"Causality" or "determinism"?
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: ARINDAM BANERJEE, THE greatest cuckoo of all time
Next: How is SR this probability problem explained?
From: Mike Ash on 9 Mar 2010 00:34 In article <b081f827-cdf1-4f23-804d-f499b6ac0bd2(a)b30g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, Tue Sorensen <sorensonian(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 9 Mar., 05:54, Erik Max Francis <m...(a)alcyone.com> wrote: > > Tue Sorensen wrote: > > > I make a point out of learning something all the time. I have an > > > insatiable thirst for knowledge. ... > > > > > One of the major ideas I have is that physicists have stared > > > themselves blind on the matter-energy equivalence. Instead, matter and > > > energy (and I basically understand EMR as energy), > > > > And you've already been told in this very thread only day before > > yesterday that photons and energy are not the same thing. �After being > > given a blatantly obvious example (namely, potential energy) that > > demonstrates that the idea can't be right, you claimed at the time to > > understand this and take it into account: �"Okay, that's a good point. > > I'll have to give that some thought." > > > > But here you, repeating the incorrect nonsense again, as a premise for > > kicking off the rest of your ramblings. �We don't have read further; > > first error in your reasoning means that you've got to start over. > > > > I submit your insatiable thirst for knowledge isn't going so well. > > Whether you're really thirsty or not (you keep insisting that somehow > > your ignorance of current theory is an asset -- which implies not), it's > > quite obvious that you're not trying very hard. > > I'm not very impressed with your non-existent inclination to enlighten > me, either. Yet another sign of a kook: when told that you're wrong, and when the fault is explained precisely ("photons and energy are not the same thing"), you still somehow manage to complain that the criticism is not constructive. For somebody who's so insistent he's not a kook, you sure display all the signs, including ones not related to being unable to articulate your pet ideas. -- Mike Ash Radio Free Earth Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon
From: Tue Sorensen on 9 Mar 2010 00:50 On 9 Mar., 05:11, thro...(a)sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote: > : Tue Sorensen <sorenson...(a)gmail.com> > : One of the major ideas I have is that physicists have stared > : themselves blind on the matter-energy equivalence. > > And you seem to be saying that you prefer not to know what they have > concluded, to keep yourself from preconceptions. That this is an actual > advantage. This is remarkably wrong-headed and short-sighted of you, > and so I remark upon it. > > : If you think this idea MUST be wrong, > > I'm not commenting on your idea(s), because so far, here, you've presented > mere word salad, so there's not much to comment on. I'm commenting > on your methodology, how you evaluate what "seems logical", and your > accounts/hopes/whatnot of how your ideas will be an improvement on > current theory. All of which are not promising. Not promising at all. You know, that attitude actually convinces me that you are precisely the kind of person who *has* become blind to the big picture by overindulging in constraining technical details that may be pointing in wrong directions. Of course I realize that this amounts to your feeling the exact same (only inverse) way about my attitude, so we are at an impasse. Incapable of communicating, incapable of constructive discussion, incapable and deeply mistrustful of mutual education. A shame. I might be wrong. But - from my perspective, anyway - so may you. This has been a disappointingly unproductive discourse. If your purpose in being here is to serve as educator and facilitator and promoter of knowledge, then your have failed. I want to increase my understanding. You just want to strike me down for daring to have two thoughts of my own to rub together. My feeling in coming here has been like a piece of carrion beset by vultures. I hope you have eaten your fill. - Tue
From: Tue Sorensen on 9 Mar 2010 01:04 On 9 Mar., 06:13, Erik Max Francis <m...(a)alcyone.com> wrote: > Tue Sorensen wrote: > > On 9 Mar., 05:54, Erik Max Francis <m...(a)alcyone.com> wrote: > >> Tue Sorensen wrote: > >>> I make a point out of learning something all the time. I have an > >>> insatiable thirst for knowledge. ... > >>> One of the major ideas I have is that physicists have stared > >>> themselves blind on the matter-energy equivalence. Instead, matter and > >>> energy (and I basically understand EMR as energy), > >> And you've already been told in this very thread only day before > >> yesterday that photons and energy are not the same thing. After being > >> given a blatantly obvious example (namely, potential energy) that > >> demonstrates that the idea can't be right, you claimed at the time to > >> understand this and take it into account: "Okay, that's a good point. > >> I'll have to give that some thought." > > >> But here you, repeating the incorrect nonsense again, as a premise for > >> kicking off the rest of your ramblings. We don't have read further; > >> first error in your reasoning means that you've got to start over. > > > I'm not very impressed with your non-existent inclination to enlighten > > me, either. > > Can you read? You mean the part I mentioned just above where I pointed > out why your mistaken impression on the relation between photons and > energy was wrong and gave an example that demonstrated it enough that > (at the time) acknowledged it must be true? But where does kinetic and potential energy come from originally? Has it not all been passed on from the *energy* that came out of the big bang? Energy which quite literally started out as heat and electromagnetic radiation? Until I get proper, useful answers, I continue to be unimpressed. - Tue
From: Wayne Throop on 9 Mar 2010 01:01 : Tue Sorensen <sorensonian(a)gmail.com> : You know, that attitude actually convinces me that you are precisely : the kind of person who *has* become blind to the big picture Why of course it does. Everybody knows the big picture is the important thing, and fiddly little details like understanding the observations the big picture is supposed to depict, dont count. Einstein wasted the years he spent in fiddly little details of tensor calculus, when all he needed to do to assure his wealth and fame was mutter something about "warped space" and "big picture", and the world would have lauded a brave new paradigm. Without any of the hard work, nor any need to attend schools in Europe and deal with dour and demanding professors. : This has been a disappointingly unproductive discourse. Eh, it happens. Next time try removing your fingers from your ears, and leave off shouting LA-LA-LA-LA-LA at least part of the time. Might be more productive for you. : I want to increase my understanding. Apparently, only as long as you don't have to actually, you know, find out what physicists actually say, or, heaven forfend, learn the definitions of the words they use. I'd suggest starting with a historical look at where terms like "mass", "force", "energy" "momentum" come from and how they are (and were) actually used, before you go giving your own conflicting definitions, and trying to interpret (or misinterpret) them in terms of particles and waves. You know, crawl before you walk, walk before you run, put descartes before dehorse, all that. More concretely, if you really wanted to learn, you wouldn't have ignored/dismissed/forgotten that people have told you things like exactly why photons aren't the same thing as energy, and why current physical theory has no hidden variables. The facts are out there, and they've even been pitched at you. You keep ducking. In ahort, your behaviors are very much at odds with your stated goals. Ya got a hole in yer glove, boy. I keep pitchin' 'em and you keep missin' 'em. --- Foghorn Leghorn Wayne Throop throopw(a)sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
From: Wayne Throop on 9 Mar 2010 01:37
: Tue Sorensen <sorensonian(a)gmail.com> : But where does kinetic and potential energy come from originally? Has : it not all been passed on from the *energy* that came out of the big : bang? Energy which quite literally started out as heat and : electromagnetic radiation? No. Electromagnetic radiation was late to the party, and wasn't the source of the energy in the big bang to start with (according to current cosmologies based on general relativity and quantum mechanics). Electomagnetism doesn't even get separated from the electoweak force until after a picosecond, and even then, hadrons and leptons dominate until 20 minutes into it. And that's entirely in addition to the fact that that's moving the goalposts, since you were discussing forms energy *takes*, not where it comes from. If you actually want to read about the big bang and possibly even *gasp* learn something, start with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphical_timeline_of_the_Big_Bang Wayne Throop throopw(a)sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw |