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: mpalenik on 17 Feb 2010 12:30
On Feb 17, 12:25 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 17 Feb, 15:41, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 17, 10:19 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 17 Feb, 13:25, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > >news:9b31d2c9-e699-41a8-a366-bc2f407ad017(a)o30g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > > On 16 Feb, 13:53, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com..au>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> 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.
> > > > >> ___________________________
> > > > >> A lot of people have trouble understanding abstract concepts. You
> > > > >> shouldn't
> > > > >> feel shy about this, but you may take it as a sign that possibly physics
> > > > >> is
> > > > >> not for you.
>
> > > > > I don't have too much trouble understanding abstract concepts within
> > > > > their own terms, if I'm inclined to familiarise myself with them. But
> > > > > if the abstract concept is supposed to describe something physical,
> > > > > then I wouldn't claim to "understand" unless I could indeed translate
> > > > > it into something concrete.
>
> > > > > Indeed when I say "I don't understand", I may sometimes be using it as
> > > > > a polite synonym for having actually made a judgment that "this theory
> > > > > is obviously ludicrous and unworkable as an explanation for the
> > > > > phenomenon that was to be explained".
>
> > > > Well, its obviously not ludicrous, because it works. The experimental
> > > > evidence is overwhelming. That is seems ludicrous to you is because you
> > > > don't understand some key concepts; one is the mathematics, and the other
> > > > relates to the philosophy of science.
>
> > > > I might add that I have never heard of anybody who understood the
> > > > mathematics but thought SR (or GR for that matter) as being "ludicrous"; if
> > > > you were somewhat less lazy or considerably brighter (or perhaps both) you
> > > > could learn the maths as well and by the time you have learned Maxwell and
> > > > Minkowski you won't think its ludicrous, you will think SR (at least) is
> > > > obvious.
>
> > > > But alas, lazy and stupid, that is a recipe for being a crank, not
> > > > understanding science.
>
> > > Just to remind you, I don't necessarily think relativity is ludicrous..
> > > Only the explanations here for why it works.
>
> > Then you *really* won't like general relativity.
>
> I certainly won't like the inferences that are drawn from it.

I have no idea what you mean by "the inferences that are drawn from
it" but General relativity is a theory that states that the *cause* of
gravity is curvature of spacetime.
From: PD on 17 Feb 2010 12:36
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.

>
>
>
> > > 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.

From: PD on 17 Feb 2010 12:36
On Feb 16, 6:39 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 16, 10:25 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > 'You' do not understand what is occurring physically in a double slit
> > > experiment so you invent a new type of object. A particle which in and
> > > of itself 'waves'.
>
> > It doesn't hinge on what you choose to believe.
>
> What I choose to believe

It doesn't hinge on what you choose to believe.

> is matter and the aether are different states
> of the same material. What I choose to believe is a moving C-60
> molecule and its associated aether displacement wave are a 'one
> something'. With this understanding of nature I do not need to invent
> a new type of object or choose to believe the future determines the
> past. My choices allow for a better understanding of nature than
> yours.
>
> > > In order to maintain the delusion such an object exists you are
> > > required to believe in the absurd nonsense of the future determining
> > > the past.
>
> > > Once 'you' realize a moving particle has an associated aether wave
> > > there is no need for this non-existent made up object of matter which
> > > in and of itself waves and there is no reason to have to choose to
> > > believe in the absurd nonsense the future determines the past.
>
> > > > > > 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 17 Feb 2010 12:37
On Feb 16, 8:21 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 16, 8:02 pm, "Peter Webb"
>
>
>
> <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:f45910fe-89b2-4a09-9dcb-fcaf4686df7a(a)w12g2000vbj.googlegroups.com....
> > On Feb 16, 7:37 pm, "Peter Webb"
>
> > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:538f8caf-7a7b-4a35-b7e6-35ca5635b97f(a)15g2000yqi.googlegroups.com....
> > > On Feb 16, 2:16 am, "Peter Webb"
>
> > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > >news:17353969-96de-46d5-b54c-74e655e2d34f(a)b7g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> > > > On Feb 16, 12:59 am, "Peter Webb"
>
> > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > > > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > > >news:48499780-10ed-4377-b4cf-0bde5b5d298f(a)28g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
> > > > > On Feb 15, 1:06 am, "Peter Webb"
>
> > > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > > > > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > > > >news:21c1d72e-9898-436a-ba4e-05a849fc4efc(a)g8g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> > > > > > On Feb 15, 12:35 am, "Peter Webb"
>
> > > > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > > > > > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > > > > >news:e03b248e-5f49-4e80-9c4c-d542dd7e269e(a)k5g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
> > > > > > > On Feb 15, 12:18 am, "Peter Webb"
>
> > > > > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > > > > > > As I have said at least three times now,
> > > > > > > > you cannot determine the speed of the aether.
> > > > > > > > ____________________________________
>
> > > > > > > > You said light moves at a constant velocity relative to the
> > > > > > > > ether.
> > > > > > > > So
> > > > > > > > why
> > > > > > > > can't you measure the speed of light, see how much it differs
> > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > c,
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > the difference is your speed relative to the ether? Why doesn't
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > procedure determine the speed of the ether?
>
> > > > > > > How do you measure your speed relative to the ether?
>
> > > > > > > As I have said at least four times now, you can't measure the
> > > > > > > speed
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > the aether. If you can't measure the speed of the aether you can't
> > > > > > > measure your speed relative to the aether.
>
> > > > > > > Do you want to ask this same question again so I can answer it for
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > fifth time?
>
> > > > > > > ______________________________________
> > > > > > > I just described how you *can* measure your speed relative to the
> > > > > > > ether.
> > > > > > > You
> > > > > > > measure the speed of light, see how much it differs from c, and
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > difference is your speed relative to the ether.
>
> > > > > > How do you measure the speed of light so it is not 'c'?
>
> > > > > > _________________________________
> > > > > > Anyway you like. Aren't you claiming that the speed of light is a
> > > > > > constant
> > > > > > relative to the speed of the ether, and not constant relative to the
> > > > > > observer? So you can measure the speed of light in some way, to make
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > claim at all, right? So why not measure it, see how much it departs
> > > > > > from
> > > > > > c,
> > > > > > and then the difference is the speed of the ether.
>
> > > > > > Why won't that work?
>
> > > > > I am asking you to state how it is you want to measure the speed of
> > > > > light? Are you using mirrors?
>
> > > > > ____________________
> > > > > No. I am using a metre ruler and two clocks, one at each end. I
> > > > > synchronise
> > > > > the clocks, separate them by a metre, and note the difference between
> > > > > arrival and departure time. The difference between this and c is my
> > > > > speed
> > > > > relative to the ether. Why won't this work?
>
> > > > You separate the clocks by a metre on a train moving relative to the
> > > > aether. <snip about 200 lines involving trains, embankments and whole
> > > > lot
> > > > of
> > > > other stuff unrelated to my question>
>
> > > > ____________________________________
> > > > No. There is no train in my question.
>
> > > Yes, there is a train in your question even though you do not realize
> > > it. You can move the clocks anyway you like to the ends of the table,
> > > but as you move the clocks they are going to 'tick' based upon the
> > > aether pressure in which they exist. Your tabletop could be in a
> > > spaceship whipping through the aether and in that case the clock moved
> > > the the front of the table will be move against the 'flow' of the
> > > aether and 'tick' slower as it is being moved and the clock being
> > > pushed to the back of the table will be moved with the 'flow' of the
> > > aether and 'tick' faster as it is being moved.
>
> > > __________________________________
> > > 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.
>
> Then the tabletop is the train.

Tabletops are trains. Excellent. Have another pill.
From: PD on 17 Feb 2010 12:38
On Feb 16, 9:22 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> 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?
>
> How is the tabletop able to move at 'v' with respect to the aether?
>
> It's on a train.

An *invisible*, *secret* train. Run by the same people that tell him
when to turn out the lights and go to sleep.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52
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