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 17 Feb 2010 14:14
On 17 Feb, 18:04, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> 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

I know, which makes one wonder why you asked the question in the first
place.



> > > 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?

No I meant including me.
From: Ste on 17 Feb 2010 14:18
On 17 Feb, 18:24, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 17, 11:39 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 17 Feb, 16:00, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 17, 7:04 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.
>
> > > What I've seen here, and even in some books, is a vague improper use
> > > of the term dimension.  From what I can tell, the term is strictly as
> > > used, a mathematical concept.  See:
>
> > >http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Dimension.html
>
> > > It is often confused with the concept of physical properties such as
> > > mass, length, time, charge.  Since two of these (length and time) are
> > > modeled using geometrical dimensionality this leads to the confusion.
> > > Adding further to this is the unitary systems we assign to the
> > > physical properties (kilogram, meter, second, Coulomb, ... etc.).  A
> > > dimension has no physical existence and a physical property has no
> > > inherent unitary values, we must combine these concepts to make,
> > > quantify, and describe physical systems and processes.
>
> > > As time goes on we get more creative on assigning the term.  In
> > > relativity where we have,
>
> > >                         dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 - ds^2 = 0
>
> > > The s (ct) term isn't itself a simply point, it's a computed
> > > projection of a destination (point) dependent upon a physical
> > > property, the speed c.  To have strict orthogonal axes c must remain
> > > constant over infinite space.  In turn, if this were true, there would
> > > be no need for the hydrodynamical equation of General relativity.  In
> > > fact, all observational evidence to date supports the fact that, by
> > > strict definition of the term dimension only three primal or actual
> > > dimensions exist and time is 'mapped' into pseudo forth using the
> > > physical property of c to do so.
>
> > Indeed. Some people look at you funny when you talk of something like
> > a "five-dimensional database".
>
> > I'm convinced that the essential need for the 4th dimension in
> > relativity, and the significance of 'c', is simply because
> > electromagnetic propagation delays have become practically
> > significant.
>
> Then you are erroneously convinced.
> You may recall that we were discussing how to determine simultaneity
> when those propagation delays are fully accounted for.

Well, we'll work though that after I have a clear picture of how light
moves.



> > Before the end of the 19th century and the development of
> > electromagnetic communications over long distances, electromagnetic
> > effects for all practical purposes moved instantaneously.
>
> And that's just flat wrong. Well before the 19th century, the
> aberration of the orbit of Jupiter was *known* to be due to the
> propagation delay of light.

I know. I didn't say "no one knew the speed of light was finite". I'm
saying that there was no need to formalise it for any practical
purpose.
From: BURT on 17 Feb 2010 14:28
On Feb 17, 11:18 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 17 Feb, 18:24, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 17, 11:39 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 17 Feb, 16:00, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 17, 7:04 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.
>
> > > > What I've seen here, and even in some books, is a vague improper use
> > > > of the term dimension.  From what I can tell, the term is strictly as
> > > > used, a mathematical concept.  See:
>
> > > >http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Dimension.html
>
> > > > It is often confused with the concept of physical properties such as
> > > > mass, length, time, charge.  Since two of these (length and time) are
> > > > modeled using geometrical dimensionality this leads to the confusion.
> > > > Adding further to this is the unitary systems we assign to the
> > > > physical properties (kilogram, meter, second, Coulomb, ... etc.).  A
> > > > dimension has no physical existence and a physical property has no
> > > > inherent unitary values, we must combine these concepts to make,
> > > > quantify, and describe physical systems and processes.
>
> > > > As time goes on we get more creative on assigning the term.  In
> > > > relativity where we have,
>
> > > >                         dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 - ds^2 = 0
>
> > > > The s (ct) term isn't itself a simply point, it's a computed
> > > > projection of a destination (point) dependent upon a physical
> > > > property, the speed c.  To have strict orthogonal axes c must remain
> > > > constant over infinite space.  In turn, if this were true, there would
> > > > be no need for the hydrodynamical equation of General relativity.  In
> > > > fact, all observational evidence to date supports the fact that, by
> > > > strict definition of the term dimension only three primal or actual
> > > > dimensions exist and time is 'mapped' into pseudo forth using the
> > > > physical property of c to do so.
>
> > > Indeed. Some people look at you funny when you talk of something like
> > > a "five-dimensional database".
>
> > > I'm convinced that the essential need for the 4th dimension in
> > > relativity, and the significance of 'c', is simply because
> > > electromagnetic propagation delays have become practically
> > > significant.
>
> > Then you are erroneously convinced.
> > You may recall that we were discussing how to determine simultaneity
> > when those propagation delays are fully accounted for.
>
> Well, we'll work though that after I have a clear picture of how light
> moves.
>
> > > Before the end of the 19th century and the development of
> > > electromagnetic communications over long distances, electromagnetic
> > > effects for all practical purposes moved instantaneously.
>
> > And that's just flat wrong. Well before the 19th century, the
> > aberration of the orbit of Jupiter was *known* to be due to the
> > propagation delay of light.
>
> I know. I didn't say "no one knew the speed of light was finite". I'm
> saying that there was no need to formalise it for any practical
> purpose.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Light is the dual Unified force that communicates in the universe.

Mitch Raemsch
From: BURT on 17 Feb 2010 14:34
On Feb 17, 11:18 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 17 Feb, 18:24, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 17, 11:39 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 17 Feb, 16:00, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 17, 7:04 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.
>
> > > > What I've seen here, and even in some books, is a vague improper use
> > > > of the term dimension.  From what I can tell, the term is strictly as
> > > > used, a mathematical concept.  See:
>
> > > >http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Dimension.html
>
> > > > It is often confused with the concept of physical properties such as
> > > > mass, length, time, charge.  Since two of these (length and time) are
> > > > modeled using geometrical dimensionality this leads to the confusion.
> > > > Adding further to this is the unitary systems we assign to the
> > > > physical properties (kilogram, meter, second, Coulomb, ... etc.).  A
> > > > dimension has no physical existence and a physical property has no
> > > > inherent unitary values, we must combine these concepts to make,
> > > > quantify, and describe physical systems and processes.
>
> > > > As time goes on we get more creative on assigning the term.  In
> > > > relativity where we have,
>
> > > >                         dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 - ds^2 = 0
>
> > > > The s (ct) term isn't itself a simply point, it's a computed
> > > > projection of a destination (point) dependent upon a physical
> > > > property, the speed c.  To have strict orthogonal axes c must remain
> > > > constant over infinite space.  In turn, if this were true, there would
> > > > be no need for the hydrodynamical equation of General relativity.  In
> > > > fact, all observational evidence to date supports the fact that, by
> > > > strict definition of the term dimension only three primal or actual
> > > > dimensions exist and time is 'mapped' into pseudo forth using the
> > > > physical property of c to do so.
>
> > > Indeed. Some people look at you funny when you talk of something like
> > > a "five-dimensional database".
>
> > > I'm convinced that the essential need for the 4th dimension in
> > > relativity, and the significance of 'c', is simply because
> > > electromagnetic propagation delays have become practically
> > > significant.
>
> > Then you are erroneously convinced.
> > You may recall that we were discussing how to determine simultaneity
> > when those propagation delays are fully accounted for.
>
> Well, we'll work though that after I have a clear picture of how light
> moves.
>
> > > Before the end of the 19th century and the development of
> > > electromagnetic communications over long distances, electromagnetic
> > > effects for all practical purposes moved instantaneously.
>
> > And that's just flat wrong. Well before the 19th century, the
> > aberration of the orbit of Jupiter was *known* to be due to the
> > propagation delay of light.
>
> I know. I didn't say "no one knew the speed of light was finite". I'm
> saying that there was no need to formalise it for any practical
> purpose.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The speed of light establishes that it is nonlocal.

It does not move infinitely fast.

Mitch Raemsch
From: PD on 17 Feb 2010 14:35
On Feb 17, 1:18 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 17 Feb, 18:24, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 17, 11:39 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 17 Feb, 16:00, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 17, 7:04 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.
>
> > > > What I've seen here, and even in some books, is a vague improper use
> > > > of the term dimension.  From what I can tell, the term is strictly as
> > > > used, a mathematical concept.  See:
>
> > > >http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Dimension.html
>
> > > > It is often confused with the concept of physical properties such as
> > > > mass, length, time, charge.  Since two of these (length and time) are
> > > > modeled using geometrical dimensionality this leads to the confusion.
> > > > Adding further to this is the unitary systems we assign to the
> > > > physical properties (kilogram, meter, second, Coulomb, ... etc.).  A
> > > > dimension has no physical existence and a physical property has no
> > > > inherent unitary values, we must combine these concepts to make,
> > > > quantify, and describe physical systems and processes.
>
> > > > As time goes on we get more creative on assigning the term.  In
> > > > relativity where we have,
>
> > > >                         dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 - ds^2 = 0
>
> > > > The s (ct) term isn't itself a simply point, it's a computed
> > > > projection of a destination (point) dependent upon a physical
> > > > property, the speed c.  To have strict orthogonal axes c must remain
> > > > constant over infinite space.  In turn, if this were true, there would
> > > > be no need for the hydrodynamical equation of General relativity.  In
> > > > fact, all observational evidence to date supports the fact that, by
> > > > strict definition of the term dimension only three primal or actual
> > > > dimensions exist and time is 'mapped' into pseudo forth using the
> > > > physical property of c to do so.
>
> > > Indeed. Some people look at you funny when you talk of something like
> > > a "five-dimensional database".
>
> > > I'm convinced that the essential need for the 4th dimension in
> > > relativity, and the significance of 'c', is simply because
> > > electromagnetic propagation delays have become practically
> > > significant.
>
> > Then you are erroneously convinced.
> > You may recall that we were discussing how to determine simultaneity
> > when those propagation delays are fully accounted for.
>
> Well, we'll work though that after I have a clear picture of how light
> moves.

Alright, then all I ask is that you hold on pause your conviction that
this is all due to propagation delays, since you have no solid grounds
for believing that yet.

>
> > > Before the end of the 19th century and the development of
> > > electromagnetic communications over long distances, electromagnetic
> > > effects for all practical purposes moved instantaneously.
>
> > And that's just flat wrong. Well before the 19th century, the
> > aberration of the orbit of Jupiter was *known* to be due to the
> > propagation delay of light.
>
> I know. I didn't say "no one knew the speed of light was finite". I'm
> saying that there was no need to formalise it for any practical
> purpose.

And that's STILL incorrect. It was important to know where Jupiter
*really* was in orbit, compared with where it *appeared* to be due to
propagation delays.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56
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