Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Speed of Light
Viv Pope
Member (Idle past 4962 days)
Posts: 75
From: Walesw
Joined: 06-29-2008


Message 121 of 268 (538815)
12-10-2009 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by Bolder-dash
12-09-2009 10:27 AM


Re: Nature abhors a vacuous mind.
Off-topic content hidden. See Message 120 for explanation. Meta comments about discussion in this thread should be taken to Peanut Gallery. Discussions on other topics should be taken to other threads, or new threads may be proposed at Proposed New Topics. --Admin
Dear Bolder-dash
And that’s where the rot starts. Whereas the subject matter of both kinds of physics is the same — that, is, physical PHENOMENA — the Machian, or relativist approach to phenomena is based on direct or unmediated observation. On the other hand, the standard paradigm, the quaintly called ‘Realist’ approach, is to regard phenomena as mediated by light as the space travelling ‘middle man’ between real physical objects and our observations of them. These two opposite, incommensurable ways of thinking simply do not and cannot possibly gel. The fact that Einstein’s Theory of Relativity seeks to combine them makes that Theory the greatest mind-twister in the history of physical science. Those who claim to understand it just have to be deluded, since they claim, in effect, to understand the impossible, that is to say, to ‘understand’ something that is, in fact, completely self-contradictory and incomprehensible. And this, of course, is where, in Physics, Logic began to be abandoned.
By contrast, in the Machian approach to physics, there is no such contradiction, because there is no ‘middle-man’ in the shape of ‘light-velocity’, so that the deal, as it were, is between the ‘consumer’ and the ‘producer, direct. Moreover, in the Machian — or, rather, now the Neo-Machian — physics paradigm there is none of the conflict between relativistic and quantum physics that has bedevilled the Extant Theory since its very inception. The Machian approach, at its very root, is as quantised as it is relativistic, which, if it were instituted, would change the whole complexion of physics and physics teaching. This, of course, threatens a serious social upheaval, so that it is only to be expected that any prospect of its actually happening will be opposed on grounds more political than rational.
Do I make myself clear?
Viv Pope
PS,
I am well aware that Physicists, nowadays, are taught next to nothing about Philosophy, a subject which scientists typically regard as taboo. I suggest that in order to break down that barrier and grasp what I am saying, the reader should, at the very least, acquaint himself/herself, on Google, with what ‘Phenomenalism’ and ‘Normal Realism’ mean. Also, anyone interested should key-in the buzz-word Neo-Machian. There you will see, in this twenty-first century, what has matured out of Mach’s nineteenth-century phenomenalism.
Thanks,
Viv Pope
Edited by Admin, : Hide off-topic content.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-09-2009 10:27 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-10-2009 11:31 AM Viv Pope has replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3629 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 122 of 268 (538819)
12-10-2009 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by Viv Pope
12-10-2009 11:01 AM


Re: Nature abhors a vacuous mind.
Off-topic content hidden. See Message 120 for explanation. Meta comments about discussion in this thread should be taken to Peanut Gallery. Discussions on other topics should be taken to other threads, or new threads may be proposed at Proposed New Topics. --Admin
Edited by Admin, : Hide off-topic content.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Viv Pope, posted 12-10-2009 11:01 AM Viv Pope has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Viv Pope, posted 12-10-2009 3:19 PM Bolder-dash has replied

  
Viv Pope
Member (Idle past 4962 days)
Posts: 75
From: Walesw
Joined: 06-29-2008


Message 123 of 268 (538833)
12-10-2009 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by Bolder-dash
12-10-2009 11:31 AM


Re: Nature abhors a vacuous mind.
Off-topic content hidden. See Message 120 for explanation. Meta comments about discussion in this thread should be taken to Peanut Gallery. Discussions on other topics should be taken to other threads, or new threads may be proposed at Proposed New Topics. --Admin
Dear Bolder-Dash,
Thanks,
Viv Pope.
Edited by Admin, : Hide off-topic content.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-10-2009 11:31 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-10-2009 11:30 PM Viv Pope has not replied
 Message 127 by Viv Pope, posted 12-12-2009 5:58 AM Viv Pope has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3629 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 124 of 268 (538855)
12-10-2009 11:30 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by Viv Pope
12-10-2009 3:19 PM


Re: Nature abhors a vacuous mind.
Talking about how numbers diffuse understanding complex thoughts like the speed of light and particle physics is off topic? Well, if that's the level of simplicity we must adhere to here, then I guess I should just say...
Light is like very fast..duh!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Viv Pope, posted 12-10-2009 3:19 PM Viv Pope has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3629 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 125 of 268 (538856)
12-11-2009 1:10 AM


Admin,
I wasn't attempting to be pompous, but simply was trying to make the point that I was enjoying the opportunity to read different points of view regarding some of the complex issues of light and physics. I think regardless of who's side you take, for the vast majority of people reading these things, once it turns into a numbers game all chance of having an opinion about it are lost.
Basically, I think the OPs original question was answered as best as it is going to be in the first few posts, and further discussions were now delving into what assumptions can we make about the speed of light.
Viv apparently wishes to challenge some of the basic premises we declare about what light actually is, and I would think that's a fair discussion unless someone else has more to add about how the speed of light can vary. And also, how much of the understanding of science is actually science, and how much of it is just theoretical thoughts, that can vary with each generation. Certainly the concept of the speed of light still has as many aspects about it that are subject to abstract thought as they are to observable phenomenon (or not?, I am wondering)
I was enjoying Viv Pope's point of view without having an opinion about the voracity of it one way or the other,and thought it was perhaps a bit unseemly to paint his as being a nut or out of touch just for taking the discussion into another plane (was there somewhere else it was going?)
I would have liked to have read more about what anyone might have to say about repudiating his claims in a language we can all share-instead of just attacking his credentials.
Edited by Bolder-dash, : grammar

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Admin, posted 12-11-2009 6:46 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 126 of 268 (538864)
12-11-2009 6:46 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by Bolder-dash
12-11-2009 1:10 AM


Hi Bolder-dash,
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Here at EvC Forum we try very hard to keep discussion focused on and around the thread's topic, and try to discourage significant departures. Discussions that have run their course do not turn to other topics. Instead, participants are encouraged to propose new topics over at Proposed New Topics regarding related issues that come up.
Viv essentially has three topics that he would like to discuss.
  1. Issues related in some way to the speed of light, which are appropriate for this thread.
  2. Science's philosophical wrong turn, for which a new thread should be proposed.
  3. Viv's heretical status within science, for which a new thread should also be proposed.
Staying on topic doesn't mean that every sentence or paragraph must be on topic. Short diversions, personal asides and interjections are a normal part of any discussion. Moderators only try to step in when significant departures from topic occur. And members who demonstrate a penchant for going off-topic tend to get more attention from moderators.
By the way, threads in the Coffee House forum are not moderated as closely as the more focused science or religion threads, and you can begin topics there yourself without going through the topic proposal process. Viv's experiences as a scientific heretic might be appropriate there.
Edited by Admin, : Minor wordsmithing.
Edited by Admin, : Ditto.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-11-2009 1:10 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Viv Pope
Member (Idle past 4962 days)
Posts: 75
From: Walesw
Joined: 06-29-2008


Message 127 of 268 (538992)
12-12-2009 5:58 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by Viv Pope
12-10-2009 3:19 PM


Re: Nature abhors a vacuous mind.
Dear Percy (Moderator),
I understand that you wish to hide my last posting on this topic. In your message 20, you state very clearly and unambiguously that the topic is issues related to the speed of light. Just to check, then, that this discussion is still on track, Relativity is definitely an issue related to the speed of light. So are Quantum instantaneity and Mach's developed contribution to physics,. Indeed, this whole discussion is about issues related to the speed of light except perhaps, for this latest tte--tte with Bolder-dash about logic, which is, perhaps marginal, although the logic and maths we discussed was in relation to the argument about light-speed.
Anyway, Ref’s decision stands. So, okay, let’s get back firmly on track.
TO ALL MEMBERS
Re. the discussion on Light-Velocity in relation to relativistic and quantum-digital physics
We kick up a dust and complain we cannot see’.
Berkeley
There is no logical reason why nature should be so confusing to us. Further to my last posting on this subject, let me say that what I am doing on this forum is nominating Mach’s Phenomenalism as the ‘New Physics’ that John Anderson of NASA and others talk about as what is needed to solve the anomalies that have been found to be inexplicable in terms of standard Extant Physics. In its latest Neo-Machian form of Normal Realism (click on Google), not only does it explain, perfectly, without theoretical contrivance, NASA’s ‘Pioneer Anomaly’ (as due to NASA’s neglect of spin angular momentum); it also explains, in the same way, the astronomers’ ‘Missing Mass Anomaly’ without having to postulate the nonsensical and completely undetectable ‘dark matter’. This latter anomaly arises, just like the former, due to the neglect of the spin angular momentum of practically all orbiting bodies, from planets and satellites to spiral galaxies. (Newtonian ‘gravitation’ which NASA uses to track its satellites and which astronomers use to calculate ‘the mass of the universe’, typically neglects the spin angular momenta of orbiting bodies.)
This New Physics, of Machian origin, is no ad hoc emergency response to these anomalies. It is of almost two-centuries-long standing, and these recently discovered anomalies are simply proof of its validity. In addition to explaining these recent anomalies, the Neo-Machian method solves the notorious EPR controversy between Bohr and Einstein regarding the question of whether action-at-a-distance (IAAAD) is instantaneous, as quantum physics requires, or is limited to the ‘velocity of light, c’ as Einstein’s Theory demands.
Moreover, in Machian phenomenalism light is simply what you see — that is, phenomena. All physical phenomena are ultimately reducible to discrete amounts of energy-interaction which Mach called ‘sense-data’. In the developed, Neo-Machian synthesis, these ‘sense-data’, which I have called light-pixels, are identified with Planck’s quantum h. So as well as being, at root, relative, or observer-centred (empirical, as opposed to absolutist), Mach’s method is quantised, which means that it is, by definition, a Quantum Relativity. So, if it is ‘New Physics’ we are seeking, then what are we waiting for? Neo-Machian Digital Physics (click Google) or Normal Realism does it all.
  • Anyone who doubts this claim is welcome to challenge it in logical argument with myself. All necessary information regarding it will, of course, be supplied on request.
    Viv Pope.
    FOOTNOTE
  • NR deduces time-dilation in the simplest way possible from geometrical first principles, i.e., directly from Pythagoras in four lines of algebra. It solves the ‘Unified Field’ problem (by dispensing with ‘fields altogether), solves the EPR Paradox (reconciles quantum instantaneity with relativistic time-delay), solves the mystery of the Two-Slit Experiment (click Google on ‘The Tantalising Two-Slit Experiment’). It deduces the Balmer spectrum formula directly from the time-dilation formula (by inverting it to express frequency).
    NR also closes the Educational gap between Arts and Science and, not least, creates a seamless join between Science and the Humanities. In addition to all this, NR solves the ‘Pioneer Anomaly’, together with the ‘Missing Mass Anomaly’. It reveals the logical fallacy of interpreting the Hubble redshift as galactic recession (‘All receding bodies are redshifted’ does not imply that all redshifts show receding bodies) On this basis it opposes ‘Big Bang’ cosmology, It also dispenses with ‘dark matter’ and ‘dark energy’ (by including spin, see above). It demystifies the concept of ‘black holes’. (They are just ordinary angular momentum barycentres, like the eyes of hurricanes, cyclones, etc.) Any and every one of these items will be explained on request.
    It is to be borne in mind that the key to all this is the alterative, non-speed interpretation of the constant, c. Once this is is grasped, the story tells itself.
    V.P.

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 123 by Viv Pope, posted 12-10-2009 3:19 PM Viv Pope has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 129 by Iblis, posted 12-12-2009 8:34 AM Viv Pope has replied

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


    Message 128 of 268 (539008)
    12-12-2009 7:32 AM
    Reply to: Message 119 by Bolder-dash
    12-09-2009 10:27 AM


    Re: Nature abhors a vacuous mind.
    Please, no replies to this message. Please keep discussion focused on the topic and not on the people discussing the topic. --Admin
    Sorry to say, cavediver and a few others here who have great interest in science appear to be these kinds of people to me-obviously smart guys and have a great grasp of math equations, but perhaps because their minds are so in tune to these numbers, there isn't a lot of room left in there for intellectual imagination.
    Ah, the good old smart-envy... never pretty
    Tell you what - I bet I've slept with fewer women/men than you. That should make up for it...
    Edited by Admin, : Add note in red at top.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 119 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-09-2009 10:27 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

      
    Iblis
    Member (Idle past 3895 days)
    Posts: 663
    Joined: 11-17-2005


    Message 129 of 268 (539017)
    12-12-2009 8:34 AM
    Reply to: Message 127 by Viv Pope
    12-12-2009 5:58 AM


    Spin and Perception
    not only does it explain, perfectly, without theoretical contrivance, NASA’s ‘Pioneer Anomaly’ (as due to NASA’s neglect of spin angular momentum); it also explains, in the same way, the astronomers’ ‘Missing Mass Anomaly’ without having to postulate the nonsensical and completely undetectable ‘dark matter’. This latter anomaly arises, just like the former, due to the neglect of the spin angular momentum of practically all orbiting bodies, from planets and satellites to spiral galaxies. (Newtonian ‘gravitation’ which NASA uses to track its satellites and which astronomers use to calculate ‘the mass of the universe’, typically neglects the spin angular momenta of orbiting bodies.)
    More about this, please. This is exactly the sort of thing I would love to understand better.
    in Machian phenomenalism light is simply what you see — that is, phenomena. All physical phenomena are ultimately reducible to discrete amounts of energy-interaction which Mach called ‘sense-data’.
    If light is just perception, why does the sun warm my face? What is happening in a photo-electric cell? Where does solar power come from?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 127 by Viv Pope, posted 12-12-2009 5:58 AM Viv Pope has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 130 by cavediver, posted 12-12-2009 2:50 PM Iblis has not replied
     Message 131 by Viv Pope, posted 12-13-2009 2:57 PM Iblis has replied

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


    Message 130 of 268 (539059)
    12-12-2009 2:50 PM
    Reply to: Message 129 by Iblis
    12-12-2009 8:34 AM


    Re: Spin and Perception
    More about this, please. This is exactly the sort of thing I would love to understand better.
    Yes, so would I. But I always find it puzzling how every single one of these independent researchers, such as Viv here, has come up with a theory that does indeed explain everything - the Pioneer anomaly, grand unification, quantum gravity, and does away with the need for dark matter and dark energy - everyone one of them. And yet no two of them are in agreement with each other in regard to the grand theory that makes all these fascinating and sensational predictions, solving all of our current problems in cosmology and partcile physics. Puzzles the hell out of me. And us poor deluded mainstream scientists plod along with our best guesses and incomplete theories. We really are the intellectual underdogs in this game...

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 129 by Iblis, posted 12-12-2009 8:34 AM Iblis has not replied

      
    Viv Pope
    Member (Idle past 4962 days)
    Posts: 75
    From: Walesw
    Joined: 06-29-2008


    Message 131 of 268 (539188)
    12-13-2009 2:57 PM
    Reply to: Message 129 by Iblis
    12-12-2009 8:34 AM


    Re: Spin and Perception
    Dear Iblis
    Thanks for your comment and your question. You say more of this, please. Fair enough. Here is something I was working on in anticipation of a request such as this. I hope it helps.
    Pythagorean Relativity (for the EvC forum.)
    This is just to show you how easy relativity is to deduce and understand —
    and teach — in Normal Realism as described in my last posting.
    Once we get rid of the idea that light has a ‘speed’, it all becomes very simple and easy. Let me show you what I mean .
    Just imagine yourself back at the time of Pythagoras. You look out on the world and you observe, as Pythagoras did, that the world has three rectangular dimensions, length, breadth and depth. You wouldn’t know anything, of course, about ‘light-speed’ and all its associated trappings, such as, ‘Michelson and Morley’, ‘ether’, ‘electromagnetic waves’, ‘photons’, ‘Faraday’, ‘Einstein’, ‘Minkowski’ or anything like that. Light is simply what you see in those three dimensions, the opposite of dark.
    Also like Pythagoras, you observe that a body travelling, say, east whilst it also travels north, travels a distance whose length is the resultant of the two component distances, which is the square-root of the sum of the squares of the distance north and the distance east, the relation known as Pythagoras’ Theorem.
    But now you start thinking about the speed of the travelling body, which is the distance travelled by the body in a certain time, that is, the distance s divided by the time t. In this way, you come to realise that in addition to the three dimensions of space there is another dimension, the dimension of duration, or time.
    Then you ask yourself how that fourth dimension is to be projected’ You reflect on the fact that the defining characteristic of all three dimensions you already know is that they are projected in such a way as not to encroach on each other’s domains, and the only way of doing that is to project them at right-angles to one another, that is, orthogonally. From this you conclude that, by that same token, the dimension of time must be projected at right-angles to the other three, in the same way that those three are projected in relation to one another. And in the same way that the distance s travelled by the body is the square root of the sums of the squares of the three spatial dimensions, the composite, space-time length of the travelling body is the square root of the sum of the squares of all four dimensions.
    Now it goes without saying, of course, that the measures of all four of these dimensions have to be in the same units for the formula to have any geometrical meaning. Besides, for what possible reason would you want to choose different units for any one or more of those four dimensions? It follows, then, that whatever units you might use for measuring time would be the same as those used for measuring space, and vice versa. So this extended version of Pythagoras’ theorem to include time would, in effect, make the whole thing a geometrical time-formula. In that case, if the intrinsic duration (proper-time) registered by the body in travelling the distance s is the time-measure t, then that duration relative to the observer of that motion is
    tR = (s2 + t2),
    where tR is the resultant of the two component measures. [Note that the missing symbol in these formulae signifies the square-root sign, and that R is a subscript whereas the 2s in places are superscript.]
    This, no more and no less, is, the pre-Einstein, pre-Minkowskian, pre-modern physics formula for relativistic time-dilation. To prove this, let us use the same units of modern seconds for all the variables, uniformly, and let the observational speed, or relative velocity, of the body be v = s/tR . From this it follows that s = vtR Substituting this expression vtR for s in the Pythagorean time-equation and simplifying the result produces
    tR = t /1 — (v2/c2),
    which is, of course, Einstein’s formula for relativistic time-dilation, from which all modern relativistic physics stems. (Recall that in this formula, c is not the customary ‘speed of light’; it is simply a constant made necessary to equate conventional units of metres and seconds.In the New Physics of Normal Realism, c has no significance apart from that.
    Viv Pope.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Neo-Machian quantum theory.
    This is just to show you how easy quantum physics is to deduce and understand — and teach — without thinking of light as having a ‘speed’. This is as in Neo-Machian Normal Realist physics, described in my last posting.
    In Mach’s phenomenalism. all phenomena reduce to discrete bits of observational information which the followers of Mach called ‘sense-data’. If we extend this concept of ‘sense data’ to include instrument-data, as in Normal Realism, then since all objects, anywhere, can be instruments of perception, these ‘sense-data’ of Mach’s can be identified with Planck’s quantum of energetic physical interaction, h. [Note that the missing symbol in these formulae signifies the square-root sign and that R is a subscript and the 2s in places are superscript.]
    tR = t /1 — (v2/c2)
    ,
    Now v-squared, in standard modem physics. is e/m (from e = mv2, where E is potential energy, which is twice the kinetic energy K) Substituting this energy expression E/m for v-squared in the above formula and stating the formula in terms of E produces
    E = mc2[1 — (t2/tR2)]
    Taking t as the coefficient of the formula, and expressing tR in integer multiples n of t. we have
    E = mc2[1 — (1/n2)]
    Note that for n equals infinity this formula states, simply, the famous energy-mass interconversion formula:
    E = mc2 .
    This means that energy and mass are totally inter-convertible only in the case of n being (theoretically) infinite. For all other values of n the formula produces a step series of quantum values for E, expressed by;
    E = mc2[(1/n12 — (1/n22)]
    where n1 and n2 are intermediate values of n, with n1 being the fixed and n2 the running terms, respectively. [Note that the 1 and the 2 directly following the ns in these formulae are subscripts.]
    Now anyone who knows his physics will see, straightaway, that this Pythagorean derivative formula has the exact shape of the Balmer formula for simple spectra. For instance, with n1 given the starting value of two and the rising series for n2 = 3, 4, etc., this formula expresses the whole series of energy-values of the spectrum of hydrogen.
    Dividing the formula by Planck’s constant h then expresses it in terms of frequency, f, viz.:
    f = flim. [(1/n12 — (1/n22)],
    where f.lim. is the constant of the series, like the Rydberg constant in standard spectroscopy.
    What this says is simply that energy is fundamentally quantised at its very root, that modern quantum theory —which, as Feynman says, nobody understands - is, in fact, very easy to understand — unless, of course, we seek to understand it in terms of the labyrinthine theoretical ‘Escher’-like structure of Extant Theoretical Physics.
    All this, of course, can be only the starting point for the proposed Neo-Machian New Physics which is, of course, relatively young compared to the much older and more grizzled, Extant Physics. Give it some years in maturing and I’m sure it will be a natural replacement for current physics, which is now, due to long-time theoretical overindulgence and consdequent hardening of ts intellectual arteries, dying on its feet.
    Viv Pope
    Now, Iblis,
    to your question of the sun warming your face or a photo-electric cell — or, you might say, a rock, a pebble or indeed the earth itself. The answer is that these interactions consist of statistical numbers of quanta transferred from the sun to the object in accordance with the ordinary Second Law of Thermodynamics, sometimes called the Law of Entropy. Recall that these light-pixels, or quanta, have the dimensions of energy-multiplied-by-time, or action. Recall, also, that in Neo-Machian Normal Realism, these proper-time-instantaneous interactions don’t take place just between objects and human percipients, as in the early phenomenalism of George Berkeley. They take place between all objects whatsoever, only some of which may be our eyes, cameras and photoelectric cells. So, where does that power come from? It comes from the sun in the ordinary way known to the science of thermodynamics —excluding only ‘photons’ and ‘light-speed’. Again I hope this helps.
    VP
    Edited by Viv Pope, : Missing signature.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 129 by Iblis, posted 12-12-2009 8:34 AM Iblis has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 132 by Admin, posted 12-13-2009 3:02 PM Viv Pope has replied
     Message 133 by cavediver, posted 12-13-2009 4:32 PM Viv Pope has replied
     Message 134 by cavediver, posted 12-13-2009 4:38 PM Viv Pope has replied
     Message 135 by Iblis, posted 12-13-2009 7:58 PM Viv Pope has replied

      
    Admin
    Director
    Posts: 12995
    From: EvC Forum
    Joined: 06-14-2002
    Member Rating: 2.3


    Message 132 of 268 (539190)
    12-13-2009 3:02 PM
    Reply to: Message 131 by Viv Pope
    12-13-2009 2:57 PM


    Re: Spin and Perception
    Hi Viv,
    Not all the character codes you're using are rendering for me. We do have Latex here. For example this:
    [latex]I=\int_{\cal{B}}d^4\! x\sqrt{\tilde{g}} e^{\Phi}\left(\tilde{R}(\tilde{g})+\left(\nabla \Phi \right)^2-{1\over 12} H_{\mu\nu\rho}H^{\mu\nu\rho} \right)[/latex]
    Becomes this:
    --Percy
    Edited by Admin, : No reason given.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 131 by Viv Pope, posted 12-13-2009 2:57 PM Viv Pope has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 137 by Viv Pope, posted 12-14-2009 8:41 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

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


    Message 133 of 268 (539198)
    12-13-2009 4:32 PM
    Reply to: Message 131 by Viv Pope
    12-13-2009 2:57 PM


    Re: Spin and Perception
    In that case, if the intrinsic duration (proper-time) registered by the body in travelling the distance s is the time-measure t, then that duration relative to the observer of that motion is
    ,
    where tR is the resultant of the two component measures.
    This, no more and no less, is, the pre-Einstein, pre-Minkowskian, pre-modern physics formula for relativistic time-dilation. To prove this, let us use the same units of modern seconds for all the variables, uniformly, and let the observational speed, or relative velocity, of the body be v = s/tR . From this it follows that s = vtR Substituting this expression vtR for s in the Pythagorean time-equation and simplifying the result produces
    ,
    which is, of course, Einstein’s formula for relativistic time-dilation, from which all modern relativistic physics stems.
    (edited to make use of equation formating)
    Yes, this is Special Relativity using Minkowksi's space-time approach from 1906. You have just written your first equation in a bizarre form, as you have mixed a coordinate measure and scalar measure on the right hand side. We would normally write t2 = -tR2 + s2, keeping the coordinates together.
    So what on earth ae you talking about this being pre-Einstein and pre-Minkowski?
    And why are you claiming this as your work?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 131 by Viv Pope, posted 12-13-2009 2:57 PM Viv Pope has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 138 by Viv Pope, posted 12-14-2009 9:30 AM cavediver has replied
     Message 150 by Viv Pope, posted 12-14-2009 2:19 PM cavediver has replied

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


    Message 134 of 268 (539199)
    12-13-2009 4:38 PM
    Reply to: Message 131 by Viv Pope
    12-13-2009 2:57 PM


    Re: Spin and Perception
    E = mc2[1 — (t2/tR2)]
    Taking t as the coefficient of the formula, and expressing tR in integer multiples n of t. we have
    E = mc2[1 — (1/n2)]
    Err, what right do you have to say that n is an integer???
    t2/tR2 has no reason to be an integer, and wishing it so is not exactly science. So you have no quantisation. Just wishful thinking. Sorry.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 131 by Viv Pope, posted 12-13-2009 2:57 PM Viv Pope has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 141 by Viv Pope, posted 12-14-2009 11:39 AM cavediver has replied

      
    Iblis
    Member (Idle past 3895 days)
    Posts: 663
    Joined: 11-17-2005


    Message 135 of 268 (539205)
    12-13-2009 7:58 PM
    Reply to: Message 131 by Viv Pope
    12-13-2009 2:57 PM


    Re: Spin and Perception
    You look out on the world and you observe, as Pythagoras did, that the world has three rectangular dimensions, length, breadth and depth. You wouldn’t know anything, of course
    Yes thanks, I do love this stuff. My understanding of n-dimensional geometry is pretty satisfactory to me, I don't see anything in this part of your material that is confusing or improper. But I've picked up a problem student who isn't getting it, who seems to admire your posts; so now I have some hope that he will be able to understand, by hearing it from you, that another dimension is just another orthogonal measurement like length, width and depth, rather than another universe like the one that Captain Kirk and his away team beamed over to accidentally where Mr Spock had a beard.
    fee fie foe fum pre-Minkowskian tomayto tomahto Neo-Machian blah blah E = mc2[1 — (1/n2)] yadda yadda yadda
    But what I was really hoping to hear more about, whenever you get the chance, is this business of angular momentum. I am currently trying to study fractional spin, and quantized spin in general, and relate it to things we can use as examples in the macro scale or "real world".
    In this blurb for example
    wiki writes:
    The classical definition of angular momentum as
    L = r x p
    depends on six numbers: rx, ry, rz, px, py, and pz. Translating this into quantum-mechanical terms, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle tells us that it is not possible for all six of these numbers to be measured simultaneously with arbitrary precision. Therefore, there are limits to what can be known or measured about a particle's angular momentum. It turns out that the best that one can do is to simultaneously measure both the angular momentum vector's magnitude and its component along one axis.
    Angular momentum - Wikipedia
    they seem to be saying that all the variables and measurements can be modeled using some large spinning object in motion. This sounds whatever, vaguely similar to some of the things you are saying. So I was thinking that understanding what your philosophy expects angular momentum to have to do with the measurement of gravity might help me understand these concepts better, or at least see where I might be going wrong.
    to your question of the sun warming your face or a photo-electric cell — or, you might say, a rock, a pebble or indeed the earth itself. The answer is that these interactions consist of statistical numbers of quanta transferred from the sun to the object in accordance with the ordinary Second Law of Thermodynamics, sometimes called the Law of Entropy. Recall that these light-pixels, or quanta, have the dimensions of energy-multiplied-by-time, or action. Recall, also, that in Neo-Machian Normal Realism, these proper-time-instantaneous interactions don’t take place just between objects and human percipients, as in the early phenomenalism of George Berkeley.
    That clarifies things. It's not just observation, like God-on-the-Quad or Von Neumann's Catastrophe. It's actual energy, which you are saying (I think) is getting from one point to another without passing through the intervening points.
    Let me see if I can talk through it using semantics you might like better than the ones that I would prefer normally. The heat on my face is energy that was part of the sun 8 minutes and change ago. It has jumped from the sun, directly to my face. It hasn't moved through any vacuum at all. Some of its neighbor energy there on the sun, has jumped instead to random hydrogen molecules between the sun and the earth. Some of it has jumped to various parts of the atmosphere between me and the sky. Some of the heat on my face has jumped to me from the atmosphere. But none of it has ever existed in a vacuum, not the unreal vacuum between me and the sun somewhere and not the real vacuum between molecules or particles. There was never any traveling through, there was always a quantum-jumping across. Yeah?
    This line of thinking is interesting, but I'm not sure I understand how useful it is. There seem to be some theoretical problems here, too. We know that gravity is subject to the c limit, it doesn't happen instantaneously. Your material seems to be implying that spooky-action-at-a-distance effects like those involved in entanglement would also be subject to the limit, ie there would be a delay between one end of the waveform collapse and the other. This doesn't seem to correspond to the results of the actual experiments, but I will have to do more research to dig out examples and see if I am understanding them correctly.
    This whole discussion reminds me of the Ensemble Interpretation, which says that the effects that the Copenhagen is struggling with only apply statistically, never to single particles. They have this same problem with experiments which seem to isolate single quanta and show the same effects. One solution to this might be to say that even these singular quanta are in fact statistical, composed of some even smaller parts in some sub-universal dimensional matrix of some kind.
    But I strongly doubt that you subscribe to any such wacky sub-sub-atomic mayhem

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 131 by Viv Pope, posted 12-13-2009 2:57 PM Viv Pope has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 136 by Viv Pope, posted 12-14-2009 8:20 AM Iblis has replied
     Message 163 by Viv Pope, posted 12-15-2009 3:59 AM Iblis 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