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 17 Feb 2010 12:44
On Feb 17, 9:04 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 16 Feb, 15:53, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 16, 6:59 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > 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.
>
> Has time ever really been considered "independent"? It seems to me
> that much of this "relativity of simultaneity" can be constructed with
> reference only to acoustic phenomena.

Yes it was considered independent, indeed. That was explicitly listed
by Newton in his Principia, and was a fundamental basis of Newtonian
mechanics for 250 years. If this comes as a surprise to you, then you
could do well by reading Robert Geroch's book -- it's short and
accessible.

>
> > > > 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.
>
> As I've said before, I disagree that we ever see anything that is
> totally "new and unfamiliar".

Experimentalists who have seen the new and unfamiliar would disagree
with you.
See also Feynman, "The Character of Physical Law".

>
> > > 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.
>
> I'm afraid that was not my conclusion. As I've said, these
> possibilities only seem credible to those who already hold them to be
> credible.

Whether you find them credible or not is irrelevant. What should be
noted from my paragraph above is that there is a method by which you
can determine whether what you find incredible is in fact true.

From: Ste on 17 Feb 2010 12:51
On 17 Feb, 16:07, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 17, 10:04 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > 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.
>
> > I'm afraid that was not my conclusion. As I've said, these
> > possibilities only seem credible to those who already hold them to be
> > credible.
>
> Well, how could they seem credible to people who don't hold them
> credible?

I fear the answer follows naturally from the question: they don't seem
credible, to people who don't hold them to be credible.



> Or do you think we were born knowing these things?

I suspect the material reasons behind axiomatic beliefs are myriad,
but I don't discount the possibility that people may indeed be
psychologically predisposed to certain beliefs as a form of social
specialisation.
From: PD on 17 Feb 2010 12:59
On Feb 17, 10:13 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
> On Feb 16, 2:04 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 16, 12:57 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 16, 1:46 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Picking and choosing your definitions, Ken?
> > > > Look at the definitions I highlighted for you.
> > > > Look at your freshman physics textbook. Does it tell you that the
> > > > electric field is not physical?
>
> > > In the past you insisted that length contraction in SR is physical and
> > > at that time you think that physical means material.
>
> > No, sir, I *never* said length contraction was material. I said it was
> > PHYSICAL.
>
> > > You even
> > > suggested that length contraction can be measured directly by shooting
> > > lasers from the ends of a moving ruler to the rest frame of the
> > > observer.
>
> > Yes, it is MEASURABLE. Physical things are measurable.
> > Energy is MEASURABLE, it is not material.
> > Magnetic fields are MEASURABLE, they are not material.
> > Radio waves are MEASURABLE, they are not material.
>
> > > So you see you think that length contraction in SR is
> > > material.
>
> > No, it is MEASURABLE. It is not material.
>
> > > Also your SR brother Inertial said in this thread that contraction in
> > > SR means that the atoms get closer....this means material contraction..
>
> > Ken, rather than desperately trying to gather excuses to support your
> > mistaken impression, why don't you just take another look at the
> > correct definitions for physical that I've already shown you? Why
> > don't you reread your freshman physics text again, and check whether
> > it says the electric field is not physical? If you've made a small
> > mistake, then CORRECT IT and move on. If you cannot ever correct a
> > small mistake, you'll never get out of square one. You'll spend all
> > your time searching newsgroups for support for your mistake.
>
> > PD
>
> I am tired of arguing with an idiot like you.

Then stop arguing. You don't learn anything by arguing. You learn by
reading materials, not by visiting a newsgroup.

> Some ridiculus assertions made by you and some of your SR brothers are
> as follows:
> 1. In the pole and the barn scenario:
> SR claims that an 80 ft material pole is able to fit into 40 ft
> material barn but SR also made the contradictory claim that an 80 ft
> material pole is not able to fit into a 40 ft material barn.
> Inertial said that the atoms in the moving pole is closer
> together......this means material contraction but PD claims that this
> does not mean that the pole is materially shorter.
> Tom Roberts said that: it depends on what you mean by physical then
> follow by saying that  "Generally, they would consider a "physical
> length contraction" to mean that the object ITSELF gets physically
> shorter. This is manifestly not so in SR." TR said in the past that
> length contraction in SR is a geometric projection effect ....much
> like a longer ladder is able to fit through a narrow door way. I agree
> that geometric length contraction is not physical or material
> contraction.
> PD claims that the pole is physically contracted but not materially
> contracted. He seem to have a new meaning for the term "physical
> contraction"...a meaning that is in between material length
> contraction and geometric projection length contraction effect.
>
> Notice that I didn't make any claim of my own...I am trying to find
> out which of the above assertions is the correct SR interpretation.

You have mistaken your confusion for contradictions. There are no
contradictions in relativity, although it is plain you are completely
confused. You would like somebody to please teach you a consistent
statement about relativity on this newsgroup.

I've told you over and over and over again to stop trying to get that
from a newsgroup and start picking up a book.

>
> 2. In the Bug and the Rivet Paradox: SR claims that the bug is alive.
> SR also made the contradictory claim that the bug is dead.

No, SR does NOT make the statement the bug is alive. What happened is
that you found a website that says that SR says the bug is alive. That
website is WRONG. But because you insist on learning from websites and
newsgroups, you get confused by them.

If you spend your time trying to learn with stuff you can get for
free, you will get garbage along with the real stuff, and you'll never
know the difference, and you'll be perpetually confused. Look at
yourself, Ken, you've been confused for 15 years.

>
> 3. In Einstein's train gedanken: SR claims that the speed of light in
> the train is isotropic as measured by the observer in the train M'.
> However SR also claims that M' is moving wrt the light fronts from the
> strikes and thus M' should not be able to measure the speed of light
> to be isotropic.

No, anisotropic closing speed does NOT mean that the lightspeed should
be anisotropic.

>
> 4. A and B are in relative motion SR claims that A will see B's clock
> is running slow by a factor of 1/gamma and at the same time B will see
> A's clock is running slow by a factor of 1/gamma.

That's not a contradiction either. You just don't see how it's
possible. That's something completely different.

>
> Ken Seto

From: mpalenik on 17 Feb 2010 13:04
On Feb 17, 12:51 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 17 Feb, 16:07, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 17, 10:04 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > 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.
>
> > > I'm afraid that was not my conclusion. As I've said, these
> > > possibilities only seem credible to those who already hold them to be
> > > credible.
>
> > Well, how could they seem credible to people who don't hold them
> > credible?
>
> I fear the answer follows naturally from the question: they don't seem
> credible, to people who don't hold them to be credible.

That is true by definition

>
> > Or do you think we were born knowing these things?
>
> I suspect the material reasons behind axiomatic beliefs are myriad,
> but I don't discount the possibility that people may indeed be
> psychologically predisposed to certain beliefs as a form of social
> specialisation.

Except for you, right?
From: PD on 17 Feb 2010 13:05
On Feb 17, 11:51 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 17 Feb, 16:07, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 17, 10:04 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > 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.
>
> > > I'm afraid that was not my conclusion. As I've said, these
> > > possibilities only seem credible to those who already hold them to be
> > > credible.
>
> > Well, how could they seem credible to people who don't hold them
> > credible?
>
> I fear the answer follows naturally from the question: they don't seem
> credible, to people who don't hold them to be credible.
>
> > Or do you think we were born knowing these things?
>
> I suspect the material reasons behind axiomatic beliefs are myriad,
> but I don't discount the possibility that people may indeed be
> psychologically predisposed to certain beliefs as a form of social
> specialisation.

And the people who are so disposed are less inclined to be scientists.
For scientists work very hard to call axiomatic beliefs into question.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54
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