Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Speed of Light
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 76 of 268 (538235)
12-04-2009 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Iblis
12-04-2009 5:33 PM


Re: urgent question
It seemed to me that his main point was that light doesn't travel but instead is everywhere at once... or something like that.
Please excuse me skipping past all the philosophy and geometry whatnot and just asking you straight out: are you asserting that there isn't any photon?
In Message 33 we have this:
quote:
Furthermore, if that so-called ‘velocity’ is ascribed to particles of light, as in Einstein’s concept of the ‘photon’, then any idea of that particle being something properly conceived as material becomes untenable. This is because according to Relativity, anything properly called a particle, no matter how small we may be imagine it to be, becomes infinitely massive at the ‘speed c’, whereas the only mass that can be ascribed to a light-quantum in the visible range of the spectrum (i.e., its spectral energy divided by c-squared) is in the minuscule order of 10-35 kilogram.
He seems to misunderstand the whole deal with photons and rest mass and all that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Iblis, posted 12-04-2009 5:33 PM Iblis has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 77 of 268 (538237)
12-04-2009 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Viv Pope
12-04-2009 3:39 PM


Traveling Light
Viv Pope writes:
My aim, here, is by no means to castigate Cavediver or even challenge him for his belief that contemporary quantum physics ‘says it all’...etc...
I wasn't making a point about Cavediver. Someone made a point that you misconstrued. The someone happened to be Cavediver, but if mention of his name causes you to write about him instead of about his point then forget I ever mentioned him.
The point that was made was that the interference you described in point 8 is very rare, so rare that light couldn't possibly interfere with itself to the degree you describe in point 8.
Viv Pope writes:
So, from where do we get the idea that the ,light has taken that time to travel? Again, it is from nothing more than the information itself. We know that the optical distance of a body, in metres divided by the dimensional constant. c ( pace Bondi) is a time in seconds, and from that knowledge we extrapolate the time, relative to us, at the source of those quanta when we receive them, which may be millennia in some cases.
But none of that implies that light ‘travels’.
I'm still trying to grasp what you're saying. So when we bounce, say, radio waves off the moon, are you saying that the electromagnetic waves don't travel to the moon and back?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Viv Pope, posted 12-04-2009 3:39 PM Viv Pope has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Viv Pope, posted 12-05-2009 2:05 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 78 of 268 (538239)
12-04-2009 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Viv Pope
12-04-2009 5:07 PM


Discussion Wanted
Viv Pope writes:
the whole thing is laid out in full in the websites, books and things I have liberally mentioned.
I'm here for discussion, not reading assignments, plus as the Forum Guidelines say:
  1. Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.
I'm interested in discussing your ideas, but if you to prefer to instead just provide references then I think, having done that, that you're done here.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Viv Pope, posted 12-04-2009 5:07 PM Viv Pope has not replied

  
Viv Pope
Member (Idle past 4963 days)
Posts: 75
From: Walesw
Joined: 06-29-2008


Message 79 of 268 (538278)
12-05-2009 5:31 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by New Cat's Eye
12-04-2009 5:20 PM


Re: light travels
Dear Catholic Scientist
Thanks for your question.
The well-known fact of what is commonly called ‘wave-interference' does not necessarily imply that there really are waves. The whole thing can be explained in terms of the Feynman-Wheeler theory of direct quantum interresonance between the source-atoms and the screen atoms, something like what David Bohm called ‘quantum potential’.
If you are serious about this, then please read my conference paper: ‘The Tantalising Two Slit Experiment, Imperial College, 2001. This can be accessed on the POAMS website http://www.poams.org in the ‘Seminal Publications and Resources’ section, Item 30. It is also dealt with in the books that are mentioned. I’m sure you wouldn’t expect me to write out that whole argument again, here.
Viv Pope.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-04-2009 5:20 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-14-2009 10:54 AM Viv Pope has replied

  
Viv Pope
Member (Idle past 4963 days)
Posts: 75
From: Walesw
Joined: 06-29-2008


Message 80 of 268 (538282)
12-05-2009 7:08 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Iblis
12-04-2009 5:33 PM


Re: urgent question
Dear Catholic Scientist
You say to me, 'Please excuse me skipping past all the philosophy, geometry and whatnot and just asking straight out: are you asserting that there isn't any photon?’ If so (you ask me), then this leaves an unpleasant gap in the chart of the Standard Model. It's rather as if someone pointed at my Periodic Table and said "there is no krypton". Please advise, in detail.'
Now, then, Catholic Scientist, how can I possibly 'advise in detail' when all the details lie in the 'philosophy, geometry and whatnot' that you wanted to skip?
As I said to you in my previous posting, the onus is on you to study my work as already published and disseminated, not on me to write it all out again for everyone who asks me a question. Those who cannot undertake that conscientious commitment are only dabbling. I could scarcely be blamed for refusing to answer such questions.
However, for this once I shall try to answer your question as directly as I can, knowing full well that with your skipping past ‘all the philosophy, geometry and whatnot’ you will scarcely understand a word of it.
So, yes, I am asserting that there is no such thing as the ‘photon’. But getting rid of the ‘photon’ is nothing like getting rid of Krypton. Krypton is a substance; the ‘photon’, eminently, is not.
Besides to be free-minded and forward-looking on a science forum such as this, one should be prepared to lose some of one’s habitual assumptions as it was at one time, to abandon such habitual assumptions as that of a flat earth, geocentric cosmology, ‘caloric’, ‘phlogiston’ and so on and, nowadays, ‘photons’. As it is said, there’s no making omelettes without breaking eggs.
Besides, it hardly needs to be said that what is regarded as the ‘Standard Model’ in one era may not be the ’Standard Model’ in any other era. If that weren’t so, then we would still be stuck with, say, the ‘Standard Model’ of the Greeks, which was that of the gods on Mount Olympus, or of the Hindus, whose ‘Standard Model’ was that of the world balanced on the backs of elephants standing on the back of a great turtle swimming in an infinite sea. The same goes for our present ‘Standard Model’ of cosmological physics, which has now, since the announcement of its intention to find ‘The God Particle’ and to ‘read the Mind of God’, has become a complete laughing stock.
In short, Catholic Scientist, I am urging you to free your mind of the customary notion of ‘waves’ and ‘photons’ travelling in space and seriously consider the logical implications of adopting the alternative non-velocity interpretation of the constant c. Otherwise, if you ‘skip past’ all that, then what I’m saying will be of no more use to you than a chocolate screwdriver.
Viv Pope

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Iblis, posted 12-04-2009 5:33 PM Iblis has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 12-05-2009 8:14 AM Viv Pope has replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


(1)
Message 81 of 268 (538290)
12-05-2009 8:14 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Viv Pope
12-05-2009 7:08 AM


Re: urgent question
Viv,
I apologize if this is going to sound pretentious but can you please dispense with the philosophical obfuscation and talking-down tone of your posts. This attitude is prevalent with some other posters on this board who are more concerned with baseless ad hominum attacks of the opposing side, making a name for themselves, or pushing their published works rather than with providing clear and definitive evidence which supports their position. I expect more from a college professor/associate/research assistant or whatever you call yourself. I expect candid and carefully deliberated answers to reasonable and honest questions that are presented.
In science, most of us are deep-thinkers with different levels of education. However, what most of us share is an inexplicable thirst for truth.
It matters not whether you have a PhD, and MD, a BS or a AA. What matters is, does the evidence support your position. If so provide the evidence. If we can't understand it straight off, fine. Most of us have the faculties to do background research to see if what your are saying matches up with other findings. And if not, than at least you tried.
Due to the nature of this board, a discussion board, attacking your critics while at the same time telling people to read your work if they don't believe your claims, smacks of desperation and an attempt to gain a wider audience of believers for merely for self-gratification purposes. If you honestly believe what you are claiming is true than you should be able to clearly and honestly lay out the evidence to back up your claims. And because this is a discussion forum, throwing out bare links and obfuscated attacks at your critics does nothing but hurts your reputation here.
Most posters here want to see an in-depth discussion of why you think your position to be the correct one, not a self-indulgent nod to look up your works if we don't believe you. The purpose of a discussion board is to 'discuss' not merely as a promotion tool for your material.
I know the moderators will probably say that this is the place of the moderators to police the board members but I believe we members, as well, have an obligation to speak out for clear and honest answers to questions and proposed claims on this board.
Again this is not a personal attack it is just a simple and honest request.
Just my thoughts. Thank you for your time.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection
"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Viv Pope, posted 12-05-2009 7:08 AM Viv Pope has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Viv Pope, posted 12-06-2009 6:00 AM DevilsAdvocate has replied

  
Viv Pope
Member (Idle past 4963 days)
Posts: 75
From: Walesw
Joined: 06-29-2008


Message 82 of 268 (538309)
12-05-2009 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Percy
12-04-2009 5:55 PM


Re: Traveling Light
Dear Percy,
I sympathise with your difficulty. This is not easy stuff — at least, not until ‘the penny drops’, when it becomes as easy as it gets. Until then, there is no case of, as Omar Khayyam says: ‘The Secret; quick about it friend!’ Nor is there any slogan-like way of encapsulating it. It takes some dedicated mental effort to understand it, otherwise, believe me, it is best left alone.
Anyway, you ask me: 'when we bounce, say, radio waves off the moon, are you saying that the electromagnetic waves don't travel to the moon and back?’ My answer is: yes, that’s what I am saying. Let me explain.
Now I’m getting a sense of dj vu, here, in saying this, because I feel I’d already dealt with it in depth. But, okay, here goes again. There are no waves or anything else travelling in vacuo. In the vacuum there is, by definition, nothing. What there is, is an optical distance from the earth to the moon relative to an observer, as in the theory of relativity, and we know that for all observers, optical distances in metres divided by c are times in seconds. Of course, you can’t see your signal going from you to the moon but you know that if you were an observer on the moon, your distance from earth divided by c would be a time in seconds. So you would subtract that time-interval from the moment of your seeing that signal at that distance.
In that same way, you would not see your return (reflected) signal travelling towards earth, but as an observer on earth you see that signal at the optical distance of the moon, hence for you, that distance divided by c is, again, a time in seconds. So, for you, the total time for the sending and return of the signal is twice the moon’s distance divided by c. (Note that in this explanation there is no need to talk about ’waves’, electromagnetic or whatever, travelling. The whole thing reduces sufficiently to talk purely about distance and time. As I’ve said, this gives us a New Physics in which all the historical rigmarole of electrostatics, magnetostatics — in a word, all ‘field’ theory - is redundant.
Now, for the word ‘observer’, in the above passage, substitute the word ‘atom’ and for ‘signal’ substitute ‘quantum interaction’. Recall also that, relativistically speaking, for anything travelling at the ‘speed c’, as the ’photon’ is said to do, the time of its ‘travel’ (between the earth and moon in this case) is zero. This makes nonsense of the idea of the ‘photon’ as something ‘travelling’, while it makes profound sense of the Feynman-Wheeler and Gilbert Lewis concept of direct and instantaneous action/reaction (inter-resonance).
Meanwhile, of course, according to the relative-time equations, when the proper-time of the quantum interaction is zero, by that same time-equation the relative, or observer time, is the optical distance divided by c. So, in observer-time (as opposed to the intrinsic or ‘proper’ time of the quantum) the time of the same interaction over the same distance s is s/c, as for the (unnecessarily assumed) ‘electromagnetic wave’.
The upshot of this is that in the sort of interaction you are talking about, between a laser, say. and the moon, that interaction on the ordinary observational level is at the finite speed c, as for your (fictional) ‘electromagnetic wave’, while on the intrinsic quantum level that same interaction is instantaneous — for every quantum that makes up the signal. All this fits, perfectly, the requirement of relativistic physics that all in vacuo distant interactions take place at the finite speed c, and also with quantum physics which requires that quantum interaction is instantaneous. This solves the notorious ‘EPR paradox’ of instantaneous versus delayed distant action (Bohr versus Einstein). Get these things together in your head and it will either screw up your mind completely or else give you a whole new insight into the world of physical phenomena. This will be along the philosophy-of-physics lines first explored by Einstein’s relativist precursor, Mach and continued in the neo-Machian form of Normal Realism (POAMS). All this is available on the Internet. at the click of a button.
Viv Pope.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Percy, posted 12-04-2009 5:55 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Percy, posted 12-05-2009 2:53 PM Viv Pope has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 83 of 268 (538312)
12-05-2009 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Percy
12-04-2009 6:28 AM


Re: Special Relativity and geometry
sorry for the long wait -
the information I'm missing is an understanding of permitivity and the magnetic constant (permeability), and what the symbol E represents.
Ok, last first: E is simply electric field strength - it's a vector field, so it shows you the magnitude and direction of the elctric field at each point in space. Likewise, we have B, the magnetic field strength. We saw the wave equation for E but there is an idenitcal one for B, and we further find that in an electromagnetic wave, E at a point is always perpendicular to B at a point, and the direction of travel is perpendicular to the plane defined by E and B.
The electric constant (permitivity of free space) turns up when we look at the force between two forces:
It is just the dimensionful proportionality constant - a result of our definitions of meters, seconds, and kilograms - and that our definition of charge doesn't have an expression in terms of meters, seconds, and kilograms.
Likewsie, the magnetic constant (permeability of free space) is the proportionality constant when we look at the magnetic force between two wires when a current is flowing in them:
So, the two constants simply express the fact that we're not measuring the world around us in the right units! And not surprisingly, this is the case for 'c' as well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Percy, posted 12-04-2009 6:28 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 84 of 268 (538316)
12-05-2009 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Viv Pope
12-05-2009 2:05 PM


Re: Traveling Light
Hi Viv,
How does a chain of instantaneous quantum interactions equate to the passage of time for a macro observer? It makes sense that the (in your view) non-existent photon traveling at c would not experience any passage of time, and perhaps whatever the thing is (in your view) that allows objects at a distance to influence each other is everywhere at the same time from its own perspective, but I don't see how that affects the fact that it is traveling from an outsider's perspective.
Spacecraft travel to the moon at speeds well below c, but let's say we could send them at greater and greater speeds. First we send a spacecraft to the moon at .9c, then another at .99c, then another at .999c, and so forth. They *do* travel to the moon, despite traveling at a speed very close to c. But according to you light at 1.0c doesn't travel to the moon, it gets there by instantaneous quantum interaction. But at the lowest levels everything is just quantum interactions, so what you're really telling us is that nothing travels anywhere. Right?
Ultimately the question will become what predictions your ideas make that differ from those of standard relativity, but I'm still trying to make sense of your explanations.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Viv Pope, posted 12-05-2009 2:05 PM Viv Pope has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Viv Pope, posted 12-06-2009 8:13 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 85 of 268 (538317)
12-05-2009 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Percy
12-04-2009 11:55 AM


The funny thing is...
...that Viv is actually correct when he says that light does not travel.
Hopefully, the EvC regulars here should know by now that the space-time distance or time (interval) along a light path is zero. This is simultaneously the extreme of Lorentz contraction and time dilation which we get for v=c. So photons do not travel, nor do they age - as far as the photon is concerned, its point of emission and point of absorption are the same. This is true for light bulb to eye, or distant quasar to eye.
For us, the observers, we can measure what we think of as the velocity of the photon, and we get the answer 'c'. But if it were a spacecraft travelling at 'c', if we looke closely, we would see that the clocks on board the ship are frozen - no time is passing at all.
So, Viv is essentially correct But this is Special Relativity at its most basic, has been known since the earliest days of relativity, and certainly does not require his ten rather-dubious 'proofs'.
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Percy, posted 12-04-2009 11:55 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Percy, posted 12-05-2009 4:33 PM cavediver has replied
 Message 96 by Viv Pope, posted 12-06-2009 9:19 AM cavediver has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 86 of 268 (538324)
12-05-2009 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by cavediver
12-05-2009 3:01 PM


Re: The funny thing is...
Hi Cavediver,
I understand that light doesn't travel from the perspective of itself, but it does travel from the perspective of us, doesn't it? Relativity, right? My latest guess is that Viv is trying to say that light doesn't travel from our perspective, either, but I'm just casting about trying to find the revolutionary aspect of Viv's way of looking at things. I'm entering this discussion under the assumption that Viv is on to something and that his ideas are not just an unfamiliar way of saying what is already widely accepted within physics. Of course, it would be better if you or Son Goku were doing this, but maybe the level of detail of your knowledge in this area pushes Viv's views too far into the realm of the ridiculous.
You gotta hand it to Viv, though. He's quite the master of the understated insult, though interestingly, it doesn't seem to work in his favor. It's sending everyone's bullshit detectors through the roof.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by cavediver, posted 12-05-2009 3:01 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by cavediver, posted 12-05-2009 4:53 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 100 by cavediver, posted 12-06-2009 11:35 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 87 of 268 (538326)
12-05-2009 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Percy
12-05-2009 4:33 PM


Re: The funny thing is...
I understand that light doesn't travel from the perspective of itself, but it does travel from the perspective of us, doesn't it? Relativity, right?
Yes, that's rght.
I'm entering this discussion under the assumption that Viv is on to something
I've noticed And you're doing a good job - just keep pushing and demanding evidence, or at a minimum, predictions.
Of course, it would be better if you or Son Goku were doing this...
I'm sorry, but I'm way over my crank quota for 2009 and aleady subject to heavy fines. Perhaps come the New Year... (but don't hold your breath)
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Percy, posted 12-05-2009 4:33 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Iblis, posted 12-06-2009 2:41 PM cavediver has not replied

  
Viv Pope
Member (Idle past 4963 days)
Posts: 75
From: Walesw
Joined: 06-29-2008


Message 88 of 268 (538371)
12-06-2009 6:00 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by DevilsAdvocate
12-05-2009 8:14 AM


Re: urgent question
Dear Devil’s Advocate (et al.),
I’m sorry if I seem to have upset you guys. It was by no means intentional.. Thinking about it, it seems to be due to a mismatch of educational backgrounds. As I have already intimated, apart from my early years in Electronic Engineering, my main education has been on the Arts side of the Educational divide — Philosophy,, in point of fact. But Philosophers and Physicists have always been at odds. As I think I said, in the university I was at, members of the two departments, of Philosophy and Physics, respectively, actually came to blows over their two different approaches to nature. So in my dedicated efforts to unite the two disciplines (my life’s work) it is inevitable that I should upset someone or other. It goes with the territory. (Recall that Socrates was executed for it, and so were other philosophers such as Giordano Bruno.)
Now you say that I should ‘dispense with the philosophical obfuscations’. That’s very sad, because those ‘philosophical obfuscations’ are by no means superficial, to be dispensed with ‘just like that’. For anyone who understands, they are absolutely central to my argument. Let me run that argument by you again and then you can tell me whether or not any of it is ‘obfuscation’.
I have proved to you that there can be n such thing as light in vacuo — at least, no-one, so far, in this forum or anywhere else (Cavediver notwithstanding) has succeeded in refuting any, far less all of those ten proofs. Now I have known many people who have been upset by the very suggestion that light may not be what they have always thought it to be, that it need not be thought of as something travelling in space but that it can be interpreted as no more than an observational constant. But, like it or not, the fact that c can be interpreted in that alternative way without logical contradiction, is irrefutable. If ignored, it doesn’t simply ‘go away’.
Worse still, for those people who are already upset by it, are the logical — and, dare I say it, the PHILOSOPHICAL — repercussions of that radical change in conception of c. Pointing out these repercussions, far from being ‘obfuscation’, is something that is logically inescapable. As for the pure PHYSICS side of it, the logical knock-on effect for relativistic and quantum physics and the unification of these two theoretical areas is profound, and I am deeply saddened that so many on this forum thread have failed to see it, just because, from their habitual Physics perspective, it seems just ‘philosophical obfuscation’. How very depressing!
As for the ‘talking-down’ tone of my arguments, I apologise for that. Doubtless, it’s to my advanced age and world-weariness — a typical ‘Grumpy Old Man'. However, that has no bearing whatsoever on the argument itself. I can’t see anyone who is a genuine scientist storming-off in high dudgeon just because of someone’s ‘tone of voice’. Their concern ought to focus solely on the logic of the argument. I have had some very productive arguments with all sorts of socially difficult people. In academic circles I have sometimes rubbed shoulders with the very rudest people, without going off into a huff about it. In my line of research I am habituated to hostility and I give as good as I get.
So, finally, may I say that we should stick to the argument that has developed here over the alternative interpretation of c and its philosophical ramifications. And if you think that is all ‘obfuscation’, then, to quote Oliver Cromwell: ‘In the bowels of Christ, think again!’
Viv Pope.
Postscript:
As for the rest, I’m sorry but I can’t imagine a serious university debate on a subject of which the debaters have no outside knowledge whatsoever, especially where the knowledge is available at the touch of a button, Indeed, I feel that in some cases those who make the criticisms have hardly read, far less studied, the relevant postings. This laziness really is reprehensible for any forum claiming to be about serious science. I respectfully suggest that the Moderators, here, should issue a caution regarding that, otherwise you leave the door open to that in-off-the-street yob-speak like those seen on some of the earlier postings on this thread. Besides being disgusting, these have no relevance to anything scientific. So I’m really surprised that I am censured for my seriously scientific input whereas those yob-speak inputs are passed without comment.
Thanks for your forthright comments
Viv Pope.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 12-05-2009 8:14 AM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by cavediver, posted 12-06-2009 6:25 AM Viv Pope has replied
 Message 92 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 12-06-2009 7:53 AM Viv Pope has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 89 of 268 (538373)
12-06-2009 6:25 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Viv Pope
12-06-2009 6:00 AM


Re: urgent question
at least, no-one, so far, in this forum or anywhere else (Cavediver notwithstanding) has succeeded in refuting any, far less all of those ten proofs.
Now, this looks rather dishonest, Viv. I'm surprised at you. I have explained how QED, the most successful theory ever devised by man, demonstrates quite blatently how we get photon-photon scattering. Indirect evidence for this process is seen daily at particle accelerators around the world, and we hope to see direct evidence as soon as we have sufficient (laser) apparatus.
Your defense to this has been to describe my explanation as 'thin' and to suggest that some unnamed individuals at the IC gathering of PIRT found this to be on 'dodgy ground' - I'm sorry, but around here, that does not count as a refutation.
Please explain why QED is wrong in its prediction, whilst managing to predict the electron g-factor correctly to 12 decimal places - a prediction that involves summing over the very process that you are claiming does not exist!
Once you have answered this, we can go on to your comments regarding velocity composition.
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Viv Pope, posted 12-06-2009 6:00 AM Viv Pope has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Viv Pope, posted 12-06-2009 10:39 AM cavediver has not replied
 Message 110 by Viv Pope, posted 12-07-2009 6:44 PM cavediver has not replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


Message 90 of 268 (538375)
12-06-2009 7:21 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Viv Pope
12-04-2009 9:33 AM


Re: Special Relativity and geometry
Okay, I'm not really understanding any of this.
Could you, in one or two lines, list one difference between what you are saying and standard relativity?
Currently I see no difference between what you are saying and what Minkowski discovered, unless Percy is right and you're saying "that light doesn't travel from our perspective, either".
Please a simple paragraph summing up one little component of what you're proposing would be helpful.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Viv Pope, posted 12-04-2009 9:33 AM Viv Pope has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Viv Pope, posted 12-06-2009 11:43 AM Son Goku has replied
 Message 102 by Viv Pope, posted 12-06-2009 11:44 AM Son Goku has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024