Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Speed of Light
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 100 of 268 (538396)
12-06-2009 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Percy
12-05-2009 4:33 PM


Re: The funny thing is...
Percy writes:
Of course, it would be better if you or Son Goku were doing this...
Cavediver to Viv writes:
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!
Viv in reply writes:
So I don’t have to answer this question of yours in the way you might require, which would be like me insisting that questions asked of an Englishman must be responded to in Welsh.
See?

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

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 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

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 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

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 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 3644 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

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 146 of 268 (539257)
12-14-2009 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by Viv Pope
12-14-2009 9:30 AM


Re: Spin and Perception
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Viv Pope, posted 12-14-2009 9:30 AM Viv Pope has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 147 of 268 (539259)
12-14-2009 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Viv Pope
12-14-2009 11:39 AM


Re: Spin and Perception
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Viv Pope, posted 12-14-2009 11:39 AM Viv Pope has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Viv Pope, posted 12-15-2009 1:35 PM cavediver has not replied
 Message 170 by Viv Pope, posted 12-15-2009 1:40 PM cavediver has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


(1)
Message 152 of 268 (539268)
12-14-2009 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by Viv Pope
12-14-2009 2:19 PM


Re: Spin and Perception
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
If this is derived directly from Pythagoras plus a dimension, can you explain where your concept of "proper time" arrived from? Surely you have time and space, nothing more. Where did this concept of having two times: t, and tR come from? This does not seem particularly pre-Einstein...
By the way, as someone reminds me, how come my highly qualified maths colleagues and science co-authors accept this reasoning of mine without demur?
That is, indeed, an interesting question
Edited by cavediver, : mixing and

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Viv Pope, posted 12-14-2009 2:19 PM Viv Pope has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Hoof Hearted, posted 12-14-2009 2:45 PM cavediver has not replied
 Message 155 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-14-2009 2:59 PM cavediver has not replied
 Message 173 by Viv Pope, posted 12-15-2009 3:01 PM cavediver has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 158 of 268 (539281)
12-14-2009 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by New Cat's Eye
12-14-2009 4:19 PM


Re: off topic question answered
Turns out, most of his messages in the String Theory What is it good for? thread have ratings of 1.
Well, what do you expect if you have the nerve to start a thread like that... he deserves all he gets, and I'll keep... err, I mean, I expect he will keep getting 1s for as long he fails to show string theory some proper respect. Probably
But seriously, I think we're all wondering this... who has Iblis REALLY annoyed???

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-14-2009 4:19 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 161 of 268 (539287)
12-14-2009 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by Iblis
12-14-2009 4:34 PM


Re: SEP
Right, I'm taking a huge beating in the String thread because I dare to post quotes from minority physicists and ask what the hell they are talking about, my job in that thread
maybe, if Lubos Motl was skulking around... despite your concilliatory tone, you have really pissed someone off - we just don't know who!!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Iblis, posted 12-14-2009 4:34 PM Iblis has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 171 of 268 (539385)
12-15-2009 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by Viv Pope
12-15-2009 3:59 AM


Re: Spin and Perception
There is something I’ve already explained, which is that there is much confusion over this business of ‘spooky action- at-a-distance’ There is simply nothing ‘spooky’ about it. The fact is that in relativity there simply is NO CONTRADICTION WHATSOEVER BETWEEN QUANTUM INSTANTANEITY AND RELATIVISTIC TIME-DELAY. In Relativity, any travelling body has TWO VELOCITIES. One is the distance travelled by the body in the time of the observer of the motion (the relative velocity), and the other is that same distance travelled by the body in the time registered by the body itself (the proper time), both velocities as measured by THE SAME OBSERVER — in a telescope, say. The first of these velocities tends towards an upper limit of c while the other tends towards an upper limit of infinity (instantaneity). So how can it be said that instantaneous and time-delayed action at a distance are contradictory, when they are just complementary aspects of the SAME MOTION?
It is true that at as velocity approaches c, the time experienced on the journey tends to zero, giving rise to an instantaneity of sorts. However, this only works for null-separated events - those events that can be connected by a light ray; e.g. now on earth and 8 minutes time at the Sun. But the EPR experiment is dealing with space-like separated events: e.g., now on Earth, and now at the Sun. Thus Viv's suggestion does not help at all. If it was as trivial as this, one would have thought that Einstein may have realised it
Fortunately, there is no quantum instantaneity to explain in the first place, nor any spooky action at a distance. There is "merely" the existence of quantum variables (something that Einstein did not want to consider) that behave unlike their classical counterparts. As we discovered when we looked at the EPR experiment the other year, considerations of instanteous information exchange only arise when we try to mimic the statistical results of the EPR experiment using classical variables.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Viv Pope, posted 12-15-2009 3:59 AM Viv Pope has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by Viv Pope, posted 12-16-2009 8:37 AM cavediver has replied
 Message 185 by Iblis, posted 12-16-2009 11:46 PM cavediver has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 179 of 268 (539493)
12-16-2009 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 178 by Viv Pope
12-16-2009 8:37 AM


Re: Spin and Perception

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Viv Pope, posted 12-16-2009 8:37 AM Viv Pope has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 187 of 268 (539576)
12-17-2009 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by Iblis
12-16-2009 11:46 PM


Re: Spin and Perception
More about this, please. This is exactly the sort of thing I would like to understand better.
Check out this thread from the past. If you just read my posts, you won't go far wrong Son Goku and Fallacycop help, but it's mainly to convince RAZD that he's got the wrong end of the stick. It is definitely not worth looking at his ideas until you understand what I am saying.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Iblis, posted 12-16-2009 11:46 PM Iblis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by Iblis, posted 12-17-2009 8:47 PM cavediver has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 189 of 268 (539649)
12-18-2009 4:33 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by Iblis
12-17-2009 8:47 PM


Re: Spin and Perception
This seems pretty spooky after all.
Yes, it is spooky - Einstein was no slouch
You appear to be demonstrating that the results at the other end will differ statistically depending on whether we observe our end or not.
NO! The results at ONE END are random, and no level of analysis of the results will convince you otherwise. It is the correlations between the TWO ENDS that are spooky.
This implies that superposition and the collapse of the wave function are real things
I would suggest that in a reasonably strong sense, they are.
and they aren't bound by the speed of light.
Oh yes they are

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Iblis, posted 12-17-2009 8:47 PM Iblis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by onifre, posted 12-18-2009 9:54 AM cavediver has not replied
 Message 207 by Iblis, posted 12-22-2009 12:07 AM cavediver has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 211 of 268 (540429)
12-25-2009 2:40 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by Iblis
12-22-2009 12:07 AM


Re: Spin and Perception
There isn't any information jumping from one end to another. The information is at both ends, and only at both ends. There aren't two events, in different places, happening at one time. There is only one event, happening once. Until we see this whole event, however far away the farthest part of it is, we don't know about it.
An excellent description.
Perhaps you would now like to explain to Viv how he has completely failed to understand what we are talking about

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Iblis, posted 12-22-2009 12:07 AM Iblis has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by Percy, posted 12-25-2009 9:15 AM cavediver has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024