|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Junior Member (Idle past 5155 days) Posts: 24 From: Chorley, Lancs, UK Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Speed of Light | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Viv Pope Member (Idle past 4990 days) Posts: 75 From: Walesw Joined: |
Dear Iblis,
Thanks for your reply. Yes, I see that you are very much au fait with what I am saying. And, yes, as soon as I can get around to it, I will certainly tackle ‘this business of angular momentum’, plus its relation to gravity and the limiting ‘speed of light’. In the meantime I have to deal with some cynics who are trying to refute my argument by attacking me personally, the age-old ploy known as argumentum ad hominem. As you doubtless know, this sophistic method means: ‘If you can’t defeat the argument then attack the person. (Percy, please note). I look forward to discussing with you further, if and when these cynical attacks on me finish. Viv Pope
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Viv Pope Member (Idle past 4990 days) Posts: 75 From: Walesw Joined: |
Dear Percy,
My apologies for the mess-up with the formulae. As someone from a different era, dealing with the Internet is like going from riding a bicycle to flying a B29 bomber (old dog, new ticks and all that). All those formulae can be read, anyway, by anyone truly interested, on those websites I have mentioned, eg., The Website of Science-Philosopher Viv Pope and http://www.poams.org also http://www.vivpope.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Viv Pope Member (Idle past 4990 days) Posts: 75 From: Walesw Joined: |
Dear Cavediver.
Here we go again! These points of yours have been answered already, more than once. But you still don’t get it, do you? This discussion should be about the logical and physical implications of dispensing with the traditional light-speed interpretation of c, NOT questioning the personal veracity of Viv Pope! Why do you remain so hostile to my argument? I can’t see any reason other than that it is frightening you. Viv Pope. PS,In my last posing to Iblis I talked about argumentum ad hominem. I suggest you take a good look at that. Oh, and by the way, your point about scale constant is irrelevant. The only 'scale constant in these arguments is c, unless one substitutes for the limit of the spectrum formula (f.lim.) the value of the Rydberg constant, cR. VP
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
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’. Oh okay. Then explain it to me. When I studied the physics of light in college there was an awesome demonstration that I still remember quite well. They had an overhead projector with this wacky aparatus on it. it was a thin clear plasitc set-up of the double slit experiment but it held water in it. There was a little wave maker in the back. You could see the waves on the screen from the projector. So there we had it, right in front of our eyes, water waves interfering and demonstrating constructive and destructive interference. It looked just like this:
Then, they showed us the double slit experiment with light and it produced the well-known interference pattern:
The light behaved just like the water waves except we couldn't actually see the waves themselves when it was done with the light. But its a great explanation of the observation of the wave-interference. It can be explained in simple english and/or with some diagrams. You don't have to read a whole paper.
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. The whole argument? No. But I'm definately not going to read your paper. If your explanation has any worth at all, then you should be able to offer a simple consice plain english explanation of the observed phemonemon. Also, it should be a better explanation that the one of light being propogating waves kinda like water that can so easily be demonstrated. Spamming your paper to me is not going to convince me that you're on to anything. Can you explain it or not?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Iblis Member (Idle past 3923 days) Posts: 663 Joined: |
In the meantime I have to deal with some cynics who are trying to refute my argument by attacking me personally, Yes of course, I understand perfectly. Please keep in mind though, that if you have a knee-jerk reaction to these kinds of criticism that is more entertaining than your actual lectures, the foul play is going to escalate rather than subside. A better approach might be to deal patiently with the actual issues that are being confused and accept responsibility gracefully for places where that confusion may be attributable to you. Yes? For example, the portion of your last substantial post between the n-dimensional geometry and the sun-on-my-face exposition, the middle part, is pretty muddled. I don't mean just the whole math-in-print-wtf-is-latex part, I mean specifically: when you use phrases like "pre-Einstein, pre-Minkowskian, pre-modern" while introducing formulas that turn out to be e=mc2 and t2=-tR2+s2 ... WELL, that certainly sounds like you are claiming that the bomb-pusher and his nuncle didn't do the work that is credited to them, doesn't it? And this would be a very serious charge, given without evidence, and such things provoke people to outrage. So what someone has cleverly done is, to flip the whole muddle back over on to you, and let you see how it feels. Turnabout is fair play! Now of course, I didn't interpret what you are saying this way. It's obvious to me that what you mean is to start with Pythagoras, work your way up to Minkowski, and show how all the math works without the language artifacts treating c as a speed. The part of it that is the math, is the math of the people to whom it is attributed. The part of it that is pre-modern et al, is the part that you have already talked out in getting up to the work of those people. The part of it that is your work and/or Mach's and/or that of some other people you have worked with, who are not Einstein and Minkowski, is the philosophy part, the part about light not being a speed and avoiding any phrasing that implies it is, to the best of your ability. This isn't obvious to most of your audience here, though. The only reason it's obvious to me is because, well, let's not try to go into detail about that, it wouldn't be helpful. Suffice it to say that I am perfectly happy to make tentative conclusions without sufficient facts to justify them. If I'm wrong, I could just guess again. But I'm not wrong, am I?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Viv Pope Member (Idle past 4990 days) Posts: 75 From: Walesw Joined: |
Dear Cavediver,
You really are 'gunning’ for me, aren’t you? The fact is that in proper science it is standard procedure to make an hypothesis which may have no relation with actual values and then develop the logical implications of that premise — or premises — towards a valid logical conclusion, If that conclusion is empirically verified, then that validates the premise{s). It’s like what happens in forensic science when, by guesswork, memory and imagination, an artist constructs an identikit picture which matches the characteristics of a criminal. This is what my argument does. By hypothesis, I choose integers for the sequence of multiples of t. (In Diophantine terms, anyway, what else would these numbers be but integers?). Then by working these premises to their automatic logical conclusion and finding that this produces an exact facsimile of the spectral series, without any reference whatsoever to either ‘light-speed’ or the usual electrodynamics of Bohr, et al., then I declare those premises valid. I’m surprised that you seem to know nothing about this empirical, or inductive method. Or is it that you do know but insist on being negative and obstructive in whichever way you can? Viv Pope.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hoof Hearted Junior Member (Idle past 5155 days) Posts: 24 From: Chorley, Lancs, UK Joined: |
Can someone tell me please if there is a way to get unsubscribed from this thread? My original question has long since been answered and I have no wish to read the comments that are now being posted.
Ian
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13038 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Since you originated this thread, presumably you checked "Email notification". If you edit your Message 1 and uncheck "Email notification" that should do it.
Let me know if this doesn't work and I'll shut it off for you manually.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Iblis Member (Idle past 3923 days) Posts: 663 Joined: |
Can someone tell me please if there is a way to get unsubscribed from this thread?
I believe so, here is what the faQ says
If you create a new topic, you have the option of receiving an email notification every time someone posts a reply to your topic. Just check the email notification box on the "New Topic" form when you create your new topic. If you change your mind about notification you can return later and edit the first message of your topic and check or uncheck this box. You can also select through the preferences section of your profile page whether you would like email notification each time someone replies to one of your messages. EvC Forum: FAQ
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hoof Hearted Junior Member (Idle past 5155 days) Posts: 24 From: Chorley, Lancs, UK Joined: |
A few days ago I unchecked the option in my profile for receiving email notifications. I just edited my 'Message1' The option in there was also unchecked. But I am still receiving notifications. So if there is a way to 'Shut off' the notifications, they I would be grateful for this.
Ian
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3670 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
This discussion should be about the logical and physical implications of dispensing with the traditional light-speed interpretation of c As Minkowski did in his approach - so, what's new?
Why do you remain so hostile to my argument? I can’t see any reason other than that it is frightening you. oh dear...
In my last posing to Iblis I talked about argumentum ad hominem. I suggest you take a good look at that. I would be very interested if you can spot any ad hominem in my above post to you. Can you point it out?
Oh, and by the way, your point about scale constant is irrelevant. Now I'm confused - I didn't make any mention of a scale constant. Can you explain?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3670 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
You really are 'gunning’ for me, aren’t you? No, not at all. You simply stated that you had demonstrated quantisation from your expressions, when in fact you had placed it in by hand yourself by declaring n an integer That doesn't really count...
I’m surprised that you seem to know nothing about this empirical, or inductive method. I do, but my youngest son is the master. Although in that context, we call it cheating
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13038 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Viv Pope writes: In my last posing to Iblis I talked about argumentum ad hominem. Please let the moderators handle moderation issues. If you are having a problem in a discussion thread then you should post to the Report discussion problems here: No.2 thread. It would make it easier to moderate this thread if you could yourself refrain from making "fightin' words" type of comments, like, "I can’t see any reason other than that it is frightening you." When those on both sides of an issue are ignoring the Forum Guidelines (it doesn't hurt to give them a read) it makes it difficult for moderators.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3657 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
One solution might be to actually admonish the people making the ad hominem attacks, rather the innocent victims of those attacks who simply respond to them. Otherwise it tends to cloud any perception of impartiality in the moderation.
Just saying.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Viv Pope Member (Idle past 4990 days) Posts: 75 From: Walesw Joined: |
Dear Cavediver.
Pythagoras is obviously pre-Einstein. What on earth are you talking about? Surely you can see that by simply adding one dimension to Pythagoras’ theorem to make it four-dimensional, and deriving the time-dilation directly from it with no reference whatsoever to the ‘light-speed’ postulated in Einstein’s Second Axiom — is pre-Einstein — logically prior. of course, not as a matter of historical fact, to stress which would be completely absurd. Viv Pope PSBy the way, as someone reminds me, how come my highly qualified maths colleagues and science co-authors accept this reasoning of mine without demur? And how come you feel you can pontificate in the way you do without reading the stuff? If I was trying to evaluate some thesis I would first have to familiarise myself with it through and through and not criticise it until I felt I‘d fully understood it. Some teacher you must be if you reject any thesis just because it is new and because, perhaps, you could not understand it straight off! Far from being a teacher of Physics you’d be more like a Medieval monk. VP.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024