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: PD on 16 Feb 2010 10:53
On Feb 16, 6:59 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 16 Feb, 03:28, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 15, 7:32 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I can give you a simple example of the rotation I've just described..
> > > > Accellerate an object.  That's a rotation.  The only reason people do
> > > > not recognize it as such is because we can't step back and see the
> > > > geometry of the 4 dimensional universe.
>
> > > As I said, the real world existed long before geometry.
>
> > You seem to insist that 4 dimensional spacetime is some abstract
> > philosophical thing when really, it's nothing of the sort.  The real
> > world exists as a 4 dimensional manifold.  That's not dependent on
> > mathematical tricks.  You have a four dimensional space.  We call one
> > of those dimensions time.
>
> > You percieve a 3 dimensional world.  But you have to realize that's
> > only your perception and that the universe exists outside of your
> > perception.
>
> No we don't perceive a 3D world. We perceive a 4D world, and have done
> since the beginning of time (as it were). That's what I'm saying to
> you: the real world existed long before geometry. And geometry is just
> a mathematical formalisation of basic concepts that were already
> physically obvious to anyone who ever considered the issue.

You are quite right! But it turns out we've made some erroneous
presuppositions about that 4D world. In fact, the presupposition we
had has a fairly tight specification. We had the notion that the
universe was structured as what's called a "fiber bundle" (it's a
mathematical term), with 3 spatial dimensions and an *independent*
time dimension. This expresses itself in certain ways. For example,
two observers in relative motion can label coordinates in 3 spatial
and 1 time dimensions in several possible ways, and it's possible to
make diagrams that show those relationships. One possible way is the
"fiber bundle" way that says that the distance between two events in
space and time (x^2 + y^2 + z^2) will be the same for both observers,
and this can be traced to the *independence* of the time dimension.
Another possible way is the Minkowski manifold way that says that this
distance will be different between two real events for both observers.

At this point, it's simply a matter of seeing which one of these
presuppositions is right by experimental test.

>
> > > > It's the same with SR.  The fault is your perceptions, not the
> > > > explanation.
>
> > > No the fault is that you don't (or most probably can't) tailor your
> > > explanation to the audience. I dare say the next time someone asks for
> > > a "physical explanation", you'd do better to just say "I don't
> > > understand relativity in those terms", and then everyone knows where
> > > they stand.
>
> > I understand relativity in the actual terms of the way the universe
> > really works.  You're looking for something that conforms to your
> > specific desires, which relativity does not.
>
> > Let's try it this way: what about the picture I drew for you do you
> > not think could represent physical reality?
>
> I never said it didn't *represent* physical reality, at least in some
> way. But my ability to understand requires me to translate that
> representation into something physical and concrete.

You'll find that this chaining of representations to objects that you
are already familiar with prevents you from discovering much that is
wholly new and unfamiliar.

> The idea that the
> representation means anything in itself is just absurd to me.
>
>
>
> > > > > But "rotation into time" is totally meaningless in the sense that it's
> > > > > supposed to have any analogy with spatial rotation. It's a bit like
> > > > > "light follows a groove in space" - the supposed concrete analogy
> > > > > actually introduces more confusion.
>
> > > > It's not just an analogy, it's a physical reality.  Look at the
> > > > picture I drew you.  It means exactly what that picture shows (except
> > > > in Minkowski spacetime, rather than euclidean).
>
> > > It *represents* something in the real world.  It is not physical
> > > reality itself. At least, it isn't for people like me.
>
> > It represents rotation, just like when I tell you that I rotated a
> > pole, that also represents a rotation.  You just don't understand that
> > the two things are the same.  You insist that they must be different
> > but in reality, they are not.  They don't look quite the same to you
> > because of your perspective.  It's exactly like the flatland example I
> > gave before.  If you have people that live on a little, flat world
> > sitting in our 3 dimensional space, who can only percieve the things
> > that exist inside of their little 2 dimensional world, when something
> > rotates into that third dimension, they'll go "what the heck just
> > happened?  That doesn't look like any rotation I've ever seen."
>
> But there is no such thing as a two-dimensional "flatland" in reality.
> This is much like saying "imagine a place that is not real with people
> who are not real, and imagine what reality would look like to those
> people" (which I can only say is unimaginable), and then using this as
> some sort of proof of a "hidden reality" that is not apparent to
> people who *are* real. As I say, the four dimensions have been with us
> since the beginning of time, and people have in one way or another
> recognised their physical existence since the beginning of time.

As we discussed earlier, it may be that we are only AWARE of four
dimensions. It may well be that there are more. Then the way to
entertain this notion is to ask the question, how would something that
is only AWARE of two dimensions become convinced that there is a third
dimension? This turns out to be very answerable. And since it is
answerable by prescription in that case, one then appropriately asks
whether we should be applying the same prescription ourselves?

Likewise, one can also ask, how would someone who believes that a 2D
surface is flat become aware that it is NOT flat, other than by
exploiting information from a third dimension. This, too, turns out to
be very answerable. And this also means that we can also ask the same
question, and get the same answer, about whether our four dimensions
are flat.

>
>
>
> > > > The picture I made for you wasn't supposed to represent an analogy--it
> > > > was supposed to represent physical reality (except with a slightly
> > > > different metric--but we don't need to worry about that just yet).
>
> > > If you don't recognise geometry as being an abstract *representation*
> > > of the physical world, as opposed to the physical world itself, then
> > > that is a clear difference in our understandings - and it's a
> > > philosophical difference which will not be reconcilable.
>
> > It's no more or less geometry that showing you a picture of a pole
> > that's rotated in our regular 3 dimensional space.  It's no more
> > abstract than that.  Why do you insist on calling it something more
> > abstract than that?  The picture I showed you is exactly the same
> > thing.
>
> > Relable the axes x and y, instead of x and t.  Now can you agree that
> > it's simply a picture of a rotated pole?  Now, suddenly if I switch
> > the axes back to x and t, does it magically become more abstract just
> > because I changed the labels?
>
> No, both are abstract. The difference is that a rotation in the y-axis
> translates into something quite physically different than a rotation
> in the t-axis.

I gather that what you're saying here is not so much that it's
abstract, but that you cannot see it yet. That's ok, there's more than
one way to explain it. Remember the key is to dispense with noncentral
details and to focus on what the *essence* of rotation means. It is
likewise impossible to get a camel to look like a whale, unless you
ONLY focus your mind on what being a mammal means.

From: PD on 16 Feb 2010 11:00
On Feb 16, 8:13 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
> On Feb 15, 10:32 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "kenseto" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:65fb4cc2-4dcb-4a03-a564-a5787f7e3550(a)w31g2000yqk.googlegroups.com....
>
> > > On Feb 15, 5:16 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> > >> "kenseto" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message
>
> > >>news:65b0b432-ea12-4f62-8dea-14b916d28a20(a)15g2000yqi.googlegroups.com....
>
> > >> > On Feb 15, 4:06 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >> 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.
>
> > >> > Physical is material....is one of the definitions in my dictionary..
>
> > >> My dictionary says it is relating to the human body (as opposed to mind
> > >> or
> > >> spirit), or involving bodily contact.  So if you mean length contraction
> > >> in
> > >> SR is not physical because it does not involve human body contact, then
> > >> I'd
> > >> agree.
>
> > >> In any case, SR says the all the atoms of a moving rod are closer
> > >> together
> > >> (in the frame of a relatively moving observer).  ie. that the spatial
> > >> distance between them (at any given time) is shorter than when the rod is
> > >> at
> > >> rest.  That sounds 'physically' shorter to me.
>
> > > Hey idiot
>
> > I'm no idiot, as you know.  But I'll respond to you anyway.
>
> > > do you realize that you were describing material length
> > > contraction and not merely geometric projection contraction?
>
> > The geometric projection results in the atoms being closer together in the
> > frame in which the rod is moving.
>
> No...this is wrong. I see you to be shorter from a distance is
> geometric projection. The atoms in you are not being closer together.
>
> > As I said above.  The effect of the
> > geometric projection (rotation) is that the atoms physically get closer..
> > Geometric operations can have physical results.  Like rotating a ladder to
> > fit through a doorway.
>
> Geometric projection has no material or physical effect. When you
> rotate the x-axis around the time axis the projected x value onto the
> original non-roatated x-axis is shorter. That is not a physical or
> material effect.
> When you said that the atoms get closer together that's is a physical
> or material effect.
>
>
>
> > > If
> > > material length contraction occur how come from the pole frame point
> > > of view there is no material length contraction
>
> > There is a unity projection from pole frame to pole frame .. so no change as
> > a result
>
> So from the pole point of view the pole is not able to fit into the
> barn physically or materially. And at the same time the barn frame
> observer insisted that the material pole is able to fit into the barn
> materially or physically. That sound like a contradiction to me.
>
>
>
> > > and thus it is not
> > > able to fit into the barn?
>
> > It fits in the barn in the barn frame at some time in the barn frame.  
>
> I am afraid that you don't understand SR. SR only claim that the
> projected length (not the material length or physical length) is able
> to fit into the barn frame.
>
> >There
> > is no time in the pole frame where that is true.  That is due to the
> > differences in time in those two frames
>
> Right the material length is not able to fit into the material barn.
> Your problem is that you want length contraction to be material or
> physical instead of accepting the new SR interpretation that length
> contract is not material or physical.
>
>
>
> > > Do you realize that material length
> > > contraction is frame independent?
>
> > Depends on what you mean by 'length'.  What is your definition of the length
> > of a rod?
>
> Length of a meter stick is its physical or material length.

Material does not mean physical. Don't choose definitions to suit you.
Use the one that is appropriate.

> There is no physical or material length contraction in my theory. The
> observer assumes that the light path length of his meter stick is its
> physical length (1 meter long). He uses this assumed standard and the
> IRT equations to predict the light path length for a meter stick
> moving wrt him to be: 1/gamma or (gamma) meters long. The reason for
> the two prediction is that the observer does not know if the moving
> stick has a higher or lower light path length.
> My theory is described in the following link:http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008irt.dtg.pdf
>
> Ken Seto

From: PD on 16 Feb 2010 11:02
On Feb 16, 12:15 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 15, 4:13 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > 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.
>
> Yes, because to invent a new type of object in order to 'explain' the
> observed behaviors in a double slit experiment and to then have to
> believe the future determines the past in order to support this new
> type of object 'you' made up simply because 'you' are unwilling and
> unable to understand a moving particle has an associated aether wave
> is absurd.

There you go again, making loose assertions about what's absurd and
what's not.
Nobody cares about loose assertions.

>
>
>
> > > > > 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: mpalenik on 16 Feb 2010 11:31
On Feb 16, 10:24 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 16, 12:10 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 15, 4:05 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > 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.
>
> > 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?
>
>
>
> > I guess the poster realizes it is absurd nonsense also.
>
> On what basis would he realize that? You...
>
> read more »

For the record, I refuse to engage mpc755 in conversation because I
realize that attempting to do so would be a pointless exercise in
futility.
From: kenseto on 16 Feb 2010 13:25
On Feb 16, 11:00 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 16, 8:13 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 15, 10:32 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>
> > > "kenseto" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:65fb4cc2-4dcb-4a03-a564-a5787f7e3550(a)w31g2000yqk.googlegroups.com....
>
> > > > On Feb 15, 5:16 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> > > >> "kenseto" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message
>
> > > >>news:65b0b432-ea12-4f62-8dea-14b916d28a20(a)15g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > >> > On Feb 15, 4:06 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> >> 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.
>
> > > >> > Physical is material....is one of the definitions in my dictionary.
>
> > > >> My dictionary says it is relating to the human body (as opposed to mind
> > > >> or
> > > >> spirit), or involving bodily contact.  So if you mean length contraction
> > > >> in
> > > >> SR is not physical because it does not involve human body contact, then
> > > >> I'd
> > > >> agree.
>
> > > >> In any case, SR says the all the atoms of a moving rod are closer
> > > >> together
> > > >> (in the frame of a relatively moving observer).  ie. that the spatial
> > > >> distance between them (at any given time) is shorter than when the rod is
> > > >> at
> > > >> rest.  That sounds 'physically' shorter to me.
>
> > > > Hey idiot
>
> > > I'm no idiot, as you know.  But I'll respond to you anyway.
>
> > > > do you realize that you were describing material length
> > > > contraction and not merely geometric projection contraction?
>
> > > The geometric projection results in the atoms being closer together in the
> > > frame in which the rod is moving.
>
> > No...this is wrong. I see you to be shorter from a distance is
> > geometric projection. The atoms in you are not being closer together.
>
> > > As I said above.  The effect of the
> > > geometric projection (rotation) is that the atoms physically get closer.
> > > Geometric operations can have physical results.  Like rotating a ladder to
> > > fit through a doorway.
>
> > Geometric projection has no material or physical effect. When you
> > rotate the x-axis around the time axis the projected x value onto the
> > original non-roatated x-axis is shorter. That is not a physical or
> > material effect.
> > When you said that the atoms get closer together that's is a physical
> > or material effect.
>
> > > > If
> > > > material length contraction occur how come from the pole frame point
> > > > of view there is no material length contraction
>
> > > There is a unity projection from pole frame to pole frame .. so no change as
> > > a result
>
> > So from the pole point of view the pole is not able to fit into the
> > barn physically or materially. And at the same time the barn frame
> > observer insisted that the material pole is able to fit into the barn
> > materially or physically. That sound like a contradiction to me.
>
> > > > and thus it is not
> > > > able to fit into the barn?
>
> > > It fits in the barn in the barn frame at some time in the barn frame.  
>
> > I am afraid that you don't understand SR. SR only claim that the
> > projected length (not the material length or physical length) is able
> > to fit into the barn frame.
>
> > >There
> > > is no time in the pole frame where that is true.  That is due to the
> > > differences in time in those two frames
>
> > Right the material length is not able to fit into the material barn.
> > Your problem is that you want length contraction to be material or
> > physical instead of accepting the new SR interpretation that length
> > contract is not material or physical.
>
> > > > Do you realize that material length
> > > > contraction is frame independent?
>
> > > Depends on what you mean by 'length'.  What is your definition of the length
> > > of a rod?
>
> > Length of a meter stick is its physical or material length.
>
> Material does not mean physical. Don't choose definitions to suit you.
> Use the one that is appropriate.

Sure material means physical. Geometric projection does not mean
physical.

>
>
>
> > There is no physical or material length contraction in my theory. The
> > observer assumes that the light path length of his meter stick is its
> > physical length (1 meter long). He uses this assumed standard and the
> > IRT equations to predict the light path length for a meter stick
> > moving wrt him to be: 1/gamma or (gamma) meters long. The reason for
> > the two prediction is that the observer does not know if the moving
> > stick has a higher or lower light path length.
> > My theory is described in the following link:http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008irt.dtg.pdf
>
> > Ken Seto- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44
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