Prev: The Recognition of Insanity in the Public Sphere (was Re: The detectionof motion by weight)
Next: Quantum Entanglement
From: eon on 14 May 2010 05:31
On May 14, 4:55 am, dlzc <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote:
> Dear eon:
>
> On May 13, 10:46 am, eon <ynes9...(a)techemail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 13, 4:55 pm, dlzc <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote:
> > > On May 13, 3:37 am, eon <ynes9...(a)techemail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > simple question
>
> > > > why only space and time may appear
> > > > compressed / dilated and light may not ???
>
> > > wavelengths are similarly compressed / dilated.
>
> > how would you know that is not
> > the same wavelength light coming faster?
>
> Since we can only test two-way light speed, we can't. Maxwell's
> equations say it is only ever one speed.

are you just saying you are not
convinced that speed of light
is constant ??

>
> > > Photons are already
> > > "zero" size (experimentally), so any factor
> > > times zero is still zero.
>
> > how can it be zero when they have
> > momentum attached to it
>
> Electrons have momentum, and they have zero size too.

seems like an impossibility to me sir

zero size means _nothing_, which must
be even less than vacuum, otherwise
that _zero_ is not quite zero in a way

They only ever
> interact via their electric field.

not sure, this seems rather a limitation
of a measurement instrument

the prove for their non-zero size is
the cathode of a CRT monitor, which
with time becomes smaller because to
lose of electrons, while the anode
becomse thicker and you need to buy
another monitor

>
>
>
> > > > what is
>
> > > > 1. space?
>
> > > evolved from time via "conservation of
> > > momementum" (at least 2D) given multiple
> > > bodies (3D). (IMO)
>
> > i did not knew that it was that
> > simple, i quess
>
> > but i dont understand even more
>
> > space can be just there without any moment
> > in it, are you saying vacuum has moment?
>
> > space is not ether, i guess
>
> Space is not anything. You can't point to any place and say that
> there is no effect there from matter / energy "located" anywhere else.

therefore space must be something,
and is consistent, you cannot escape space

only at singularity, which is theoretical,
not real

>
> > > > 2. time?
>
> > > evolved from "net production of entropy". (IMO)
>
> > but space may exists without any time
> > flowing, the atoms still jiggle, no
> > need for time
>
> How can we disprove your supposition? Is there not vast quantities of
> light passing through any region of space, on its way from past to
> future?

past and future are not real anywhere

>
> > > > 3. light?
>
> > > either a discrete particle or continuous wave,
> > > depending on the experiment you set up.
>
> > my experiment determines the outcome
> > of a very constant of nature i may use
> > as input ???
>
> > impossible, i cannot tell nature what to be !
>
> Nature is what Nature is, but if you seek to measure the number of
> turtles around the pond, you don't get the tidal action that they
> represent. The tools you apply are specific to one measurement, and
> ignore (or gloss over) other possible measurements. No choices. And
> when you get to individual photons, Heisenberg starts being a large
> factor to deal with.

the wave and particles are xor, exclusive
or, mutually exclusive

i cannot ignore something that does not
exists

>
> > > We don't have access to underlying Reality.
> > > All we will ever have is the result of
> > > observation,
>
> > what exactly is an observation, an
> > adaptive detector?
>
> It is a result of a specific, narrowly "worded", question.

you mean using nature to detect nature,

or is observation is something else?

>
> > > and from that we "extrapolate"...
>
> > thanks and good bye
>
> David A. Smith

From: eon on 14 May 2010 05:35
On May 14, 5:53 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 13, 7:55 pm, dlzc <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Dear eon:
>
> > On May 13, 10:46 am, eon <ynes9...(a)techemail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 13, 4:55 pm, dlzc <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote:
> > > > On May 13, 3:37 am, eon <ynes9...(a)techemail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > simple question
>
> > > > > why only space and time may appear
> > > > > compressed / dilated and light may not ???
>
> > > > wavelengths are similarly compressed / dilated.
>
> > > how would you know that is not
> > > the same wavelength light coming faster?
>
> > Since we can only test two-way light speed, we can't. Maxwell's
> > equations say it is only ever one speed.
>
> > > > Photons are already
> > > > "zero" size (experimentally), so any factor
> > > > times zero is still zero.
>
> > > how can it be zero when they have
> > > momentum attached to it
>
> > Electrons have momentum, and they have zero size too. They only ever
> > interact via their electric field.
>
> > > > > what is
>
> > > > > 1. space?
>
> > > > evolved from time via "conservation of
> > > > momementum" (at least 2D) given multiple
> > > > bodies (3D). (IMO)
>
> > > i did not knew that it was that
> > > simple, i quess
>
> > > but i dont understand even more
>
> > > space can be just there without any moment
> > > in it, are you saying vacuum has moment?
>
> > > space is not ether, i guess
>
> > Space is not anything. You can't point to any place and say that
> > there is no effect there from matter / energy "located" anywhere else.
>
> > > > > 2. time?
>
> > > > evolved from "net production of entropy". (IMO)
>
> > > but space may exists without any time
> > > flowing, the atoms still jiggle, no
> > > need for time
>
> > How can we disprove your supposition? Is there not vast quantities of
> > light passing through any region of space, on its way from past to
> > future?
>
> > > > > 3. light?
>
> > > > either a discrete particle or continuous wave,
> > > > depending on the experiment you set up.
>
> > > my experiment determines the outcome
> > > of a very constant of nature i may use
> > > as input ???
>
> > > impossible, i cannot tell nature what to be !
>
> > Nature is what Nature is, but if you seek to measure the number of
> > turtles around the pond, you don't get the tidal action that they
> > represent. The tools you apply are specific to one measurement, and
> > ignore (or gloss over) other possible measurements. No choices. And
> > when you get to individual photons, Heisenberg starts being a large
> > factor to deal with.
>
> > > > We don't have access to underlying Reality.
> > > > All we will ever have is the result of
> > > > observation,
>
> > > what exactly is an observation, an
> > > adaptive detector?
>
> > It is a result of a specific, narrowly "worded", question.
>
> > > > and from that we "extrapolate"...
>
> > > thanks and good bye
>
> > David A. Smith- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> What size is light at emission?
> What if EM is a very low energy wave?

yes, it must be low, they coming from
soft shifts in energy level

> Does it appear all at once in space as in a nonlocal phenomenon?
>
> Or does all light grow?





>
> Mitch Raemsch

From: harald on 14 May 2010 07:54
On May 14, 11:31 am, eon <ynes9...(a)techemail.com> wrote:
> On May 14, 4:55 am, dlzc <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote:
[..]
> > > > > simple question
>
> > > > > why only space and time may appear
> > > > > compressed / dilated and light may not ???
>
> > > > wavelengths are similarly compressed / dilated.

But only similarly, not the same...

> > > how would you know that is not
> > > the same wavelength light coming faster?
>
> > Since we can only test two-way light speed, we can't.  Maxwell's
> > equations say it is only ever one speed.
>
> are you just saying you are not
> convinced that speed of light
> is constant ??

Hi eon, we can only state for sure what we measure!

> > > >  Photons are already
> > > > "zero" size (experimentally), so any factor
> > > > times zero is still zero.
>
> > > how can it be zero when they have
> > > momentum attached to it
>
> > Electrons have momentum, and they have zero size too.
>
> seems like an impossibility to me sir

I agree - in fact that is just a model *of* electrons. :-)

> zero size means _nothing_, which must
> be even less than vacuum, otherwise
> that _zero_ is not quite zero in a way
>
>   They only ever
>
> > interact via their electric field.
>
> not sure, this seems rather a limitation
> of a measurement instrument
>
> the prove for their non-zero size is
> the cathode of a CRT monitor, which
> with time becomes smaller because to
> lose of electrons, while the anode
> becomse thicker and you need to buy
> another monitor

:-)))

> > > > > what is
>
> > > > > 1. space?
>
> > > > evolved from time via "conservation of
> > > > momementum" (at least 2D) given multiple
> > > > bodies (3D).  (IMO)
>
> > > i did not knew that it was that
> > > simple, i quess
> > > but i dont understand even more

Others (such as Poincare) had the opinion that "space" is first of all
the extension that we make of the dimensions that we see around us.
That makes sense to me, it all surely started with stretching our arms
and measuring the world around us like that (the old unit "el" comes
from "elbow", and Americans still use "feet").

However, Newton introduced a different concept of "space", although he
preferred not to point that out: something that is present *in* above-
mentioned space and that directs motion - that we cannot directly
measure, but that is somehow "physical". Some people use the word
"vacuum" or (non-material) "ether" for the same idea.

> > > space can be just there without any moment
> > > in it, are you saying vacuum has moment?
>
> > > space is not ether, i guess

That depends: there have been many different kind of ether theories,
and Newton rejected the material, "fluid" kind of ether concept that
was around at his time. If space were filled with such an ether, it
would affect the planets in their motion.

> > Space is not anything.  You can't point to any place and say that
> > there is no effect there from matter / energy "located" anywhere else.
>
> therefore space must be something,
> and is consistent, you cannot escape space
>
> only at singularity, which is theoretical,
> not real

> > > > > 2. time?
>
> > > > evolved from "net production of entropy".  (IMO)
>
> > > but space may exists without any time
> > > flowing, the atoms still jiggle, no
> > > need for time

IMO, "time" is just a measure for the progress of physical processes -
such as how often your jiggling atoms jiggled compared with how often
the sun comes up. Speaking of that, the daily cycle was almost
certainly the first measurement of "time", so that the concept of time
originates with that observation.

[..]

> > > > > 3. light?
>
> > > > either a discrete particle or continuous wave,
> > > > depending on the experiment you set up.

Logically it's probably neither; but it has aspects of both, depending
how one "looks" at it.


[..]

> > > > We don't have access to underlying Reality.
> > > > All we will ever have is the result of
> > > > observation,
>
> > > what exactly is an observation, an
> > > adaptive detector?
>
> > It is a result of a specific, narrowly "worded", question.
>
> you mean using nature to detect nature,
> or is observation is something else?

It's for example a photo or an electrical signal or a clock reading
that results from an experiment.

Good luck in your search. :-)

Harald
From: mpc755 on 14 May 2010 08:14
On May 14, 7:54 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote:
> On May 14, 11:31 am, eon <ynes9...(a)techemail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 14, 4:55 am, dlzc <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote:
> [..]
> > > > > > simple question
>
> > > > > > why only space and time may appear
> > > > > > compressed / dilated and light may not ???
>
> > > > > wavelengths are similarly compressed / dilated.
>
> But only similarly, not the same...
>
> > > > how would you know that is not
> > > > the same wavelength light coming faster?
>
> > > Since we can only test two-way light speed, we can't.  Maxwell's
> > > equations say it is only ever one speed.
>
> > are you just saying you are not
> > convinced that speed of light
> > is constant ??
>
> Hi eon, we can only state for sure what we measure!
>
> > > > >  Photons are already
> > > > > "zero" size (experimentally), so any factor
> > > > > times zero is still zero.
>
> > > > how can it be zero when they have
> > > > momentum attached to it
>
> > > Electrons have momentum, and they have zero size too.
>
> > seems like an impossibility to me sir
>
> I agree - in fact that is just a model *of* electrons. :-)
>
>
>
> > zero size means _nothing_, which must
> > be even less than vacuum, otherwise
> > that _zero_ is not quite zero in a way
>
> >   They only ever
>
> > > interact via their electric field.
>
> > not sure, this seems rather a limitation
> > of a measurement instrument
>
> > the prove for their non-zero size is
> > the cathode of a CRT monitor, which
> > with time becomes smaller because to
> > lose of electrons, while the anode
> > becomse thicker and you need to buy
> > another monitor
>
> :-)))
>
> > > > > > what is
>
> > > > > > 1. space?
>
> > > > > evolved from time via "conservation of
> > > > > momementum" (at least 2D) given multiple
> > > > > bodies (3D).  (IMO)
>
> > > > i did not knew that it was that
> > > > simple, i quess
> > > > but i dont understand even more
>
> Others (such as Poincare) had the opinion that "space" is first of all
> the extension that we make of the dimensions that we see around us.
> That makes sense to me, it all surely started with stretching our arms
> and measuring the world around us like that (the old unit "el" comes
> from "elbow", and Americans still use "feet").
>
> However, Newton introduced a different concept of "space", although he
> preferred not to point that out: something that is present *in* above-
> mentioned space and that directs motion - that we cannot directly
> measure, but that is somehow "physical". Some people use the word
> "vacuum" or (non-material) "ether" for the same idea.
>
> > > > space can be just there without any moment
> > > > in it, are you saying vacuum has moment?
>
> > > > space is not ether, i guess
>
> That depends: there have been many different kind of ether theories,
> and Newton rejected the material, "fluid" kind of ether concept that
> was around at his time. If space were filled with such an ether, it
> would affect the planets in their motion.
>

The aether does affect the planets in their motion. It is the reason
for gravity.

'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html

"the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections
with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places".

The state of the aether as determined by its connections with the
matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the
aether's state of displacement.

'Luminiferous aether'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether

'A further reason why Newton rejected light as waves in a medium was
because such a medium would have to extend everywhere in space, and
would thereby "disturb and retard the Motions of those great
Bodies" (the planets and comets) and thus "as it [light's medium] is
of no use, and hinders the Operation of Nature, and makes her
languish, so there is no evidence for its Existence, and therefore it
ought to be rejected."'

Newton did not understand the notion of a frictionless superfluid or
supersolid. Newton did not understand a particles ability to 'flow'
through space 'undisturbed'.

Aether and matter are different states of the same material.
Aether is physically displaced by matter.
Displacement creates pressure.
Gravity is pressure exerted by the aether towards the matter.

'Frictionless supersolid a step closer'
http://www.physorg.com/news185201084.html

"Superfluidity and superconductivity cause particles to move without
friction. Koos Gubbels investigated under what conditions such
particles keep moving endlessly without losing energy, like a swimmer
who takes one mighty stroke and then keeps gliding forever along the
swimming pool."

In the analogy the swimmer is any body and the water is the aether.
Just as the swimmer displaces the water, whether the swimmer is at
rest with respect to the water, or not, a body displaces the aether,
whether the body is at rest with respect to the aether, or not.

In the analogy the moving swimmer creates a displacement wave in the
water. A moving body creates a displacement wave in the aether.

'On the super-fluid property of the relativistic physical vacuum
medium and the inertial motion of particles'
http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0701/0701155.pdf

"Abstract: The similarity between the energy spectra of relativistic
particles and that of quasi-particles in super-conductivity BCS theory
makes us conjecture that the relativistic physical vacuum medium as
the ground state of the background field is a super fluid medium, and
the rest mass of a relativistic particle is like the energy gap of a
quasi-particle. This conjecture is strongly supported by the results
of our following investigation: a particle moving through the vacuum
medium at a speed less than the speed of light in vacuum, though
interacting with the vacuum medium, never feels friction force and
thus undergoes a frictionless and inertial motion."

A particle in the super fluid medium displaces the super fluid medium,
whether the particle is at rest with respect to the super fluid
medium, or not. A moving particle creates a displacement wave in the
super fluid medium.

A particle in the aether displaces the aether, whether the particle is
at rest with respect to the aether, or not. The particle could be an
individual nucleus. A moving particle creates a displacement wave in
the aether.

Aether is displaced by an individual nucleus. When discussing gravity
as the pressure associated with the aether displaced by matter, what
is being discussed is the aether being displaced by each and every
nucleus which is the matter which is the object.

> > > Space is not anything.  You can't point to any place and say that
> > > there is no effect there from matter / energy "located" anywhere else..
>
> > therefore space must be something,
> > and is consistent, you cannot escape space
>
> > only at singularity, which is theoretical,
> > not real
> > > > > > 2. time?
>
> > > > > evolved from "net production of entropy".  (IMO)
>
> > > > but space may exists without any time
> > > > flowing, the atoms still jiggle, no
> > > > need for time
>
> IMO, "time" is just a measure for the progress of physical processes -
> such as how often your jiggling atoms jiggled compared with how often
> the sun comes up. Speaking of that, the daily cycle was almost
> certainly the first measurement of "time", so that the concept of time
> originates with that observation.
>
> [..]
>
> > > > > > 3. light?
>
> > > > > either a discrete particle or continuous wave,
> > > > > depending on the experiment you set up.
>
> Logically it's probably neither; but it has aspects of both, depending
> how one "looks" at it.
>
> [..]
>
> > > > > We don't have access to underlying Reality.
> > > > > All we will ever have is the result of
> > > > > observation,
>
> > > > what exactly is an observation, an
> > > > adaptive detector?
>
> > > It is a result of a specific, narrowly "worded", question.
>
> > you mean using nature to detect nature,
> > or is observation is something else?
>
> It's for example a photo or an electrical signal or a clock reading
> that results from an experiment.
>
> Good luck in your search. :-)
>
> Harald

From: dlzc on 14 May 2010 14:17
Dear eon:

On May 14, 2:31 am, eon <ynes9...(a)techemail.com> wrote:
> On May 14, 4:55 am,dlzc<dl...(a)cox.net> wrote:
> > On May 13, 10:46 am, eon <ynes9...(a)techemail.com> wrote:
> > > On May 13, 4:55 pm,dlzc<dl...(a)cox.net> wrote:
> > > > On May 13, 3:37 am, eon <ynes9...(a)techemail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > simple question
>
> > > > > why only space and time may appear
> > > > > compressed / dilated and light may not ???
>
> > > > wavelengths are similarly compressed / dilated.
>
> > > how would you know that is not
> > > the same wavelength light coming faster?
>
> > Since we can only test two-way light speed,
> > we can't.  Maxwell's equations say it is
> > only ever one speed.
>
> are you just saying you are not
> convinced that speed of light
> is constant ??

Nature does not care what I think. Aetherists ant to believe that
light has one speed with respect to the aether, and Nature will not
let us determine whether that one speed is with respect to all
objects, or the aether. So why take a stand you cannot defend?

> > > >  Photons are already
> > > > "zero" size (experimentally), so any factor
> > > > times zero is still zero.
>
> > > how can it be zero when they have
> > > momentum attached to it
>
> > Electrons have momentum, and they have zero
> > size too.
>
> seems like an impossibility to me sir

Tell Nature. We've checked, and electrons never change their
interactions from "horn blowing and swearing" to "broken glass and
fallen bumpers". They only ever interact via their field.

> zero size means _nothing_, which must
> be even less than vacuum, otherwise
> that _zero_ is not quite zero in a way

Since *space* is nothing (as we have discussed), then what precisely
does it mean to have a definite size? I think it means you have
photons (eventually, alone or in pairs) binding essentially sizeless
constituents. Electrons are not made up of other things...

> > They only ever
>
> > interact via their electric field.
>
> not sure, this seems rather a limitation
> of a measurement instrument

No.

> the prove for their non-zero size is
> the cathode of a CRT monitor, which
> with time becomes smaller because to
> lose of electrons, while the anode
> becomse thicker and you need to buy
> another monitor

You are moving atoms also, with the "beam current", and you vaporize
some material when the elctrons dissipate their momentum.

> > > > > what is
>
> > > > > 1. space?
>
> > > > evolved from time via "conservation of
> > > > momementum" (at least 2D) given multiple
> > > > bodies (3D).  (IMO)
>
> > > i did not knew that it was that
> > > simple, i quess
>
> > > but i dont understand even more
>
> > > space can be just there without any moment
> > > in it, are you saying vacuum has moment?
>
> > > space is not ether, i guess
>
> > Space is not anything.  You can't point to
> > any place and say that there is no effect
> > there from matter / energy "located" anywhere
> > else.
>
> therefore space must be something,
> and is consistent, you cannot escape space
>
> only at singularity, which is theoretical,
> not real

Space is formalae between cells in a cosmic spreadsheet. It is
nothing but a relationship between bits of matter and energy. That is
why it warps and woofs...

> > > > > 2. time?
>
> > > > evolved from "net production of entropy".  (IMO)
>
> > > but space may exists without any time
> > > flowing, the atoms still jiggle, no
> > > need for time
>
> > How can we disprove your supposition?  Is
> > there not vast quantities of light passing
> > through any region of space, on its way
> > from past to future?
>
> past and future are not real anywhere

Empty words, devoid of meaning, again impossible to disprove. I have
answered you. Will you not answer me?

> > > > > 3. light?
>
> > > > either a discrete particle or continuous wave,
> > > > depending on the experiment you set up.
>
> > > my experiment determines the outcome
> > > of a very constant of nature i may use
> > > as input ???
>
> > > impossible, i cannot tell nature what to be !
>
> > Nature is what Nature is, but if you seek to
> > measure the number of turtles around the
> > pond, you don't get the tidal action that
> > they represent.  The tools you apply are
> > specific to one measurement, and ignore (or
> > gloss over) other possible measurements.
> > No choices.  And when you get to individual
> > photons, Heisenberg starts being a large
> > factor to deal with.
>
> the wave and particles are xor, exclusive
> or, mutually exclusive
>
> i cannot ignore something that does not
> exists

The exclusivity comes from our defintions, not from Nature. We say
that something cannot be both red and white at the same time. Yet is
not white made up of red, also?

We say that a partcile has only finite extent in space, yet we know
that this is not true (gravitation for example). We say that a wave
is infinitely divisible, yet we also know this is not true for light.
Clearly our problem is in our language, which is not the language of
Nature. But we must continue to discuss amongst ourselves... so we
use the "baby language", and depend on wisdom and experience for the
rest...

Our models (wave. particle) are just tools. They allow us to
understand certain behaviors, and describe them. But they blind us
too.

> > > > We don't have access to underlying Reality.
> > > > All we will ever have is the result of
> > > > observation,
>
> > > what exactly is an observation, an
> > > adaptive detector?
>
> > It is a result of a specific, narrowly
> > "worded", question.
>
> you mean using nature to detect nature,
>
> or is observation is something else?

See the bit about langauge above.

David A. Smith
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: The Recognition of Insanity in the Public Sphere (was Re: The detectionof motion by weight)
Next: Quantum Entanglement