Misconceptions from bad use of language was Re: Two slit experiment
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Latest climate climbdown: the Royal Society reviews its statements on global warming
Next: In history the fact that the moon fits over the sun was proof of God
From: rick_s on 29 May 2010 14:47 Lets consider this again for a moment. The train. You toss a ball up on a train and Newton's laws apply. Uniform motion the ball is already in motion. Now Einstein said that it depends on your frame of reference. Newton said if we could stand back and examine the universe and plotted a grid on that universe we could have a coordinate system for absolute space. Einstein said we don't need to do that since we can't do that but we can do the same thing and map our local area or any local area providing we make the assumption that anywhere in the universe the laws are the same. And then we must not use a concept of universal time, since we can't see the hands on that clock, instead we need to use local time. And then we have to include that in our calculations as it applies specifically to the event. xyzt a point in time. Now depending on how accurate your measurements are, if you analyze that ball it is meeting resistance of the aether if you want to spell it that way since the ball has mass. Even in uniform motion but it would be very small. If the train accelerates you find out right away that you are moving wrt absolute space-time since your ball does not follow the same curved trajectory, it hits the back wall of the accellerating train as your head hits the seat rest. Acceleration being the time when mass meets the quantum foam, but light has no mass so acceleration does not affect it. However the medium it travels in, absolute space-time curves due to gravity, that is it is compressed, the quantum bubbles packed tighter together, the elastic foam bubbles smaller under pressure around a massive body, like shells that get farther apart as you move further away. So light just follows the contours of the medium, but has no resistance in it, except that it borrows mass from it, when it hits something. A wave moves the medium, the medium has mass, that mass has an effect when the wave hits something, but the wave doesn't have intrinsic mass. But the thing is that light from a far way off is red shifted when moving away but the speed of light stays the same. You can turn that around of course and say that the light is going slower. But is it? Lets line up our dots again... .................... -> | ......... . . . . . . . . -> | So you still see a dot in front of you but due to perspective you see a smaller dot. That translates into a red shifted dot. I suppose you could also say blue shift is equivalent to a larger perspective dot. But are the dots arriving at the same time? I think that since the time between wave crests is c, c minus ..00000000000000000000000000001 would be not detectable. Other than it would show up as a red shift. And this is the argument for how it can be shown that galaxies are moving away. It is not the same when it is approaching or retreating.
From: mpc755 on 29 May 2010 23:04 In article <FkkMn.74156$0B5.69362(a)newsfe05.iad>, here(a)my.com says... > > Lets consider this again for a moment. The train. > > You toss a ball up on a train and Newton's laws apply. Uniform motion > the ball is already in motion. Now Einstein said that it depends on your > frame of reference. > > Newton said if we could stand back and examine the universe and plotted > a grid on that universe we could have a coordinate system for absolute > space. > > Einstein said we don't need to do that since we can't do that but we can > do the same thing and map our local area or any local area providing we > make the assumption that anywhere in the universe the laws are the same. > And then we must not use a concept of universal time, since we can't see > the hands on that clock, instead we need to use local time. And then we > have to include that in our calculations as it applies specifically to > the event. xyzt a point in time. > > Now depending on how accurate your measurements are, if you analyze that > ball it is meeting resistance of the aether if you want to spell it that > way since the ball has mass. Even in uniform motion but it would be very > small. If the train accelerates you find out right away that you are > moving wrt absolute space-time since your ball does not follow the same > curved trajectory, it hits the back wall of the accellerating train as > your head hits the seat rest. > The interaction of the ball and the aether is frictionless. '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 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. The pressure exerted by the aether is equally applied towards every part of a body moving with constant momentum. The pressure exerted by the aether is not equally applied towards every part of an accelerating body. > Acceleration being the time when mass meets the quantum foam, but light > has no mass so acceleration does not affect it. However the medium it > travels in, absolute space-time curves due to gravity, that is it is > compressed, the quantum bubbles packed tighter together, the elastic > foam bubbles smaller under pressure around a massive body, like shells > that get farther apart as you move further away. > "Space-time" is compressed because 'it' is displaced by the massive body. It is the displacement of the aether by the massive body which causes the increase in the pressure. Gravitation, the 'Dark Matter' Effect and the Fine Structure Constant http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0401047 "There we see the first arguments that indicate the logical necessity for quantum behaviour, at both the spatial level and at the matter level. There space is, at one of the lowest levels, a quantum foam system undergoing ongoing classicalisation. That model suggest that gravity is caused by matter changing the processing rate of the informational system that manifests as space, and as a consequence space effectively ?flows? towards matter. However this is not a ?flow? of some form of ?matter? through space, as previously considered in the aether models or in the ?random? particulate Le Sage kinetic theory of gravity, rather the flow is an ongoing rearrangement of the quantum-foam patterns that form space, and indeed only have a geometrical description at a coarse-grained level. Then the ?flow? in one region is relative only to the patterns in nearby regions, and not relative to some a priori background geometrical space" What is described as "space effectively ?flows? towards matter" is the pressure exerted by the aether towards the matter. "Then the ?flow? in one region is relative only to the patterns in nearby regions" is the pressure exerted by the aether in nearby regions displaced by the matter. > So light just follows the contours of the medium, but has no resistance > in it, except that it borrows mass from it, when it hits something. A > wave moves the medium, the medium has mass, that mass has an effect when > the wave hits something, but the wave doesn't have intrinsic mass. > > But the thing is that light from a far way off is red shifted when > moving away but the speed of light stays the same. > > You can turn that around of course and say that the light is going > slower. But is it? Lets line up our dots again... > > ................... > -> | > ........ . . . . . . . . > > -> | > > So you still see a dot in front of you but due to perspective you see a > smaller dot. That translates into a red shifted dot. > I suppose you could also say blue shift is equivalent to a larger > perspective dot. But are the dots arriving at the same time? > > I think that since the time between wave crests is c, c minus > .00000000000000000000000000001 would be not detectable. > Other than it would show up as a red shift. > > And this is the argument for how it can be shown that galaxies are > moving away. It is not the same when it is approaching or retreating.
From: rick_s on 29 May 2010 15:11 I just thought of something. If light did have mass then every time the train accelerated the lights would dim. If you were outside riding on a smooth uniform motion automatic sidewalk, the sky would be blue and sun shining. If you were on the other hand walking, then it would be a bit dim a bit bright and so on as you accelerated as you walked. Since walking is not true uniform motion. What a strange cautious world that would be. Sudden movements are blind ones. Light wouldn't be able to travel at c then if it had mass so you would see light traveling. You would see the light leave the light bulb and move towards the corners of your room. Ali could turn the light out then go make a sandwich and still be in bed before the room got dark.
From: rick_s on 29 May 2010 15:41 On 5/30/2010 4:04, mpc755 wrote: > In article<FkkMn.74156$0B5.69362(a)newsfe05.iad>, here(a)my.com says... >> >> Lets consider this again for a moment. The train. >> >> You toss a ball up on a train and Newton's laws apply. Uniform motion >> the ball is already in motion. Now Einstein said that it depends on your >> frame of reference. >> >> Newton said if we could stand back and examine the universe and plotted >> a grid on that universe we could have a coordinate system for absolute >> space. >> >> Einstein said we don't need to do that since we can't do that but we can >> do the same thing and map our local area or any local area providing we >> make the assumption that anywhere in the universe the laws are the same. >> And then we must not use a concept of universal time, since we can't see >> the hands on that clock, instead we need to use local time. And then we >> have to include that in our calculations as it applies specifically to >> the event. xyzt a point in time. >> >> Now depending on how accurate your measurements are, if you analyze that >> ball it is meeting resistance of the aether if you want to spell it that >> way since the ball has mass. Even in uniform motion but it would be very >> small. If the train accelerates you find out right away that you are >> moving wrt absolute space-time since your ball does not follow the same >> curved trajectory, it hits the back wall of the accellerating train as >> your head hits the seat rest. >> > > The interaction of the ball and the aether is frictionless. > What about the permittivity and permeability of free space? I think there must be some minute drag if for no other reason then perfect uniform motion is impossible in a curvy non-Euclidean universe. It's probably not enough to include in any calculations though. Certainly not on the classical level. Regarding light again from Wiki "For objects within our Galaxy with a given absolute magnitude, 5 is added to the apparent magnitude for every tenfold increase in the distance to the object. This relationship does not apply for objects at very great distances (far beyond our galaxy), since a correction for General Relativity must then be taken into account due to the non-Euclidean nature of space." Now they are trying to say that since space is curved, or warped, and side stepping the loss of energy of light through space. So how does this translate into English? The star is still white, but small? If it is very far away? Or the light appears red if it is far away? Or the light is less intense and does intensity affect the perceived size? You see I am not sure how they are looking at magnitude. Number of candles. Well they are all white light lets say. So then it would appear brighter. Larger. Whiter. What if it appears blue? Very intense? You have Cherenkov radiation which is blue because it is actually traveling faster than c. So I think we just use convenient perspectives and c is a constant but it is a set value and then you measure the effects of the medium it is in on it by comparison to that value but then merely maintain that value at c, if you want and talk about the shape or size of the wave packet instead. There is always a photon in the detector, so they must be traveling at c. I think using lasers and fringing you can see that light is not a constant speed. So then the aether is in some way affecting the speed of light, just like glass or water does. And again I think that it must be attributed to the superconducting superfluid is not 100% superconducting or superfluidious. But then how do you separate in this case dark matter, dark energy, gas and space dust from the aether. It is all part of the same thing. And it could slow light waves down simply by its presence, lets say a gas cloud in space, because the rate at which the aether vibrates as teh light wave travels through will be hindered by that mass. So even if the light wave itself is not obstructed by the mass, the medium it is in, is affected by that mass.
From: rick_s on 29 May 2010 16:09
Lets retreat at c and see what that looks like... ..... <- | This text is in front of your face you are facing this way. You see no dots. No photons hit your retina. Turn around and now it is not a wave it is a ray. A continuous series of wave crests. Now the interesting part is if you go faster than c, you are then passing light that passed you previously. So you start seeing things go backwards. The faster you go, the further into the past you can see as you catch up to light that passed you further and further into the past. Then you hit something and suddenly realize that the rest of the universe is not going back in time you are just chasing along a wave and reading the waves as light reflected off of objects in the past. If you could ride a star beam, towards a star would that mean that if you went faster than c, you would go back in time? This is all so silly when you think about it because nothing with mass can get anywhere near c. The sound barrier, the light barrier. The weak force, the strong force. A doppler effect in the strong force is like a brick wall I think. |