effects for the astronaut twin.
>>
>> >> So, when relativity predicts that one twin will age more than the
>> >> other,
>> >> is
>> >> this just some mathematical truth, or is it what really happens as
>> >> well?
>>
>> > It really happens, due to acceleration.
>>
>> >> So, do you believe that SR is correct in its prediction (for example)
>> >> that
>> >> if one twin were to be sent off into space at 0.9c for 10 years they
>> >> would
>> >> have aged less on their return than the twin that stayed at home?
>>
>> > I'm not sure SR does predict this.
>>
>> Of course it does .. that is the twins paradox you just said you
>> understnood
>> !!
>>
>> > As I understand it, GR is required
>> > to predict this effect.
>>
>> Wrong
>>
>> > The problem for SR was, as I understand it,
>> > explaining why SR *doesn't* predict that effect.
>>
>> It DOES predict it. My god you are SO DAMNED IGNORANT of what you
>> ponficiate about.
>
> As far as I know, Einstein used GR to resolve the paradox, based on
> the fact that the astronaut twin undergoes "real" acceleration,
> whereas the Earth (and the homebody twin) does not.
>
>
>
>> >> Do you agree its correct when it says that an 80 foot ladder could fit
>> >> inside a 40 foot barn?
>>
>> > No, I'm not confident about that prediction. I think it's more likely
>> > to be an apparent effect.
>>
>> What is only 'apparent' about shutting the doors on a barn simultaneously
>> with a long rod fully ensloed between them? Do you think it is all done
>> with mirrors?
>
> It doesn't need to be done with mirrors. A person standing at one door
> of the barn who observes the doors close simultaneously, would not
> observe simultaneity when standing at the other door (when standing at
> the other door, he would observe that other door to shut long before
> the first door).

It has NOTHING TO DO WITH PROPOGATION DELAYS.

When you take those into account .. or if you use multiple observers with
synchronised clocks .. or have an observer midway between the doors .. you
STILL get the pole fitting simultaneously between the closed barn doors


> Hence by careful timing of the doors, and crafty
> position of the observer, it can be made to appear that the doors shut
> simultaneously while, in fact, they did not.

That is NOT what happens. Clearly you do not understand SR AT ALL

> And just to be clear, my concept of "simultaneity" is that which would
> be simultaneous if information propagated instantaneously.

That's what we mean. And it does NOT require instant transfer of
information.


From: Peter Webb on 4 Mar 2010 04:39

"Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8984b4b4-92e9-466a-ad51-20e6b4e815bc(a)u9g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
On 3 Mar, 22:23, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:64d02f70-01e4-44a5-a5ab-41429bf37f71(a)q15g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
>
> > I'm sure I said something about the ludicrous assertions that some
> > people here have made about the conceptual basis of SR. That is,
> > assertions that verge on meaningless, like "rotation into time" as an
> > explanation for length contraction. Or even observed time dilation (in
> > SR) being "real" as opposed to merely a function of propagation
> > delays. But none of this fundamentally challenges SR.
>
> Time dilation isn't anything to do with propagation delays .. they do NOT
> cause time dilation. It IS real in that it has been measured
> experimentally.
>
> Your denial of reality is another trademark of a crackpot.

I'm not denying it. I'm saying experiments that involve acceleration
are the realm of GR (as I understand it), and that acceleration is the
cause of "real" time dilation. We're talking about SR, and therefore
we cannot be talking about any experiment that involves acceleration.

________________________________
It is true that you cannot devise an experiment whereby two clocks are
together and then separated without at least one of them experiencing
acceleration at some point; that unfortunately is a mathematical fact, not a
physical one.

However, you can make the contribution of acceleration "vanishingly small",
by designing thought experiments where the accelerations are very low and
slow. Sending a rocket to another star is one such example. More to the
point, you don't have to. SR specifically predicts that time dilation will
occur. It is fundamental to the whole of SR.

You now appear to be claiming that you *don't* believe the twins will be
different ages due to simple time dilation in SR, which means you *don't*
agree that SR is correct.

So, yet again, like the uber-crank you are, you have completely changed your
story.

Yesterday you believed in the predictions of SR. Now you say you don't.

Its called *inability to learn*.




First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175
Prev: Quantum Gravity 357.91: Croatia Shows That Probability of Vacuum Energy Density is More Important than its Vacuum Expectation Value (VEV) of the Hamiltonian Density, in line with Probable Causation/Influence (PI)
Next: Hubble Views Saturn's Northern/Southern Lights