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 18 Feb 2010 09:43
On 18 Feb, 10:08, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 17, 2:14 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > 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.
>
> I was trying to find out why you even made the statement in the first
> place.  You might as well have said "the only people who are tall are
> the ones who aren't short."

I'm confused Mark.

My position is that someone must hold a priori that alternate
dimensions are a real possibility, in order to hold that any theory
that employs alternate dimensions is credible. Some here do hold that
alternate dimensions are a real possibility, so of course they hold
theories that employ them as credible.

I don't hold that alternate dimensions are a real possibility, so of
course I don't accept that theories that employ them are credible.

You asked "how could they seem credible to people who don't hold them
credible", and my answer is that, indeed, they simply *don't* (and
never will)seem credible to people who don't already hold that
alternate dimensions are a real possibility.

If what you're really asking is "how can people who hold alternate
dimension theories to be incredible, be convinced that they are
credible", the answer is "only with unequivocal and overwhelming
observational evidence".
From: PD on 18 Feb 2010 09:47
On Feb 18, 8:03 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 17 Feb, 21:47, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 17, 2:38 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Document that, please. The definition I gave of both those terms is
> > > > the one that is generally accepted in the physics profession. Do you
> > > > have evidence otherwise?
>
> > > Yes, you provided the evidence yourself with "string theory",
>
> > I believe I conveyed to you that, speaking to each other, physicists
> > usually do not call "string theory" a theory, for precisely the reason
> > that it fails to meet the criteria of a theory. However, physicists do
> > use the term "string theory" in colloquial language for the sake of
> > readers of popularizations and general public periodicals and TV
> > shows. This is an attempt to make the subject accessible to that
> > audience, though at the expense of accuracy, exactly as I alluded to
> > earlier.
>
> I simply disagree. Physicists *do* call "string theory" a theory.

Not to each other, generally. To laypeople, sure, because they're
using the *conventional* and loose meaning of that word, which I
believe is what you were *asking* physicists to do, and as a result
there is confusion about the term, which is exactly what you buy into
when conventional language is used.

>
> > > and
> > > indeed you don't commit yourself any stronger than talking of the
> > > "generally accepted definition". And yet, as I say, this convention is
> > > regularly flouted, and it just becomes ludicrous to justify it in
> > > terms of "well they are a minority", "that was a popularisation", etc..
>
> > On the contrary, I just got through explaining to you that scientists
> > DO use conventional language in popularizations, with full risk that
> > it may introduce verbal ambiguity and lead to misconceptions, because
> > the aim of popularization is not to teach but to inspire readers to
> > read more carefully prepared materials suitable for teaching.
>
> Rubbish. Words mean what people understand them to mean

Not entirely. Words mean what people INTEND them to mean, as well.
When there is synchronization between what people understand them to
mean and what people intend them to mean, then there is solid
communication. And when there is not, it is not.

Solid communication is absolutely essential in the teaching
environment, and so in that environment, great care is spent on that
synchronization. "In this course, this is what we will mean by this
word." In an open discussion forum like this, not so much.

> - the idea
> that physicists "speak a different language at work", or go into some
> sort of mode of "serious discussion" where they use only the special
> meanings, is just ludicrous.

I'm sorry, but it's true. There is a distinct difference in the
language used in professional literature intended for intra-field
communication and the the language used in popularizations.

> The word "theory" has no consistent
> special definition amongst the scientific community, and I'm simply
> not willing to accept your contentions otherwise.

That's of course your choice. But that's a choice to be wrong. It's
not a matter of opinion.

> At best, I'm willing
> to accept that *you* attribute a specialised meaning to the word, but
> that reinforces my view that too many people here spend too long
> arguing about words, which are in fact being used correctly within
> their accepted definitions and context, instead of getting on with a
> substantive argument.

You can see how bogged down substantive arguments get when there isn't
a clear mutual understanding about the meaning of words.

>
> > > As for "material", as I say, if you're discussing anything
> > > philosophical then it alludes to "materialism",
>
> > Philosophy is not physics.
>
> It is when we're talking about the nature of the real world, which is
> exactly the context in which these words cropped up.

No, sir, they are NOT the same when we're talking about the nature of
the real world.
Science as a study of the nature of the real world is markedly
different than philosophy, in methodology, in the confidence in truth
value it associates with statements made, and in other respects as
well. I have a degree both in philosophy and in physics, and I'm
keenly aware of the differences between the two.

>
> > > Broadly I agree that words should be used within their correct
> > > definitions, and this is one situation where a correction would be in
> > > order.
>
> > > But there is no argument that words, like "theory", should be given an
> > > unwarranted narrower definition than their legitimate everyday
> > > meaning, simply because one is talking to a specialist - unless, of
> > > course, it is expressly stipulated that the narrower definition will
> > > be used for the time being for the sake of necessary accuracy.
>
> > I disagree. In a teaching environment, that is EXACTLY the stipulation
> > that is made, over and over again as the terms come up in the course
> > of study. "Momentum", "velocity", "energy", "heat", "field",
> > "potential", "mass" are all examples of terms that are very carefully
> > segregated from conventional usage in the context of physics.
>
> But the point is that, within physics, words like velocity *are* used
> very consistently in their specialised meaning, and they have a very
> rigorous definition.

Yes, although that definition is not understood by the "ordinary man",
who would readily make the mistake of thinking that something that is
going at a constant 20 mph has a constant velocity. Hence a mismatch.

> "Theory" is completely the opposite - it is
> consistently used as loosely as the everyday meaning even amongst
> professionals, and it's alleged specialised meaning is very ill-
> defined.

I disagree. You may not be familiar with the definition, or you may
choose to believe that if the definition exists, it is not used in
connotation.

From: PD on 18 Feb 2010 09:49
On Feb 17, 7:27 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 17, 12:36 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> Since 'you' do not understand what is occurring in nature in a double
> slit experiment 'you' invented a new type of object. Obviously, this
> was unnecessary and a mistake.

On what basis is it a mistake? How can you tell when the
identification of a new object type is a mistake?

> The particle has a physical aether
> wave. so. the new type of object was a mistake but for whatever
> 'reasoning' beyond the more correct explanation of what is occurring
> in nature, 'you' insist a particle of matter is able to create an
> interference pattern in and of itself in a double slit experiment.
>
> This state of denial you choose to exist in has now forced you to
> choose to believe the future determines the past.
>
> A moving particle of matter has an associated aether displacement
> wave.
>
> > > 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 18 Feb 2010 09:51
On Feb 17, 7:22 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 17, 12:36 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > 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.
>
> Of course the posters refusal to answer the question shows they think
> your notion of the C-60 molecule entering one or multiple slits
> depending upon detectors being placed at the exits or not in the
> future is absurd.

So if people ignore you, then they are agreeing with you?
Why don't you ask the poster directly, and not make any conclusion
until you have an answer?
Or do you make up answers in the absence of evidence? Why yes, yes you
do.

>
> Why wouldn't the poster simply respond with a 'yes' if they agreed
> with your absurd nonsense? The poster's non-answer demonstrates they
> suffer from delusional denial just like you do.

So a non-answer means "no"?

Nice. So if nobody responds to you at all, you'll take that as
implicit agreement with everything you say?

Have you had a change in medication lately?

>
> A C-60 molecule is a particle of matter and has an associated aether
> displacement wave. The displacement wave enters and exits the
> available slits and creates interference when exiting the slits. The
> interference alters the direction the C-60 molecule travels. Detectors
> at the exits to the slits causes decoherence of the associated
> displacement wave (the waves are turned into chop) and there is no
> interference.
>
>
>
> > > > > 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: Vern on 18 Feb 2010 10:18
On Feb 15, 11:21 am, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

> A perfectly systematic way is to observe theCMBR, determine your
> Doppler shift.  This tells you both your speed and direction relative
> to the aether.  This of course takes as a base assumption that such EM
> radiation is a manifestation the background 'noise' of such a medium.
> Thus you conclude that, if c is 'measured' as a constant the wave
> speed c' is c -v(Cos z) where angle z is the angle relative to the
> direction of motion.  You allow for the fact that the Lorentz
> contraction affects all moving fields and accept that time dilation is
> exactly as it was expect if the MMX type apparatus would have seen IF
> the Lorentz contraction didn't occur.
>
> Since every material system is held together by fields, and these
> fields undergo the Lorentz contraction when in motion, the mathematics
> 'conspire' to make it impossible to take a measurement of changes in
> wave speed by round trip signaling in material systems.  This method
> does however give you the baseline speed.
>
> As both LET and SR demonstrate, one can take advantage of this fact to
> establish a system of measurements that take advantage of the quirk of
> mathematics and use wave speed c as an invariant.
>
> Both ways of looking at it doesn't change actual physical reality.

Paul, I wanted to get your perspective on motion relative to the
ether. If you use the CMBR, the Earth is moving at approx. 640 km/s
around the galactic center as opposed to approx. 30 km/s around the
Sun. The Lorentz contraction can't account for both for MMXs done on
the Earth's surface and as the 640 km/s is more of the actual
velocity, that is the figure that should be used. Obviously, Lorentz
was not aware of the motion of the solar system wrt the galactic
center. Given the results of Sagnac-type experiments and the above
reasoning, I think the evidence indicates that there are circulatory
(and inflow) ether patterns around all celestial objects superimposed
upon the stationary ether assumed in the luminferous aether days (the
CMBR). This obviously would account for the null of the MMX without
the need for the Lorentz contraction but doesn't nullify the Lorentz
contraction concept for any motion wrt the ether, such as in GPS. I
wondered though, how this jives with your concepts of shadowing models
(Le Sage) for gravity.

Vern
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64
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