 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Physics - Relativity Forum » Lightspeed exceeded... |
|
Page 7 of 7 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| PD... |
 Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:38 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 30, 10:53 am, Vern <vthod... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 29, 5:05 pm, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 29, 3:23 pm, Vern <vthod... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
snip
I think Tom VanFlandern's causality principles are necessary and I
believe that physicists historically followed those principles. The
break from those principles appears to have begun with SR.
and quantum mechanics, yes.
Tom VanFlandern's causality principles appear to be in conflict with a
number of experimental results, including delayed choice experiments
in quantum mechanics and those experiments in strong support for
special relativity.
Now, this did come as a shock for a number of physicists in the first
half of the 20th century, who firmly believed that principles similar
to TVF's were essential to nature and therefore to science. However,
since science is the study of how nature actually is, and when
experimental results started coming in that were wholly consistent
with theories that dispensed with this principle, then the natural
question to ask is whether that principle really does apply to reality
or is just being held onto in our minds as a comfortable security
blanket.
This is the issue exactly. Paul's point was that there are no
experimental results that cannot be explained with an ether model and
ether models do not violate the historical principles that have guided
physicists. So instead of assuming that nature does not conform to
those principles and only relying on conformance with equations to
determine what is real, physicists should have struck to their
principles. But it's never too late. Unless an ether model is
falsified by an experimental result, it is superior to any theory
which does not adhere to those historical principles.
Yes, this is philosophy, but it is an inherent part of physics.
The discussion should be limited to only those experimental results
which you believe cannot be explained with an ether model, so that you
can see (if ether theory cannot be falsified) that abandoning the
historical principles is unnecessary.
[/quote]
The experiments of Aspect et al, and a number of them following,
including several delayed-choice experiments -- motivated by the EPR
paper and J Bell's work -- all clearly indicate that time-ordered
deterministic causality is NOT consistent with experimental results.
That is reason enough to say that any model whose primary
justification is based on that principle needs to be looked at
askance. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Paul Stowe... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 10:01 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 30, 8:56 am, Vern <vthod... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 29, 4:33 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Vern wrote:
snip
I'm still waiting for you to state what you think the reason(s) was/
were for the historical abandonment of the lumiferious aether.
Other than experiments which explicitly contradict the claims of aether of
that time, and physical theory existing which works perfectly fine without
aether?
I didn't think there was anything I was missing.
Vern
[/quote]
You really don't think the Dougie is going to give you any cogent
answer do you? HE DOESN"T KNOW the answer. Just wants to sound like
a debunker. Lorentz violations, UV catastrophe, basic quantized wave
behavior, photoelectric effect are ALL consistent with basic medium
behavior. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Paul Stowe... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 10:09 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 30, 9:38 am, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 30, 10:53 am, Vern <vthod... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 29, 5:05 pm, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 29, 3:23 pm, Vern <vthod... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
snip
I think Tom VanFlandern's causality principles are necessary and I
believe that physicists historically followed those principles. The
break from those principles appears to have begun with SR.
and quantum mechanics, yes.
Tom VanFlandern's causality principles appear to be in conflict with a
number of experimental results, including delayed choice experiments
in quantum mechanics and those experiments in strong support for
special relativity.
Now, this did come as a shock for a number of physicists in the first
half of the 20th century, who firmly believed that principles similar
to TVF's were essential to nature and therefore to science. However,
since science is the study of how nature actually is, and when
experimental results started coming in that were wholly consistent
with theories that dispensed with this principle, then the natural
question to ask is whether that principle really does apply to reality
or is just being held onto in our minds as a comfortable security
blanket.
This is the issue exactly. Paul's point was that there are no
experimental results that cannot be explained with an ether model and
ether models do not violate the historical principles that have guided
physicists. So instead of assuming that nature does not conform to
those principles and only relying on conformance with equations to
determine what is real, physicists should have struck to their
principles. But it's never too late. Unless an ether model is
falsified by an experimental result, it is superior to any theory
which does not adhere to those historical principles.
Yes, this is philosophy, but it is an inherent part of physics.
The discussion should be limited to only those experimental results
which you believe cannot be explained with an ether model, so that you
can see (if ether theory cannot be falsified) that abandoning the
historical principles is unnecessary.
The experiments of Aspect et al, and a number of them following,
including several delayed-choice experiments -- motivated by the EPR
paper and J Bell's work -- all clearly indicate that time-ordered
deterministic causality is NOT consistent with experimental results.
That is reason enough to say that any model whose primary
justification is based on that principle needs to be looked at
askance.
[/quote]
You never looked at this, did you?
"When a bizarre result occurs at the end of an experiment,
one usually suspects that a systematic error has
slipped-in during the course of its execution. Occurrence
of a systematic error in theoretical work is rather rare,
but that is precisely what has happened in the case of
Bell’s theorem. What is astonishing, however, is that,
despite the fact that the error in this case is in plain
sight—in the very first equation of Bell’s paper—it
remains unrecognized, even after being exposed explicitly"
Kinda says it all, don't cha'think... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Paul Stowe... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 10:13 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 30, 9:38 am, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]The experiments of Aspect et al, and a number of them following,
including several delayed-choice experiments -- motivated by the EPR
paper and J Bell's work -- all clearly indicate that time-ordered
deterministic causality is NOT consistent with experimental results.
That is reason enough to say that any model whose primary
justification is based on that principle needs to be looked at
askance.
[/quote]
You never looked at this, did you?
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0904/0904.4259v2.pdf
"When a bizarre result occurs at the end of an experiment,
one usually suspects that a systematic error has
slipped-in during the course of its execution. Occurrence
of a systematic error in theoretical work is rather rare,
but that is precisely what has happened in the case of
Bell’s theorem. What is astonishing, however, is that,
despite the fact that the error in this case is in plain
sight—in the very first equation of Bell’s paper—it
remains unrecognized, even after being exposed explicitly"
Kinda says it all, don't cha'think... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| doug... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 11:33 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Vern wrote:
[quote]On Oct 29, 9:23 pm, doug <x... at (no spam) xx.com> wrote:
Vern wrote:
snip
I'm still waiting for you to state what you think the reason(s) was/
were for the historical abandonment of the lumiferious aether. I've
given you all the textbook ones, but you acted like they were the
wrong ones.
I have not seen you present any.
Message numbers 326 and 329 in this post.
So you are a google poster which is not surprising. Going over[/quote]
there and looking at what appear to be those posts, there is
you quoting Van Flandern, the noted crank, as well as whining
about your prejudices on how you would like the universe to
follow your desire for a causality that you approve of.
The other seems to be Paul ranting about his views about the
aether while adding nothing to do the discussion. He did show
his ignorance of current science and again express his desire
for the universe and all of science to change to fit his
prejudices.
What is it in those posts that you think is of note?
And, again, do you know the reasons that the aether concept
was abandoned long ago? Find that out and then try to refute
those reasons with something other than your claim to like
the aether better.
> Vern |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| doug... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 11:35 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Vern wrote:
[quote]On Oct 29, 5:05 pm, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 29, 3:23 pm, Vern <vthod... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
snip
I think Tom VanFlandern's causality principles are necessary and I
believe that physicists historically followed those principles. The
break from those principles appears to have begun with SR.
and quantum mechanics, yes.
Tom VanFlandern's causality principles appear to be in conflict with a
number of experimental results, including delayed choice experiments
in quantum mechanics and those experiments in strong support for
special relativity.
Now, this did come as a shock for a number of physicists in the first
half of the 20th century, who firmly believed that principles similar
to TVF's were essential to nature and therefore to science. However,
since science is the study of how nature actually is, and when
experimental results started coming in that were wholly consistent
with theories that dispensed with this principle, then the natural
question to ask is whether that principle really does apply to reality
or is just being held onto in our minds as a comfortable security
blanket.
This is the issue exactly. Paul's point was that there are no
experimental results that cannot be explained with an ether model and
ether models do not violate the historical principles that have guided
physicists. So instead of assuming that nature does not conform to
those principles and only relying on conformance with equations to
determine what is real, physicists should have struck to their
principles. But it's never too late. Unless an ether model is
falsified by an experimental result, it is superior to any theory
which does not adhere to those historical principles.
Yes, this is philosophy, but it is an inherent part of physics.
The discussion should be limited to only those experimental results
which you believe cannot be explained with an ether model, so that you
can see (if ether theory cannot be falsified) that abandoning the
historical principles is unnecessary.
You do realize that this discussion was held last century and a[/quote]
result came from that? You seem to have no knowledge of why
the aether concept was abandoned.
> Vern |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| PD... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 11:39 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 30, 3:13 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 30, 9:38 am, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
The experiments of Aspect et al, and a number of them following,
including several delayed-choice experiments -- motivated by the EPR
paper and J Bell's work -- all clearly indicate that time-ordered
deterministic causality is NOT consistent with experimental results.
That is reason enough to say that any model whose primary
justification is based on that principle needs to be looked at
askance.
You never looked at this, did you?
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0904/0904.4259v2.pdf
"When a bizarre result occurs at the end of an experiment,
one usually suspects that a systematic error has
slipped-in during the course of its execution. Occurrence
of a systematic error in theoretical work is rather rare,
but that is precisely what has happened in the case of
Bell’s theorem. What is astonishing, however, is that,
despite the fact that the error in this case is in plain
sight—in the very first equation of Bell’s paper—it
remains unrecognized, even after being exposed explicitly"
Kinda says it all, don't cha'think...
[/quote]
Kinda is wrong, too.
Of course, you are free to agree with someone who is wrong.
The paper is wrong in general, and you'll note that it has not managed
to survive quality assurance review.
But it's telling that you would extract the above excerpt, where you
endorse the position that if something unusual occurs in experiment,
then this is an indicator that something wrong has happened. Progress
in physics quite often involves shocking surprises, and that's what
makes it fun. The fact that you despise surprises and find them
uncomfortable says a lot.
PD
PD |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| doug... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 3:41 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Paul Stowe wrote:
[quote]On Oct 30, 8:56 am, Vern <vthod... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 29, 4:33 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Vern wrote:
snip
I'm still waiting for you to state what you think the reason(s) was/
were for the historical abandonment of the lumiferious aether.
Other than experiments which explicitly contradict the claims of aether of
that time, and physical theory existing which works perfectly fine without
aether?
I didn't think there was anything I was missing.
Vern
You really don't think the Dougie is going to give you any cogent
answer do you? HE DOESN"T KNOW the answer.
[/quote]
You do not read very well in addition to your lack of science
knowledge. It is also you who has no idea why the aether concept
was abandoned and now just wants it back to make him feel better.
Just wants to sound like
[quote]a debunker. Lorentz violations, UV catastrophe, basic quantized wave
behavior, photoelectric effect are ALL consistent with basic medium
behavior.
[/quote]
Lots of nice assertions without any support. But you have presented
nothing so far and we do not expect you to now. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| doug... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 3:42 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Paul Stowe wrote:
[quote]On Oct 30, 9:38 am, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
The experiments of Aspect et al, and a number of them following,
including several delayed-choice experiments -- motivated by the EPR
paper and J Bell's work -- all clearly indicate that time-ordered
deterministic causality is NOT consistent with experimental results.
That is reason enough to say that any model whose primary
justification is based on that principle needs to be looked at
askance.
You never looked at this, did you?
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0904/0904.4259v2.pdf
"When a bizarre result occurs at the end of an experiment,
one usually suspects that a systematic error has
slipped-in during the course of its execution. Occurrence
of a systematic error in theoretical work is rather rare,
but that is precisely what has happened in the case of
Bell’s theorem. What is astonishing, however, is that,
despite the fact that the error in this case is in plain
sight—in the very first equation of Bell’s paper—it
remains unrecognized, even after being exposed explicitly"
Kinda says it all, don't cha'think...
[/quote]
Yes, it kind of says that you have no clue. You want to ignore
the experiments to keep your delusions alive. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Vern... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 4:11 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 30, 12:33 pm, doug <x... at (no spam) xx.com> wrote:
[quote]Vernwrote:
[/quote]
<snip>
[quote]I have not seen you present any.
Message numbers 326 and 329 in this post.
So you are a google poster which is not surprising. Going over
there and looking at what appear to be those posts, there is
you quoting Van Flandern, the noted crank, as well as whining
about your prejudices on how you would like the universe to
follow your desire for a causality that you approve of.
The other seems to be Paul ranting about his views about the
aether while adding nothing to do the discussion. He did show
his ignorance of current science and again express his desire
for the universe and all of science to change to fit his
prejudices.
What is it in those posts that you think is of note?
And, again, do you know the reasons that the aether concept
was abandoned long ago? Find that out and then try to refute
those reasons with something other than your claim to like
the aether better.
[/quote]
In post number 326 I stated:
"Doug and Eric have alluded to the historical reason why the
luminiferous aether was abandoned, accusing Paul of not knowing. I'm
guessing that they're alluding to the photoelectric effect- particle/
wave duality and polarization. If that's the case, then let's limit
the debate to that. If PD identifies other aspects of nature that
cannot be explained with a medium model, then those can be looked at."
In post number 329 I stated:
"The common reasons cited for the abandonment of the luminiferous
aether are that no motion relative to it could be detected, it had to
be a solid to sustain transverse waves or conversely if it was not a
solid, its longitudinal waves could not account for polarization, the
theories of relativity negated the need for it (Occam's razor) and
wave/particle duality."
It seems this debate (or the substance of it, at least) has been moved
to the post entitled, "Is physics a science?" so this response is only
for the record, so to speak. Due to time limitations, I can't
participate daily.
Vern |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| doug... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 11:27 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Vern wrote:
[quote]On Oct 30, 12:33 pm, doug <x... at (no spam) xx.com> wrote:
Vernwrote:
snip
I have not seen you present any.
Message numbers 326 and 329 in this post.
So you are a google poster which is not surprising. Going over
there and looking at what appear to be those posts, there is
you quoting Van Flandern, the noted crank, as well as whining
about your prejudices on how you would like the universe to
follow your desire for a causality that you approve of.
The other seems to be Paul ranting about his views about the
aether while adding nothing to do the discussion. He did show
his ignorance of current science and again express his desire
for the universe and all of science to change to fit his
prejudices.
What is it in those posts that you think is of note?
And, again, do you know the reasons that the aether concept
was abandoned long ago? Find that out and then try to refute
those reasons with something other than your claim to like
the aether better.
In post number 326 I stated:
"Doug and Eric have alluded to the historical reason why the
luminiferous aether was abandoned, accusing Paul of not knowing.
[/quote]
That is a true statment. Paul does not know, and does not seem to
want to know why the aether concept was abandoned.
I'm
[quote]guessing that they're alluding to the photoelectric effect- particle/
wave duality and polarization. If that's the case, then let's limit
the debate to that. If PD identifies other aspects of nature that
cannot be explained with a medium model, then those can be looked at."
And, you also do not know the reason that the aether concept was[/quote]
abandoned. Are you not interested in that?
[quote]In post number 329 I stated:
"The common reasons cited for the abandonment of the luminiferous
aether are that no motion relative to it could be detected, it had to
be a solid to sustain transverse waves or conversely if it was not a
solid, its longitudinal waves could not account for polarization, the
theories of relativity negated the need for it (Occam's razor) and
wave/particle duality."
[/quote]
And?
[quote]
It seems this debate (or the substance of it, at least) has been moved
to the post entitled, "Is physics a science?" so this response is only
for the record, so to speak.
[/quote]
In that thread, Paul continues to demonstrate his desire to have the
universe change to meet his prejudices. He also has shown no support
for his desires.
Due to time limitations, I can't
[quote]participate daily.
Vern[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Dec 11, 2009 8:36 am
|
|