 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Physics - Relativity Forum » Lightspeed exceeded... |
|
Page 1 of 7 Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Maverick... |
 Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 12:06 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Regarding lightspeed.
As supernova explotions or the Big Bang theory implies, matter is
thrown by bigger force in various directions and speeds.
If some matter is thrown at 2/3 of the speed of light in one
direction,
and other matter is thrown in oppersit direction at the same speed
from
origen,- theese will travel apart at 1 1/3 of the speed of light.
This tells us travel beyond the speed of light is possible.
This also explains why we cannot see app. 90 % of the universe.
Dark matter appears to be hyperspace to me.
Think of the antiquated rules that led our forfathers to
believe that we could not travel beyond the speed of sound.
regards
Jesper Hjulmand Jorgensen
Ps.: Energy equals mass squared minus unknown quantity of deteriation
squared.
We now from particle-accelerators that neutrons accelerate above the
speed of light to find a partner(turning into dark matter).
Electricity is working at lightspeed in controled leeds. How wil You
account for powersurges? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Daryl McCullough... |
| Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 8:15 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <h37ddf022so at (no spam) drn.newsguy.com>, Daryl McCullough says...
[quote:4e1c63c890]
Maverick says...
If some matter is thrown at 2/3 of the speed of light in one
direction, and other matter is thrown in oppersit direction
at the same speed from origen,- theese will travel apart at
1 1/3 of the speed of light.
This tells us travel beyond the speed of light is possible.
So you have one object moving at 2/3 the speed of light in
one direction and another object moving at 2/3 the speed of
light in the other direction. Lightspeed limitation means
that it is impossible to travel from one of those objects
to the other.
[/quote:4e1c63c890]
Arg. That was stupid. Lightspeed limitation doesn't say that
at all.
Of course a light signal can travel from one to the other.
--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Whoever... |
| Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 8:19 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Daryl McCullough" <stevendaryl3016 at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:h37ie602d5g at (no spam) drn.newsguy.com...
[quote:6be2cc8352]In article <h37ddf022so at (no spam) drn.newsguy.com>, Daryl McCullough says...
Maverick says...
If some matter is thrown at 2/3 of the speed of light in one
direction, and other matter is thrown in oppersit direction
at the same speed from origen,- theese will travel apart at
1 1/3 of the speed of light.
This tells us travel beyond the speed of light is possible.
So you have one object moving at 2/3 the speed of light in
one direction and another object moving at 2/3 the speed of
light in the other direction. Lightspeed limitation means
that it is impossible to travel from one of those objects
to the other.
Arg. That was stupid. Lightspeed limitation doesn't say that
at all.
Of course a light signal can travel from one to the other.
[/quote:6be2cc8352]
Or something travelling suitably close to the speed of light. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| George Hammond... |
| Posted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 2:27 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 03:06:48 -0700 (PDT), Maverick
<jorgensen.jesper at (no spam) googlemail.com> wrote:
[quote:60ba0461e4]Regarding lightspeed.
As supernova explotions or the Big Bang theory implies, matter is
thrown by bigger force in various directions and speeds.
If some matter is thrown at 2/3 of the speed of light in one
direction,
and other matter is thrown in oppersit direction at the same speed
from
origen,- theese will travel apart at 1 1/3 of the speed of light.
This tells us travel beyond the speed of light is possible.
This also explains why we cannot see app. 90 % of the universe.
Dark matter appears to be hyperspace to me.
Think of the antiquated rules that led our forfathers to
believe that we could not travel beyond the speed of sound.
regards
Jesper Hjulmand Jorgensen
[/quote:60ba0461e4]
[Hammond]
Jesper, dear friend: The EXPERTS solve this kind of SR
problem by using the "RAPIDITY".
A quick Google search of "rapidity" and Wikipedia tells us
that the RAPIDITY is defined as:
RAPIDITY = arctanh(v/c)
and it tells us that RAPIDITIES ARE ADDITIVE...!!!!!
So to solve your problem, we consider the matter traveling
to the East as defining the inertial frame, which means the
ORIGIN is receding from it at a velocity 2/3 c, so:
RAPIDITY(1) = arctanh(2/3) = .804718956
On the other hand the matter going West is receding from the
origin in the other direction at 2/3 c, which is, again, a
rapidity of:
RAPIDITY(2) = .804718956
So, to solve your problem we ADD the two RAPIDITIES and then
take the tanh of the sum:
RAPIDITY(1)+RAPIDITY(2) =(2)(.804718956)=1.609437914
and: tanh(1.609437914) = .923076923 c
So the two pieces of matter are NOT receding from each other
at 4/3 c according to THEM, they are actually receding from
each other at only 92% the speed of light as seen by THEM.
========================================
GEORGE HAMMOND'S PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
Primary site
http://webspace.webring.com/people/eg/george_hammond
1st mirror site
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
2nd mirror site
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
=======================================
THE SPOG FOLK SONG by Casey Bennetto
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
======================================= |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| George Hammond... |
| Posted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 3:03 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 04:27:06 -0400, George Hammond
<Nowhere1 at (no spam) notspam.com> wrote:
[quote:4f400b5b8e]On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 03:06:48 -0700 (PDT), Maverick
jorgensen.jesper at (no spam) googlemail.com> wrote:
Regarding lightspeed.
As supernova explotions or the Big Bang theory implies, matter is
thrown by bigger force in various directions and speeds.
If some matter is thrown at 2/3 of the speed of light in one
direction,
and other matter is thrown in oppersit direction at the same speed
from
origen,- theese will travel apart at 1 1/3 of the speed of light.
This tells us travel beyond the speed of light is possible.
This also explains why we cannot see app. 90 % of the universe.
Dark matter appears to be hyperspace to me.
Think of the antiquated rules that led our forfathers to
believe that we could not travel beyond the speed of sound.
regards
Jesper Hjulmand Jorgensen
[Hammond]
Jesper, dear friend: The EXPERTS solve this kind of SR
problem by using the "RAPIDITY".
A quick Google search of "rapidity" and Wikipedia tells us
that the RAPIDITY is defined as:
RAPIDITY = arctanh(v/c)
and it tells us that RAPIDITIES ARE ADDITIVE...!!!!!
So to solve your problem, we consider the matter traveling
to the East as defining the inertial frame, which means the
ORIGIN is receding from it at a velocity 2/3 c, so:
RAPIDITY(1) = arctanh(2/3) = .804718956
On the other hand the matter going West is receding from the
origin in the other direction at 2/3 c, which is, again, a
rapidity of:
RAPIDITY(2) = .804718956
So, to solve your problem we ADD the two RAPIDITIES and then
take the tanh of the sum:
RAPIDITY(1)+RAPIDITY(2) =(2)(.804718956)=1.609437914
and: tanh(1.609437914) = .923076923 c
So the two pieces of matter are NOT receding from each other
at 4/3 c according to THEM, they are actually receding from
each other at only 92% the speed of light as seen by THEM.
[/quote:4f400b5b8e]
[Hammond]
PS:
Since an observer riding with matter A sees matter B
receding from him at only 92% the speed of light, then
obviously a person traveling on matter A could pull out his
cellphone and call the person traveling with matter B quite
easily, although there would be some time delay.
In fact, if they didn't have cell phones, they could use
telescopes and communicate by semaphore since they would be
clearly visible to each other... although of course a bit
red shifted in appearance... and looking like they were
moving around a bit lethargically!
========================================
GEORGE HAMMOND'S PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
Primary site
http://webspace.webring.com/people/eg/george_hammond
1st mirror site
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
2nd mirror site
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
=======================================
THE SPOG FOLK SONG by Casey Bennetto
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
======================================= |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| PD... |
| Posted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 9:29 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Jul 10, 5:06 am, Maverick <jorgensen.jes... at (no spam) googlemail.com> wrote:
[quote:f911cae4ba]Regarding lightspeed.
As supernova explotions or the Big Bang theory implies, matter is
thrown by bigger force in various directions and speeds.
If some matter is thrown at 2/3 of the speed of light in one
direction,
and other matter is thrown in oppersit direction at the same speed
from
origen,- theese will travel apart at 1 1/3 of the speed of light.
[/quote:f911cae4ba]
Nope. The error is in thinking that velocities just add. They do not.
This is verified in precision measurements.
However, for low-precision measurements, especially at low speed,
simply adding gives an answer that is close enough.
[quote:f911cae4ba]
This tells us travel beyond the speed of light is possible.
This also explains why we cannot see app. 90 % of the universe.
Dark matter appears to be hyperspace to me.
Think of the antiquated rules that led our forfathers to
believe that we could not travel beyond the speed of sound.
regards
Jesper Hjulmand Jorgensen
Ps.: Energy equals mass squared minus unknown quantity of deteriation
squared.
We now from particle-accelerators that neutrons accelerate above the
speed of light to find a partner(turning into dark matter).
Electricity is working at lightspeed in controled leeds. How wil You
account for powersurges?[/quote:f911cae4ba] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Paul Stowe... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 7:16 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 21, 8:29 am, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 20, 10:03 pm, PaulStowe<theaether... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
So force isn't force? It's an 'equation', the l.h.s 'equals' the
r.h.s. You're right though (and that WAS my point) qE isn't
'considered' the same as dp/dt. But, if both are a common quantity a
'force' somewhere beneath the r.h.s must also boil down to the same
quantities. This is what I meant by mathematical form must derive
from physical function, and why 'I' consider the standard expression
only a correlation, since it doesn't address this at all.
This is a common problem among freshman. They have difficulty
understanding that equations are really just short hand for longer
sentences, and it's important to understand the context of sentence,
otherwise you get into trouble.
I'll give you an example.
Students will see something like F=dp/dt, and then they'll be told to
catalog and add the forces on the l.h.s., being sure to draw each
force on a free body diagram. And so they'll recognize gravity in a
problem, write F=mg and they'll draw a force on the free body diagram
and label it mg. And they'll see friction is present in a problem,
write F=uN, and they'll draw a force on the free body diagram and
label it uN. And they'll see that the object is in circular motion,
write F=mv^2/r, and they'll draw a force on the free body diagram and
label it mv^2/r. Now surely you see the mistake...
Non responsive to the issue theory verses correlation. For v^2/r the
force is radial at the center but so what all force is in the very same
dimensional units.
That's my point about your misuse. mv^2/r isn't a force at all!
But you can mislead yourself (and many freshman students do) by
looking at an equation like F=mv^2/r and one like F=mg and think they
mean something similar.
[/quote]
Take a bucket of water, swing areound with your arm. Now, keep
chsanting to yourself 'there ain't not force', 'there ain't not force'
increasing the rotation as your arm pulls from the shoulder scoket...
Yup, it's all fictious. Force results from ANY! Grad v.
[quote]You'll never get anywhere toward unification by ignoring connections...
The issue we have is which is "better". To you, what is familiar and
reminds you of billiards must be "better". Almost all physicists will
disagree.
Like Feynman said, "What do you care what other people think?" When
there exist a model that demonstrates how waves exist, behave, and can
be measured that exactly fits observation and another that declares it
by fiat,
It doesn't declare it by fiat. It says, "IF these presumptions are
true, ...
[/quote]
A declaration without basis is not even a hypothesis. Flip a coin,
you'll be right declaring heads 50% of the time. A guess IS a fiat
even if it turns out right. It's not a basis.
[quote]... then we should be able to see, under the following
circumstances, the following phenomena X in quantity Q." That is a
testable *prediction*. Note that there are no prejudgments about
whether the presumptions first have to meet some kind of Familiarity
Index. The arbiter is not "naturalness", it is nature via
distinguishing measurement in experimental observation. That's the way
it SHOULD be.
[/quote]
The aether model isn't telling nature how it should be. It a model,
the model predict and, more importantly, explains behaviors, if the
model is right the nature conforms to that behavior. It's your own
strawman claiming the aetherist are demanding nature to behave as they
wish. It's simple, point to the experiment or observation that is in
direct conflict with the model.
[quote]Aha! And so it is OBSERVED that gravity falls off as 1/r^2 and this is
the reason why Newtonian gravity is written as GMm/r^2. It is,
however, without explanation. Likewise, it is OBSERVED that the speed
of light is constant in any inertial reference frame. It is, however,
without explanation. Yet for some reason, those particular
observations give you pause, while the OBSERVATIONS that underlie
kinetic energy just somehow feel more natural for you to accept
without requiring explanation.
As I said, there's a model that 'explains' the 1/r^2 effect. Further,
Gauss describes it well enough without even needing that. It's not
arbitrary...
And it is wrong.
[/quote]
Explain...
[quote]Yes... LeSage's model is the only one that can reproduce Newton's
equation from first principles 'of the model'
And yet it clearly and unambiguously makes additional predictions that
are counter to experimental observation. Therefore, as an explanation,
it is properly discounted -- even though it has that appeal to it that
you like.
I know better than 99.99% of all what this model is, certainly much
better than you. The model matches observations, explains Titus-
Bodes, and even predicts Pioneer's behavior, exactly... To bad others
look only hard enough to try to blow it off... But not the topic
here!
Interesting that you think that the evidence against LeSage models is
worth dismissing.
[/quote]
If I asked you to name those properties you would say what? I'd
reflect your own argument that 'you' cannot tell nature how it should
behave. Things do exist in isolation you got to look at everything at
once.
[quote]What remains undefined in kinetic theory is the exact nature of the
particles, nothing else.
I disagree! WHY are the interactions elastic (and they truly are!)?
Isn't that part of the nature of the particles?
Not at all!
What's elastic then???
It's the nature of the interaction *between* the particles. And note
that the particles that interact elastically never come in direct
contact with each other. You do know that, right?
[/quote]
No, not a priori. Elasticity is a property of the particles, not the
void between them 'in the kinetic theory model'. In the case of
matter, well you're basically right, it's their fields that give rise
to it and even pool balls don't 'touch', at the atomic level.
[quote]No, I'm sorry, but there is NO difference that I can see, unless you
can elucidate it, between an immaterial aether with properties and a
spacetime with properties. It's just a matter of terminology at that
point.
That seems to be your problem. For example one can show why c is
measured invariant, how time dilation occurs from first principles,
and what causes the Lorentz behavior without fiat or declarations or
relying on geometric tricks.
It's not a geometric trick. It is a geometric EXPLANATION. It is YOU
that insist that unless the explanation has to do with something other
than that, something more mechanistic, then it is not a real
explanation but is instead a parlor trick.
[/quote]
It isn't... It is a humsn invented convoluted explanation that isn't
physical.
[quote]This goes back to what I said earlier. Unless your model makes a
specific *measurable* prediction that distinguishes it from one based
on spacetime, then it is simply a matter of terminology switching with
no concrete value addition, at least as far as science is concerned.
That really funny, since the model does expose new relationships...
New explanatory relationships are not the same as distinguishing
predictions of *measurable* quantities. It is the latter that is the
arbiter in science, not the former.
[/quote]
What a poor excuse for a scientist. Saying "I don't care if it
provides a better explanation, new relationships, removal of
arbirarily defined terms, I don't want to know. I like my theories
just the way they are." You'll never peddle that mentality to me.
[quote]It the word itself, and the fixation on the myth that it cannot be
Lorentz invariant that seems to be the hangup. One one realizes that
all mediums are Lorentz invariant that hangup should, rationally,
dissapear. This is why Einstein said, space without ether is
unthinkable.
Again I refer you to Bell and Aspect et al.
I went back and refreshed my understanding of Bell's Theorem and
Aspect. A good basic explanation can be found at:
http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/kenny/papers...
I would recommend instead that you read a better resource, such as the
excellent quantum mechanics text by Griffiths (Prentice Hall).
Does it show how the detectors are totally passive devices???
Why don't you read it for yourself, rather than just trying to vet it
from the outside without reading it?
[/quote]
That was a very simple question, a yes/no response was all that is
necessary. But we both know what the answer is, don't we? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| PD... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 8:09 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 21, 12:16 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 21, 8:29 am, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 20, 10:03 pm, PaulStowe<theaether... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
So force isn't force? It's an 'equation', the l.h.s 'equals' the
r.h.s. You're right though (and that WAS my point) qE isn't
'considered' the same as dp/dt. But, if both are a common quantity a
'force' somewhere beneath the r.h.s must also boil down to the same
quantities. This is what I meant by mathematical form must derive
from physical function, and why 'I' consider the standard expression
only a correlation, since it doesn't address this at all.
This is a common problem among freshman. They have difficulty
understanding that equations are really just short hand for longer
sentences, and it's important to understand the context of sentence,
otherwise you get into trouble.
I'll give you an example.
Students will see something like F=dp/dt, and then they'll be told to
catalog and add the forces on the l.h.s., being sure to draw each
force on a free body diagram. And so they'll recognize gravity in a
problem, write F=mg and they'll draw a force on the free body diagram
and label it mg. And they'll see friction is present in a problem,
write F=uN, and they'll draw a force on the free body diagram and
label it uN. And they'll see that the object is in circular motion,
write F=mv^2/r, and they'll draw a force on the free body diagram and
label it mv^2/r. Now surely you see the mistake...
Non responsive to the issue theory verses correlation. For v^2/r the
force is radial at the center but so what all force is in the very same
dimensional units.
That's my point about your misuse. mv^2/r isn't a force at all!
But you can mislead yourself (and many freshman students do) by
looking at an equation like F=mv^2/r and one like F=mg and think they
mean something similar.
Take a bucket of water, swing areound with your arm. Now, keep
chsanting to yourself 'there ain't not force', 'there ain't not force'
increasing the rotation as your arm pulls from the shoulder scoket...
Yup, it's all fictious. Force results from ANY! Grad v.
[/quote]
:>)
It's the rope that is providing the force. v^2/r is an acceleration.
It is the *result* of a sum of forces. It is not a force.
Paul, for all the talk you make about the disastrous state of modern
physics, you seem to have a rather poor grasp of classical physics.
Don't you think you should ask the physics community why they haven't
made *classical* physics more accessible to amateurs like yourself,
rather than worrying about Higgs bosons and relativity?
[quote]
You'll never get anywhere toward unification by ignoring connections....
The issue we have is which is "better". To you, what is familiar and
reminds you of billiards must be "better". Almost all physicists will
disagree.
Like Feynman said, "What do you care what other people think?" When
there exist a model that demonstrates how waves exist, behave, and can
be measured that exactly fits observation and another that declares it
by fiat,
It doesn't declare it by fiat. It says, "IF these presumptions are
true, ...
A declaration without basis is not even a hypothesis.
[/quote]
They are called "postulates". Postulates are that which are taken
(provisionally) as *assumed* true, without justification either from
data or from logical argument.
One does not vet postulates for reasonableness first, except to ask
whether it is known already whether they are in direct conflict with
experimental data.
The steps are:
1. Postulates are *assumed*, no matter how crazy they may sound at
first.
2. Necessary implications of those postulates are developed to see how
they would apply in various circumstances. Along the way, *some* of
those implications are matched for *measured* consistency with known
experimental results.
3. Other implications are developed into predictions of *measurable*
results in different sets of circumstances.
4. Those sets of circumstances are either created in controlled
experiment or searched for in an observational scan, and then the
measurement of the relevant quantities are made.
5. If the predicted value of the measurement matches within
experimental precision to the actual measurement, then this lends
indirect credence to the assumed postulates. If not, then doubt falls
upon the postulates.
You'll note that there is no proof of the postulates anywhere, nor is
there any need for DIRECT evidence in support of the postulates.
[quote] Flip a coin,
you'll be right declaring heads 50% of the time. A guess IS a fiat
even if it turns out right. It's not a basis.
[/quote]
I'm sorry, but you just have a basic misunderstanding about how
science works.
[quote]
... then we should be able to see, under the following
circumstances, the following phenomena X in quantity Q." That is a
testable *prediction*. Note that there are no prejudgments about
whether the presumptions first have to meet some kind of Familiarity
Index. The arbiter is not "naturalness", it is nature via
distinguishing measurement in experimental observation. That's the way
it SHOULD be.
The aether model isn't telling nature how it should be. It a model,
the model predict and, more importantly, explains behaviors, if the
model is right the nature conforms to that behavior. It's your own
strawman claiming the aetherist are demanding nature to behave as they
wish. It's simple, point to the experiment or observation that is in
direct conflict with the model.
[/quote]
Point to an experimental result that distinguishes it from relativity
in terms of predictive power. As I've told you repeatedly, THIS is how
models compete.
[quote]
Aha! And so it is OBSERVED that gravity falls off as 1/r^2 and this is
the reason why Newtonian gravity is written as GMm/r^2. It is,
however, without explanation. Likewise, it is OBSERVED that the speed
of light is constant in any inertial reference frame. It is, however,
without explanation. Yet for some reason, those particular
observations give you pause, while the OBSERVATIONS that underlie
kinetic energy just somehow feel more natural for you to accept
without requiring explanation.
As I said, there's a model that 'explains' the 1/r^2 effect. Further,
Gauss describes it well enough without even needing that. It's not
arbitrary...
And it is wrong.
Explain...
Yes... LeSage's model is the only one that can reproduce Newton's
equation from first principles 'of the model'
And yet it clearly and unambiguously makes additional predictions that
are counter to experimental observation. Therefore, as an explanation,
it is properly discounted -- even though it has that appeal to it that
you like.
I know better than 99.99% of all what this model is, certainly much
better than you. The model matches observations, explains Titus-
Bodes, and even predicts Pioneer's behavior, exactly... To bad others
look only hard enough to try to blow it off... But not the topic
here!
Interesting that you think that the evidence against LeSage models is
worth dismissing.
If I asked you to name those properties you would say what? I'd
reflect your own argument that 'you' cannot tell nature how it should
behave. Things do exist in isolation you got to look at everything at
once.
[/quote]
You don't know the evidence against LeSage gravity?
[quote]
What remains undefined in kinetic theory is the exact nature of the
particles, nothing else.
I disagree! WHY are the interactions elastic (and they truly are!)?
Isn't that part of the nature of the particles?
Not at all!
What's elastic then???
It's the nature of the interaction *between* the particles. And note
that the particles that interact elastically never come in direct
contact with each other. You do know that, right?
No, not a priori. Elasticity is a property of the particles, not the
void between them 'in the kinetic theory model'.
[/quote]
No, that's not even correct, sorry. In kinetic theory, there is no
claim that elasticity is a property of the particles. It is only that
their interactions are elastic.
[quote] In the case of
matter, well you're basically right, it's their fields that give rise
to it and even pool balls don't 'touch', at the atomic level.
No, I'm sorry, but there is NO difference that I can see, unless you
can elucidate it, between an immaterial aether with properties and a
spacetime with properties. It's just a matter of terminology at that
point.
That seems to be your problem. For example one can show why c is
measured invariant, how time dilation occurs from first principles,
and what causes the Lorentz behavior without fiat or declarations or
relying on geometric tricks.
It's not a geometric trick. It is a geometric EXPLANATION. It is YOU
that insist that unless the explanation has to do with something other
than that, something more mechanistic, then it is not a real
explanation but is instead a parlor trick.
It isn't... It is a humsn invented convoluted explanation that isn't
physical.
[/quote]
It's not at all convoluted. I don't see what you find to be confusing
about it.
[quote]
This goes back to what I said earlier. Unless your model makes a
specific *measurable* prediction that distinguishes it from one based
on spacetime, then it is simply a matter of terminology switching with
no concrete value addition, at least as far as science is concerned..
That really funny, since the model does expose new relationships...
New explanatory relationships are not the same as distinguishing
predictions of *measurable* quantities. It is the latter that is the
arbiter in science, not the former.
What a poor excuse for a scientist. Saying "I don't care if it
provides a better explanation, new relationships, removal of
arbirarily defined terms, I don't want to know. I like my theories
just the way they are." You'll never peddle that mentality to me.
[/quote]
Frankly, science doesn't care what you think science should be about.
Science has its methodology for a reason. It uses experimental
measurement as the arbiter in cases of model-distinguishing
predictions for a reason.
You have needs for what a scientific model should be and do that are
simply not matched to what scientists actually do.
[quote]
It the word itself, and the fixation on the myth that it cannot be
Lorentz invariant that seems to be the hangup. One one realizes that
all mediums are Lorentz invariant that hangup should, rationally,
dissapear. This is why Einstein said, space without ether is
unthinkable.
Again I refer you to Bell and Aspect et al.
I went back and refreshed my understanding of Bell's Theorem and
Aspect. A good basic explanation can be found at:
http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/kenny/papers...
I would recommend instead that you read a better resource, such as the
excellent quantum mechanics text by Griffiths (Prentice Hall).
Does it show how the detectors are totally passive devices???
Why don't you read it for yourself, rather than just trying to vet it
from the outside without reading it?
That was a very simple question, a yes/no response was all that is
necessary. But we both know what the answer is, don't we?
[/quote]
I know what the answer is, but have little interest in letting you vet
some decent content before consuming it.
PD |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Paul Stowe... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:59 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 21, 11:09 am, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 21, 12:16 pm, PaulStowe<theaether... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
I'll give you an example.
Students will see something like F=dp/dt, and then they'll be told to
catalog and add the forces on the l.h.s., being sure to draw each
force on a free body diagram. And so they'll recognize gravity in a
problem, write F=mg and they'll draw a force on the free body diagram
and label it mg. And they'll see friction is present in a problem,
write F=uN, and they'll draw a force on the free body diagram and
label it uN. And they'll see that the object is in circular motion,
write F=mv^2/r, and they'll draw a force on the free body diagram and
label it mv^2/r. Now surely you see the mistake...
Non responsive to the issue theory verses correlation. For v^2/r the
force is radial at the center but so what all force is in the very same
dimensional units.
That's my point about your misuse. mv^2/r isn't a force at all!
But you can mislead yourself (and many freshman students do) by
looking at an equation like F=mv^2/r and one like F=mg and think they
mean something similar.
Take a bucket of water, swing areound with your arm. Now, keep
chanting to yourself 'there ain't a force', 'there ain't a force'
increasing the rotation as your arm pulls from the shoulder scoket...
Yup, it's all fictious. Force results from ANY! Grad v.
It's the rope that is providing the force.
[/quote]
Yeah, it's your arm in my case above. That provides the r in v^2/r,
yup. But more fundamentally it's what's causing the Grad P. Newton
second law is better written F = Grad P. That momentum (P) can be
from the magnetic field, electric field, 'a rope', ... etc. This form
is the fundamental expression. It has better explanatory power.
[quote]v^2/r is an acceleration.
It is the *result* of a sum of forces. It is not a force.
[/quote]
as long as the string holds (or your arm) centripital, centrifical
balance as tenstion in the string. The result is a radially direct
'real' force acting to 'pull' the string from the center. Now if you
want a 'real' fictious force the correloious fits the bill.
[quote]Like Feynman said, "What do you care what other people think?" When
there exist a model that demonstrates how waves exist, behave, and can
be measured that exactly fits observation and another that declares it
by fiat,
It doesn't declare it by fiat. It says, "IF these presumptions are
true, ...
A declaration without basis is not even a hypothesis.
They are called "postulates". Postulates are that which are taken
(provisionally) as *assumed* true, without justification either from
data or from logical argument.
One does not vet postulates for reasonableness first, except to ask
whether it is known already whether they are in direct conflict with
experimental data.
The steps are:
1. Postulates are *assumed*, no matter how crazy they may sound at
first.
2. Necessary implications of those postulates are developed to see how
they would apply in various circumstances. Along the way, *some* of
those implications are matched for *measured* consistency with known
experimental results.
3. Other implications are developed into predictions of *measurable*
results in different sets of circumstances.
4. Those sets of circumstances are either created in controlled
experiment or searched for in an observational scan, and then the
measurement of the relevant quantities are made.
5. If the predicted value of the measurement matches within
experimental precision to the actual measurement, then this lends
indirect credence to the assumed postulates. If not, then doubt falls
upon the postulates.
You'll note that there is no proof of the postulates anywhere, nor is
there any need for DIRECT evidence in support of the postulates.
Flip a coin,
you'll be right declaring heads 50% of the time. A guess IS a fiat
even if it turns out right. It's not a basis.
I'm sorry, but you just have a basic misunderstanding about how
science works.
[/quote]
No, there is no misunderstanding, I understand quite well, 'I' just
ain't buying it as valid. As I've said numerous times now, that type
of basis doesn't cut it, we have to find a better foundation.
Accepting ignorance as ok isn't.
[quote]
... then we should be able to see, under the following
circumstances, the following phenomena X in quantity Q." That is a
testable *prediction*. Note that there are no prejudgments about
whether the presumptions first have to meet some kind of Familiarity
Index. The arbiter is not "naturalness", it is nature via
distinguishing measurement in experimental observation. That's the way
it SHOULD be.
The aether model isn't telling nature how it should be. It a model,
the model predict and, more importantly, explains behaviors, if the
model is right, then nature conforms to that behavior. It's your own
strawman claiming aetherist are demanding nature to behave as they
wish. It's simple, point to the experiment or observation that is in
direct conflict with the model.
Point to an experimental result that distinguishes it from relativity
in terms of predictive power. As I've told you repeatedly, THIS is how
models compete.
[/quote]
SR is pimple on the nose of nature... A unified model should do much
better than just SR.
Here are some basic questions,
Where does charge come from?
Where does light speed come from?
What permits light to exist
What is the permittivity of free space?
What is the permeability of free spaced?
What is temperature?
What is thermoelectricity?
The aether model provides a straight forward answer to each one, can
you?
[quote]Aha! And so it is OBSERVED that gravity falls off as 1/r^2 and this is
the reason why Newtonian gravity is written as GMm/r^2. It is,
however, without explanation. Likewise, it is OBSERVED that the speed
of light is constant in any inertial reference frame. It is, however,
without explanation. Yet for some reason, those particular
observations give you pause, while the OBSERVATIONS that underlie
kinetic energy just somehow feel more natural for you to accept
without requiring explanation.
As I said, there's a model that 'explains' the 1/r^2 effect. Further,
Gauss describes it well enough without even needing that. It's not
arbitrary...
And it is wrong.
Explain...
[/quote]
Cat got your tongue?
[quote]I know better than 99.99% of all what this model is, certainly much
better than you. The model matches observations, explains Titus-
Bodes, and even predicts Pioneer's behavior, exactly... To bad others
look only hard enough to try to blow it off... But not the topic
here!
Interesting that you think that the evidence against LeSage models is
worth dismissing.
If I asked you to name those properties you would say what? I'd
reflect your own argument that 'you' cannot tell nature how it should
behave. Things don't exist in isolation you got to look at everything at
once.
You don't know the evidence against LeSage gravity?
[/quote]
Yes I do... You get it can't be because ... and obviously that didn't
happen. Plug in aberational fling, drag, vaporize and that just about
covers the bases...
[quote]What's elastic then???
It's the nature of the interaction *between* the particles. And note
that the particles that interact elastically never come in direct
contact with each other. You do know that, right?
No, not a priori. Elasticity is a property of the particles, not the
void between them 'in the kinetic theory model'.
No, that's not even correct, sorry. In kinetic theory, there is no
claim that elasticity is a property of the particles. It is only that
their interactions are elastic.
[/quote]
interaction of what!? 'Their' interatctions, the PARTICLES!
[quote]That seems to be your problem. For example one can show why c is
measured invariant, how time dilation occurs from first principles,
and what causes the Lorentz behavior without fiat or declarations or
relying on geometric tricks.
It's not a geometric trick. It is a geometric EXPLANATION. It is YOU
that insist that unless the explanation has to do with something other
than that, something more mechanistic, then it is not a real
explanation but is instead a parlor trick.
It isn't... It is a humsn invented convoluted explanation that isn't
physical.
It's not at all convoluted. I don't see what you find to be confusing
about it.
[/quote]
I don't find it confusing, just a stupid excuse of an attempt at an
explanation. That why I used the term convoluted, a much simpler
explanation exists.
[quote]This goes back to what I said earlier. Unless your model makes a
specific *measurable* prediction that distinguishes it from one based
on spacetime, then it is simply a matter of terminology switching with
no concrete value addition, at least as far as science is concerned.
That really funny, since the model does expose new relationships...
New explanatory relationships are not the same as distinguishing
predictions of *measurable* quantities. It is the latter that is the
arbiter in science, not the former.
What a poor excuse for a scientist. Saying "I don't care if it
provides a better explanation, new relationships, removal of
arbirarily defined terms, I don't want to know. I like my theories
just the way they are." You'll never peddle that mentality to me.
Frankly, science doesn't care what you think science should be about.
Science has its methodology for a reason.
[/quote]
Yeah, politics... I'm sure the clerics said the same thing to Bruno &
Gslileo.
[quote]It uses experimental measurement as the arbiter in cases of
model-distinguishing predictions for a reason.
[/quote]
I have absolutely no problem with that. My problem is with Bozo's
that accept 'that's just the way it is' as a better answer when a more
complete model exists.
[quote]You have needs for what a scientific model should be and do that are
simply not matched to what scientists actually do.
[/quote]
Yup, that's true. My standards are much higher than theirs... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| PD... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 11:19 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 21, 2:59 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 21, 11:09 am, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 21, 12:16 pm, PaulStowe<theaether... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
I'll give you an example.
Students will see something like F=dp/dt, and then they'll be told to
catalog and add the forces on the l.h.s., being sure to draw each
force on a free body diagram. And so they'll recognize gravity in a
problem, write F=mg and they'll draw a force on the free body diagram
and label it mg. And they'll see friction is present in a problem,
write F=uN, and they'll draw a force on the free body diagram and
label it uN. And they'll see that the object is in circular motion,
write F=mv^2/r, and they'll draw a force on the free body diagram and
label it mv^2/r. Now surely you see the mistake...
Non responsive to the issue theory verses correlation. For v^2/r the
force is radial at the center but so what all force is in the very same
dimensional units.
That's my point about your misuse. mv^2/r isn't a force at all!
But you can mislead yourself (and many freshman students do) by
looking at an equation like F=mv^2/r and one like F=mg and think they
mean something similar.
Take a bucket of water, swing areound with your arm. Now, keep
chanting to yourself 'there ain't a force', 'there ain't a force'
increasing the rotation as your arm pulls from the shoulder scoket...
Yup, it's all fictious. Force results from ANY! Grad v.
It's the rope that is providing the force.
Yeah, it's your arm in my case above. That provides the r in v^2/r,
yup. But more fundamentally it's what's causing the Grad P. Newton
second law is better written F = Grad P. That momentum (P) can be
from the magnetic field, electric field, 'a rope', ... etc. This form
is the fundamental expression. It has better explanatory power.
[/quote]
Oh, Paul, this goes back to my earlier advice to get better acquainted
with classical physics.
There's a big difference between grad(p) and dp/dt.
I'm not sure how much more of a serious discussion we can have if you
can't be a bit more serious about learning some of the physics you are
trying to talk about.
[quote]
v^2/r is an acceleration.
It is the *result* of a sum of forces. It is not a force.
as long as the string holds (or your arm) centripital, centrifical
balance as tenstion in the string.
[/quote]
There is no "balance". The object at the end of the string is not in
equilibrium. The sum of the forces should not add to zero for this
reason.
Again, Paul, it might be useful to bone up on classical physics a bit
more before tackling relativity or quantum mechanics.
[quote] The result is a radially direct
'real' force acting to 'pull' the string from the center. Now if you
want a 'real' fictious force the correloious fits the bill.
Like Feynman said, "What do you care what other people think?" When
there exist a model that demonstrates how waves exist, behave, and can
be measured that exactly fits observation and another that declares it
by fiat,
It doesn't declare it by fiat. It says, "IF these presumptions are
true, ...
A declaration without basis is not even a hypothesis.
They are called "postulates". Postulates are that which are taken
(provisionally) as *assumed* true, without justification either from
data or from logical argument.
One does not vet postulates for reasonableness first, except to ask
whether it is known already whether they are in direct conflict with
experimental data.
The steps are:
1. Postulates are *assumed*, no matter how crazy they may sound at
first.
2. Necessary implications of those postulates are developed to see how
they would apply in various circumstances. Along the way, *some* of
those implications are matched for *measured* consistency with known
experimental results.
3. Other implications are developed into predictions of *measurable*
results in different sets of circumstances.
4. Those sets of circumstances are either created in controlled
experiment or searched for in an observational scan, and then the
measurement of the relevant quantities are made.
5. If the predicted value of the measurement matches within
experimental precision to the actual measurement, then this lends
indirect credence to the assumed postulates. If not, then doubt falls
upon the postulates.
You'll note that there is no proof of the postulates anywhere, nor is
there any need for DIRECT evidence in support of the postulates.
[/quote]
You see?
[quote]
Flip a coin,
you'll be right declaring heads 50% of the time. A guess IS a fiat
even if it turns out right. It's not a basis.
I'm sorry, but you just have a basic misunderstanding about how
science works.
No, there is no misunderstanding, I understand quite well, 'I' just
ain't buying it as valid.
As I've said numerous times now, that type
of basis doesn't cut it, we have to find a better foundation.
Accepting ignorance as ok isn't.
[/quote]
It isn't ignorance. I know that's the label that YOU want to apply to
anything that doesn't meet your preconceived mold.
Furthermore, science is *defined* by the scientific method and the
process I described in the steps above. I realize that you want to
invoke a *different* method of investigation of physical phenomena.
It's just that it isn't quite science. It sounds *close* to science
but has a number of aberrant elements that makes it different from
science.
[quote]
... then we should be able to see, under the following
circumstances, the following phenomena X in quantity Q." That is a
testable *prediction*. Note that there are no prejudgments about
whether the presumptions first have to meet some kind of Familiarity
Index. The arbiter is not "naturalness", it is nature via
distinguishing measurement in experimental observation. That's the way
it SHOULD be.
The aether model isn't telling nature how it should be. It a model,
the model predict and, more importantly, explains behaviors, if the
model is right, then nature conforms to that behavior. It's your own
strawman claiming aetherist are demanding nature to behave as they
wish. It's simple, point to the experiment or observation that is in
direct conflict with the model.
Point to an experimental result that distinguishes it from relativity
in terms of predictive power. As I've told you repeatedly, THIS is how
models compete.
SR is pimple on the nose of nature... A unified model should do much
better than just SR.
[/quote]
SR does not claim to be an ultimate theory of everything, with
explanatory power for everything.
NO theory does that, nor has any theory ever done that.
[quote]
Here are some basic questions,
Where does charge come from?
Where does light speed come from?
What permits light to exist
What is the permittivity of free space?
What is the permeability of free spaced?
What is temperature?
What is thermoelectricity?
The aether model provides a straight forward answer to each one, can
you?
[/quote]
And again, you are trying to use metrics for quality of theory that
just are not scientific. You are saying, "Hey, my theory provides
explanations for some things in ways that are more intuitively
appealing than the explanations that your theory provides." That is
just not a good metric.
[quote]
Aha! And so it is OBSERVED that gravity falls off as 1/r^2 and this is
the reason why Newtonian gravity is written as GMm/r^2. It is,
however, without explanation. Likewise, it is OBSERVED that the speed
of light is constant in any inertial reference frame. It is, however,
without explanation. Yet for some reason, those particular
observations give you pause, while the OBSERVATIONS that underlie
kinetic energy just somehow feel more natural for you to accept
without requiring explanation.
As I said, there's a model that 'explains' the 1/r^2 effect. Further,
Gauss describes it well enough without even needing that. It's not
arbitrary...
And it is wrong.
Explain...
Cat got your tongue?
[/quote]
See below.
[quote]
I know better than 99.99% of all what this model is, certainly much
better than you. The model matches observations, explains Titus-
Bodes, and even predicts Pioneer's behavior, exactly... To bad others
look only hard enough to try to blow it off... But not the topic
here!
Interesting that you think that the evidence against LeSage models is
worth dismissing.
If I asked you to name those properties you would say what? I'd
reflect your own argument that 'you' cannot tell nature how it should
behave. Things don't exist in isolation you got to look at everything at
once.
You don't know the evidence against LeSage gravity?
Yes I do... You get it can't be because ... and obviously that didn't
happen. Plug in aberational fling, drag, vaporize and that just about
covers the bases...
[/quote]
What? None of this makes sense.
Feynman wrote a piece about LeSage gravity, in fact. Have you read
that?
[quote]
What's elastic then???
It's the nature of the interaction *between* the particles. And note
that the particles that interact elastically never come in direct
contact with each other. You do know that, right?
No, not a priori. Elasticity is a property of the particles, not the
void between them 'in the kinetic theory model'.
No, that's not even correct, sorry. In kinetic theory, there is no
claim that elasticity is a property of the particles. It is only that
their interactions are elastic.
interaction of what!? 'Their' interatctions, the PARTICLES!
[/quote]
This is semantic circling.
Look, even in LeSage gravity, the interaction between the Earth and
the Moon is not elastic because of the properties of the Earth and the
Moon, it is because of the stuff that LeSage was there in the space
around them.
[quote]
That seems to be your problem. For example one can show why c is
measured invariant, how time dilation occurs from first principles,
and what causes the Lorentz behavior without fiat or declarations or
relying on geometric tricks.
It's not a geometric trick. It is a geometric EXPLANATION. It is YOU
that insist that unless the explanation has to do with something other
than that, something more mechanistic, then it is not a real
explanation but is instead a parlor trick.
It isn't... It is a humsn invented convoluted explanation that isn't
physical.
It's not at all convoluted. I don't see what you find to be confusing
about it.
I don't find it confusing, just a stupid excuse of an attempt at an
explanation. That why I used the term convoluted, a much simpler
explanation exists.
This goes back to what I said earlier. Unless your model makes a
specific *measurable* prediction that distinguishes it from one based
on spacetime, then it is simply a matter of terminology switching with
no concrete value addition, at least as far as science is concerned.
That really funny, since the model does expose new relationships....
New explanatory relationships are not the same as distinguishing
predictions of *measurable* quantities. It is the latter that is the
arbiter in science, not the former.
What a poor excuse for a scientist. Saying "I don't care if it
provides a better explanation, new relationships, removal of
arbirarily defined terms, I don't want to know. I like my theories
just the way they are." You'll never peddle that mentality to me.
Frankly, science doesn't care what you think science should be about.
Science has its methodology for a reason.
Yeah, politics... I'm sure the clerics said the same thing to Bruno &
Gslileo.
[/quote]
The clerics weren't practicing science.
[quote]
It uses experimental measurement as the arbiter in cases of
model-distinguishing predictions for a reason.
I have absolutely no problem with that. My problem is with Bozo's
that accept 'that's just the way it is' as a better answer when a more
complete model exists.
You have needs for what a scientific model should be and do that are
simply not matched to what scientists actually do.
Yup, that's true. My standards are much higher than theirs...
[/quote]
But it's not science. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| doug... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 12:35 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Paul Stowe wrote:
[quote]On Oct 21, 8:29 am, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 20, 10:03 pm, PaulStowe<theaether... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
So force isn't force? It's an 'equation', the l.h.s 'equals' the
r.h.s. You're right though (and that WAS my point) qE isn't
'considered' the same as dp/dt. But, if both are a common quantity a
'force' somewhere beneath the r.h.s must also boil down to the same
quantities. This is what I meant by mathematical form must derive
from physical function, and why 'I' consider the standard expression
only a correlation, since it doesn't address this at all.
This is a common problem among freshman. They have difficulty
understanding that equations are really just short hand for longer
sentences, and it's important to understand the context of sentence,
otherwise you get into trouble.
I'll give you an example.
Students will see something like F=dp/dt, and then they'll be told to
catalog and add the forces on the l.h.s., being sure to draw each
force on a free body diagram. And so they'll recognize gravity in a
problem, write F=mg and they'll draw a force on the free body diagram
and label it mg. And they'll see friction is present in a problem,
write F=uN, and they'll draw a force on the free body diagram and
label it uN. And they'll see that the object is in circular motion,
write F=mv^2/r, and they'll draw a force on the free body diagram and
label it mv^2/r. Now surely you see the mistake...
Non responsive to the issue theory verses correlation. For v^2/r the
force is radial at the center but so what all force is in the very same
dimensional units.
That's my point about your misuse. mv^2/r isn't a force at all!
But you can mislead yourself (and many freshman students do) by
looking at an equation like F=mv^2/r and one like F=mg and think they
mean something similar.
Take a bucket of water, swing areound with your arm. Now, keep
chsanting to yourself 'there ain't not force', 'there ain't not force'
increasing the rotation as your arm pulls from the shoulder scoket...
Yup, it's all fictious. Force results from ANY! Grad v.
You'll never get anywhere toward unification by ignoring connections...
The issue we have is which is "better". To you, what is familiar and
reminds you of billiards must be "better". Almost all physicists will
disagree.
Like Feynman said, "What do you care what other people think?" When
there exist a model that demonstrates how waves exist, behave, and can
be measured that exactly fits observation and another that declares it
by fiat,
It doesn't declare it by fiat. It says, "IF these presumptions are
true, ...
A declaration without basis is not even a hypothesis. Flip a coin,
you'll be right declaring heads 50% of the time. A guess IS a fiat
even if it turns out right. It's not a basis.
[/quote]
So you have no clue what science is about either.
[quote]
... then we should be able to see, under the following
circumstances, the following phenomena X in quantity Q." That is a
testable *prediction*. Note that there are no prejudgments about
whether the presumptions first have to meet some kind of Familiarity
Index. The arbiter is not "naturalness", it is nature via
distinguishing measurement in experimental observation. That's the way
it SHOULD be.
The aether model isn't telling nature how it should be. It a model,
the model predict and, more importantly, explains behaviors, if the
model is right the nature conforms to that behavior. It's your own
strawman claiming the aetherist are demanding nature to behave as they
wish. It's simple, point to the experiment or observation that is in
direct conflict with the model.
[/quote]
It is not a useful model. You are just pushing around numbers.
You ask why the speed of light is not infinite and then you say
you can show that it is because the aether is not infinitely
stiff. That explains nothing since it is the same statement.
The rest of your nonsense is the same.
[quote]
Aha! And so it is OBSERVED that gravity falls off as 1/r^2 and this is
the reason why Newtonian gravity is written as GMm/r^2. It is,
however, without explanation. Likewise, it is OBSERVED that the speed
of light is constant in any inertial reference frame. It is, however,
without explanation. Yet for some reason, those particular
observations give you pause, while the OBSERVATIONS that underlie
kinetic energy just somehow feel more natural for you to accept
without requiring explanation.
As I said, there's a model that 'explains' the 1/r^2 effect. Further,
Gauss describes it well enough without even needing that. It's not
arbitrary...
And it is wrong.
Explain...
So you have never even looked at this.[/quote]
[quote]
Yes... LeSage's model is the only one that can reproduce Newton's
equation from first principles 'of the model'
And yet it clearly and unambiguously makes additional predictions that
are counter to experimental observation. Therefore, as an explanation,
it is properly discounted -- even though it has that appeal to it that
you like.
I know better than 99.99% of all what this model is, certainly much
better than you. The model matches observations, explains Titus-
Bodes, and even predicts Pioneer's behavior, exactly... To bad others
look only hard enough to try to blow it off... But not the topic
here!
Interesting that you think that the evidence against LeSage models is
worth dismissing.
If I asked you to name those properties you would say what? I'd
reflect your own argument that 'you' cannot tell nature how it should
behave. Things do exist in isolation you got to look at everything at
once.
[/quote]
So you are saying you have never looked at the evidence but are
just trying to ignore it and cling to your delusions.
[quote]
What remains undefined in kinetic theory is the exact nature of the
particles, nothing else.
I disagree! WHY are the interactions elastic (and they truly are!)?
Isn't that part of the nature of the particles?
Not at all!
What's elastic then???
It's the nature of the interaction *between* the particles. And note
that the particles that interact elastically never come in direct
contact with each other. You do know that, right?
No, not a priori. Elasticity is a property of the particles, not the
void between them 'in the kinetic theory model'. In the case of
matter, well you're basically right, it's their fields that give rise
to it and even pool balls don't 'touch', at the atomic level.
No, I'm sorry, but there is NO difference that I can see, unless you
can elucidate it, between an immaterial aether with properties and a
spacetime with properties. It's just a matter of terminology at that
point.
That seems to be your problem. For example one can show why c is
measured invariant, how time dilation occurs from first principles,
and what causes the Lorentz behavior without fiat or declarations or
relying on geometric tricks.
It's not a geometric trick. It is a geometric EXPLANATION. It is YOU
that insist that unless the explanation has to do with something other
than that, something more mechanistic, then it is not a real
explanation but is instead a parlor trick.
It isn't... It is a humsn invented convoluted explanation that isn't
physical.
[/quote]
See, there is your crank prejudice again. You want rocks bumping
against each other.
[quote]
This goes back to what I said earlier. Unless your model makes a
specific *measurable* prediction that distinguishes it from one based
on spacetime, then it is simply a matter of terminology switching with
no concrete value addition, at least as far as science is concerned.
That really funny, since the model does expose new relationships...
New explanatory relationships are not the same as distinguishing
predictions of *measurable* quantities. It is the latter that is the
arbiter in science, not the former.
What a poor excuse for a scientist. Saying "I don't care if it
provides a better explanation, new relationships, removal of
arbirarily defined terms, I don't want to know. I like my theories
just the way they are." You'll never peddle that mentality to me.
No, you are just pushing your ignorance and prejudice. Your aether[/quote]
explains nothing. You still have no idea why the concept was abandoned.
Are you afraid of the truth?
[quote]
It the word itself, and the fixation on the myth that it cannot be
Lorentz invariant that seems to be the hangup. One one realizes that
all mediums are Lorentz invariant that hangup should, rationally,
dissapear. This is why Einstein said, space without ether is
unthinkable.
Again I refer you to Bell and Aspect et al.
I went back and refreshed my understanding of Bell's Theorem and
Aspect. A good basic explanation can be found at:
http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/kenny/papers...
I would recommend instead that you read a better resource, such as the
excellent quantum mechanics text by Griffiths (Prentice Hall).
Does it show how the detectors are totally passive devices???
Why don't you read it for yourself, rather than just trying to vet it
from the outside without reading it?
That was a very simple question, a yes/no response was all that is
necessary. But we both know what the answer is, don't we?
[/quote]
The answer is that you are an uneducatable crank. But we both know
that. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Paul Stowe... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 12:40 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 21, 2:19 pm, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 21, 2:59 pm, PaulStowe<theaether... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
That's my point about your misuse. mv^2/r isn't a force at all!
But you can mislead yourself (and many freshman students do) by
looking at an equation like F=mv^2/r and one like F=mg and think they
mean something similar.
Take a bucket of water, swing areound with your arm. Now, keep
chanting to yourself 'there ain't a force', 'there ain't a force'
increasing the rotation as your arm pulls from the shoulder scoket...
Yup, it's all fictious. Force results from ANY! Grad v.
It's the rope that is providing the force.
Yeah, it's your arm in my case above. That provides the r in v^2/r,
yup. But more fundamentally it's what's causing the Grad P. Newton
second law is better written F = Grad P. That momentum (P) can be
from the magnetic field, electric field, 'a rope', ... etc. This form
is the fundamental expression. It has better explanatory power.
Oh, Paul, this goes back to my earlier advice to get better acquainted
with classical physics. There's a big difference between grad(p) and dp/dt.
[/quote]
You are absolutely right, my mistake, F -> Grad E... A brain fart,
sorry.
[quote]I'm not sure how much more of a serious discussion we can have if you
can't be a bit more serious about learning some of the physics you are
trying to talk about.
v^2/r is an acceleration.
It is the *result* of a sum of forces. It is not a force.
as long as the string holds (or your arm) centripital, centrifical
balance as tenstion in the string.
There is no "balance". The object at the end of the string is not in
equilibrium. The sum of the forces should not add to zero for this
reason.
Again, Paul, it might be useful to bone up on classical physics a bit
more before tackling relativity or quantum mechanics.
[/quote]
Read below and with a little more comprehension. Lookup the word
tension.
[quote]The result is a radially direct
'real' force acting to 'pull' the string from the center. Now if you
want a 'real' fictious force the correloious fits the bill.
I'm sorry, but you just have a basic misunderstanding about how
science works.
No, there is no misunderstanding, I understand quite well, 'I' just
ain't buying it as valid. As I've said numerous times now, that type
of basis doesn't cut it, we have to find a better foundation.
Accepting ignorance as OK isn't.
It isn't ignorance. I know that's the label that YOU want to apply to
anything that doesn't meet your preconceived mold.
[/quote]
Then do what I've asked for the beginning, give an alternative
explanation for the basic characteristics of light.
[quote]Furthermore, science is *defined* by the scientific method and the
process I described in the steps above. I realize that you want to
invoke a *different* method of investigation of physical phenomena.
It's just that it isn't quite science. It sounds *close* to science
but has a number of aberrant elements that makes it different from
science.
[/quote]
What 'abberent' elements. Acceptance ad hoc postulates as a basis?
[quote]The aether model isn't telling nature how it should be. It a model,
the model predict and, more importantly, explains behaviors, if the
model is right, then nature conforms to that behavior. It's your own
strawman claiming aetherist are demanding nature to behave as they
wish. It's simple, point to the experiment or observation that is in
direct conflict with the model.
Point to an experimental result that distinguishes it from relativity
in terms of predictive power. As I've told you repeatedly, THIS is how
models compete.
SR is pimple on the nose of nature... A unified model should do much
better than just SR.
SR does not claim to be an ultimate theory of everything, with
explanatory power for everything.
NO theory does that, nor has any theory ever done that.
[/quote]
The aether model does much better...
[quote]Here are some basic questions,
Where does charge come from?
Where does light speed come from?
What permits light to exist
What is the permittivity of free space?
What is the permeability of free spaced?
What is temperature?
What is thermoelectricity?
The aether model provides a straight forward answer to each one, can
you?
And again, you are trying to use metrics for quality of theory that
just are not scientific. You are saying, "Hey, my theory provides
explanations for some things in ways that are more intuitively
appealing than the explanations that your theory provides." That is
just not a good metric.
[/quote]
I reallllly wish I had come up with the aether model, I didn't. It
was there long before I was born. BTW, in your view what is a good
metric?
[quote]As I said, there's a model that 'explains' the 1/r^2 effect. Further,
Gauss describes it well enough without even needing that. It's not
arbitrary...
And it is wrong.
Explain...
Cat got your tongue?
See below.
I know better than 99.99% of all what this model is, certainly much
better than you. The model matches observations, explains Titus-
Bodes, and even predicts Pioneer's behavior, exactly... To bad others
look only hard enough to try to blow it off... But not the topic
here!
Interesting that you think that the evidence against LeSage models is
worth dismissing.
If I asked you to name those properties you would say what? I'd
reflect your own argument that 'you' cannot tell nature how it should
behave. Things don't exist in isolation you got to look at everything at
once.
You don't know the evidence against LeSage gravity?
Yes I do... You get it can't be because ... and obviously that didn't
happen. Plug in aberational fling, drag, vaporize and that just about
covers the bases...
What? None of this makes sense.
Feynman wrote a piece about LeSage gravity, in fact. Have you read
that?
[/quote]
Of course, that the drag part. There are three basic arguments,
aberration resulting in obital fling, drag (windage), and depositional
heating. thus the statement above.
[quote]What's elastic then???
It's the nature of the interaction *between* the particles. And note
that the particles that interact elastically never come in direct
contact with each other. You do know that, right?
No, not a priori. Elasticity is a property of the particles, not the
void between them 'in the kinetic theory model'.
No, that's not even correct, sorry. In kinetic theory, there is no
claim that elasticity is a property of the particles. It is only that
their interactions are elastic.
interaction of what!? 'Their' interatctions, the PARTICLES!
This is semantic circling.
Look, even in LeSage gravity, the interaction between the Earth and
the Moon is not elastic because of the properties of the Earth and the
Moon, it is because of the stuff that LeSage was there in the space
around them.
[/quote]
LeSage's model isn't based on basic kinetic theory, it's an
'attenuation' process model, that's how it works.
[quote]New explanatory relationships are not the same as distinguishing
predictions of *measurable* quantities. It is the latter that is the
arbiter in science, not the former.
What a poor excuse for a scientist. Saying "I don't care if it
provides a better explanation, new relationships, removal of
arbirarily defined terms, I don't want to know. I like my theories
just the way they are." You'll never peddle that mentality to me.
Frankly, science doesn't care what you think science should be about.
Science has its methodology for a reason.
Yeah, politics... I'm sure the clerics said the same thing to Bruno &
Gslileo.
The clerics weren't practicing science.
[/quote]
They 'thought' they were. It passed for the definition 'at the
time'.
[quote]It uses experimental measurement as the arbiter in cases of
model-distinguishing predictions for a reason.
I have absolutely no problem with that. My problem is with Bozo's
that accept 'that's just the way it is' as a better answer when a more
complete model exists.
You have needs for what a scientific model should be and do that are
simply not matched to what scientists actually do.
Yup, that's true. My standards are much higher than theirs...
But it's not science.
[/quote]
too bad, sucks to be them then... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| doug... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 3:29 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Paul Stowe wrote:
[quote]On Oct 21, 11:09 am, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 21, 12:16 pm, PaulStowe<theaether... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
I'll give you an example.
Students will see something like F=dp/dt, and then they'll be told to
catalog and add the forces on the l.h.s., being sure to draw each
force on a free body diagram. And so they'll recognize gravity in a
problem, write F=mg and they'll draw a force on the free body diagram
and label it mg. And they'll see friction is present in a problem,
write F=uN, and they'll draw a force on the free body diagram and
label it uN. And they'll see that the object is in circular motion,
write F=mv^2/r, and they'll draw a force on the free body diagram and
label it mv^2/r. Now surely you see the mistake...
Non responsive to the issue theory verses correlation. For v^2/r the
force is radial at the center but so what all force is in the very same
dimensional units.
That's my point about your misuse. mv^2/r isn't a force at all!
But you can mislead yourself (and many freshman students do) by
looking at an equation like F=mv^2/r and one like F=mg and think they
mean something similar.
Take a bucket of water, swing areound with your arm. Now, keep
chanting to yourself 'there ain't a force', 'there ain't a force'
increasing the rotation as your arm pulls from the shoulder scoket...
Yup, it's all fictious. Force results from ANY! Grad v.
It's the rope that is providing the force.
Yeah, it's your arm in my case above. That provides the r in v^2/r,
yup. But more fundamentally it's what's causing the Grad P. Newton
second law is better written F = Grad P. That momentum (P) can be
from the magnetic field, electric field, 'a rope', ... etc. This form
is the fundamental expression. It has better explanatory power.
v^2/r is an acceleration.
It is the *result* of a sum of forces. It is not a force.
as long as the string holds (or your arm) centripital, centrifical
balance as tenstion in the string. The result is a radially direct
'real' force acting to 'pull' the string from the center. Now if you
want a 'real' fictious force the correloious fits the bill.
Like Feynman said, "What do you care what other people think?" When
there exist a model that demonstrates how waves exist, behave, and can
be measured that exactly fits observation and another that declares it
by fiat,
It doesn't declare it by fiat. It says, "IF these presumptions are
true, ...
A declaration without basis is not even a hypothesis.
They are called "postulates". Postulates are that which are taken
(provisionally) as *assumed* true, without justification either from
data or from logical argument.
One does not vet postulates for reasonableness first, except to ask
whether it is known already whether they are in direct conflict with
experimental data.
The steps are:
1. Postulates are *assumed*, no matter how crazy they may sound at
first.
2. Necessary implications of those postulates are developed to see how
they would apply in various circumstances. Along the way, *some* of
those implications are matched for *measured* consistency with known
experimental results.
3. Other implications are developed into predictions of *measurable*
results in different sets of circumstances.
4. Those sets of circumstances are either created in controlled
experiment or searched for in an observational scan, and then the
measurement of the relevant quantities are made.
5. If the predicted value of the measurement matches within
experimental precision to the actual measurement, then this lends
indirect credence to the assumed postulates. If not, then doubt falls
upon the postulates.
You'll note that there is no proof of the postulates anywhere, nor is
there any need for DIRECT evidence in support of the postulates.
Flip a coin,
you'll be right declaring heads 50% of the time. A guess IS a fiat
even if it turns out right. It's not a basis.
I'm sorry, but you just have a basic misunderstanding about how
science works.
No, there is no misunderstanding, I understand quite well, 'I' just
ain't buying it as valid.
[/quote]
So, no, you do not understand or want to understand.
As I've said numerous times now, that type
[quote]of basis doesn't cut it, we have to find a better foundation.
Accepting ignorance as ok isn't.
[/quote]
Your ignorance and prejudice has no effect on science.
[quote]
... then we should be able to see, under the following
circumstances, the following phenomena X in quantity Q." That is a
testable *prediction*. Note that there are no prejudgments about
whether the presumptions first have to meet some kind of Familiarity
Index. The arbiter is not "naturalness", it is nature via
distinguishing measurement in experimental observation. That's the way
it SHOULD be.
The aether model isn't telling nature how it should be. It a model,
the model predict and, more importantly, explains behaviors, if the
model is right, then nature conforms to that behavior. It's your own
strawman claiming aetherist are demanding nature to behave as they
wish. It's simple, point to the experiment or observation that is in
direct conflict with the model.
Point to an experimental result that distinguishes it from relativity
in terms of predictive power. As I've told you repeatedly, THIS is how
models compete.
SR is pimple on the nose of nature... A unified model should do much
better than just SR.
[/quote]
Are you aware that there has been much science done in the
last century? Apparently not.
[quote]
Here are some basic questions,
Where does charge come from?
Where does light speed come from?
What permits light to exist
What is the permittivity of free space?
What is the permeability of free spaced?
What is temperature?
What is thermoelectricity?
The aether model provides a straight forward answer to each one, can
you?
[/quote]
Don't be silly. Your aether has no special answers. You are
playing games with numbers in your silly claims that
somehow the aether "explains" the speed of light and
permittivity and permeability. Those are just units
conversions. Aether has nothing to do with temperature
or thermoelectricity or charge.
[quote]
Aha! And so it is OBSERVED that gravity falls off as 1/r^2 and this is
the reason why Newtonian gravity is written as GMm/r^2. It is,
however, without explanation. Likewise, it is OBSERVED that the speed
of light is constant in any inertial reference frame. It is, however,
without explanation. Yet for some reason, those particular
observations give you pause, while the OBSERVATIONS that underlie
kinetic energy just somehow feel more natural for you to accept
without requiring explanation.
As I said, there's a model that 'explains' the 1/r^2 effect. Further,
Gauss describes it well enough without even needing that. It's not
arbitrary...
And it is wrong.
Explain...
Cat got your tongue?
[/quote]
Well, since you have no desire to either read or understand, he
would be wasting his time to go further. Why do you not look
it up?
[quote]
I know better than 99.99% of all what this model is, certainly much
better than you. The model matches observations, explains Titus-
Bodes, and even predicts Pioneer's behavior, exactly... To bad others
look only hard enough to try to blow it off... But not the topic
here!
Interesting that you think that the evidence against LeSage models is
worth dismissing.
If I asked you to name those properties you would say what? I'd
reflect your own argument that 'you' cannot tell nature how it should
behave. Things don't exist in isolation you got to look at everything at
once.
You don't know the evidence against LeSage gravity?
Yes I do... You get it can't be because ... and obviously that didn't
happen. Plug in aberational fling, drag, vaporize and that just about
covers the bases...
[/quote]
So, you want to put your fingers in your ears and pretend the
evidence does not exist since it goes against your prejudices.
You are dropping down even further in the level of cranks.
[quote]
What's elastic then???
It's the nature of the interaction *between* the particles. And note
that the particles that interact elastically never come in direct
contact with each other. You do know that, right?
No, not a priori. Elasticity is a property of the particles, not the
void between them 'in the kinetic theory model'.
No, that's not even correct, sorry. In kinetic theory, there is no
claim that elasticity is a property of the particles. It is only that
their interactions are elastic.
interaction of what!? 'Their' interatctions, the PARTICLES!
That seems to be your problem. For example one can show why c is
measured invariant, how time dilation occurs from first principles,
and what causes the Lorentz behavior without fiat or declarations or
relying on geometric tricks.
It's not a geometric trick. It is a geometric EXPLANATION. It is YOU
that insist that unless the explanation has to do with something other
than that, something more mechanistic, then it is not a real
explanation but is instead a parlor trick.
It isn't... It is a humsn invented convoluted explanation that isn't
physical.
It's not at all convoluted. I don't see what you find to be confusing
about it.
I don't find it confusing, just a stupid excuse of an attempt at an
explanation. That why I used the term convoluted, a much simpler
explanation exists.
[/quote]
We already know you do not understand the explanation and are
trying to ignore it.
[quote]
This goes back to what I said earlier. Unless your model makes a
specific *measurable* prediction that distinguishes it from one based
on spacetime, then it is simply a matter of terminology switching with
no concrete value addition, at least as far as science is concerned.
That really funny, since the model does expose new relationships...
New explanatory relationships are not the same as distinguishing
predictions of *measurable* quantities. It is the latter that is the
arbiter in science, not the former.
What a poor excuse for a scientist. Saying "I don't care if it
provides a better explanation, new relationships, removal of
arbirarily defined terms, I don't want to know. I like my theories
just the way they are." You'll never peddle that mentality to me.
Frankly, science doesn't care what you think science should be about.
Science has its methodology for a reason.
Yeah, politics... I'm sure the clerics said the same thing to Bruno &
Gslileo.
[/quote]
So you want to put in your prejudices. Why would that be better?
[quote]
It uses experimental measurement as the arbiter in cases of
model-distinguishing predictions for a reason.
I have absolutely no problem with that. My problem is with Bozo's
that accept 'that's just the way it is' as a better answer when a more
complete model exists.
[/quote]
But you have no complete model that contributes anything. So science
will continue to ignore you.
[quote]
You have needs for what a scientific model should be and do that are
simply not matched to what scientists actually do.
Yup, that's true. My standards are much higher than theirs...
[/quote]
Apparently not from what you have shown so far. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| doug... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 6:46 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Paul Stowe wrote:
[quote]On Oct 21, 2:19 pm, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 21, 2:59 pm, PaulStowe<theaether... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
That's my point about your misuse. mv^2/r isn't a force at all!
But you can mislead yourself (and many freshman students do) by
looking at an equation like F=mv^2/r and one like F=mg and think they
mean something similar.
Take a bucket of water, swing areound with your arm. Now, keep
chanting to yourself 'there ain't a force', 'there ain't a force'
increasing the rotation as your arm pulls from the shoulder scoket...
Yup, it's all fictious. Force results from ANY! Grad v.
It's the rope that is providing the force.
Yeah, it's your arm in my case above. That provides the r in v^2/r,
yup. But more fundamentally it's what's causing the Grad P. Newton
second law is better written F = Grad P. That momentum (P) can be
from the magnetic field, electric field, 'a rope', ... etc. This form
is the fundamental expression. It has better explanatory power.
Oh, Paul, this goes back to my earlier advice to get better acquainted
with classical physics. There's a big difference between grad(p) and dp/dt.
You are absolutely right, my mistake, F -> Grad E... A brain fart,
sorry.
I'm not sure how much more of a serious discussion we can have if you
can't be a bit more serious about learning some of the physics you are
trying to talk about.
v^2/r is an acceleration.
It is the *result* of a sum of forces. It is not a force.
as long as the string holds (or your arm) centripital, centrifical
balance as tenstion in the string.
There is no "balance". The object at the end of the string is not in
equilibrium. The sum of the forces should not add to zero for this
reason.
Again, Paul, it might be useful to bone up on classical physics a bit
more before tackling relativity or quantum mechanics.
Read below and with a little more comprehension. Lookup the word
tension.
This will be you demonstrating your prejudices and hoping that[/quote]
someone mistakes them for science.
[quote]
The result is a radially direct
'real' force acting to 'pull' the string from the center. Now if you
want a 'real' fictious force the correloious fits the bill.
I'm sorry, but you just have a basic misunderstanding about how
science works.
No, there is no misunderstanding, I understand quite well, 'I' just
ain't buying it as valid. As I've said numerous times now, that type
of basis doesn't cut it, we have to find a better foundation.
Accepting ignorance as OK isn't.
It isn't ignorance. I know that's the label that YOU want to apply to
anything that doesn't meet your preconceived mold.
Then do what I've asked for the beginning, give an alternative
explanation for the basic characteristics of light.
[/quote]
Science has but you do not like it. Too bad.
[quote]
Furthermore, science is *defined* by the scientific method and the
process I described in the steps above. I realize that you want to
invoke a *different* method of investigation of physical phenomena.
It's just that it isn't quite science. It sounds *close* to science
but has a number of aberrant elements that makes it different from
science.
What 'abberent' elements. Acceptance ad hoc postulates as a basis?
[/quote]
Postulates are what you start from. Your ignorance of science
is not a problem with science.
[quote]
The aether model isn't telling nature how it should be. It a model,
the model predict and, more importantly, explains behaviors, if the
model is right, then nature conforms to that behavior. It's your own
strawman claiming aetherist are demanding nature to behave as they
wish. It's simple, point to the experiment or observation that is in
direct conflict with the model.
Point to an experimental result that distinguishes it from relativity
in terms of predictive power. As I've told you repeatedly, THIS is how
models compete.
SR is pimple on the nose of nature... A unified model should do much
better than just SR.
SR does not claim to be an ultimate theory of everything, with
explanatory power for everything.
NO theory does that, nor has any theory ever done that.
The aether model does much better...
[/quote]
Except, of course, that it does not.
[quote]
Here are some basic questions,
Where does charge come from?
Where does light speed come from?
What permits light to exist
What is the permittivity of free space?
What is the permeability of free spaced?
What is temperature?
What is thermoelectricity?
The aether model provides a straight forward answer to each one, can
you?
And again, you are trying to use metrics for quality of theory that
just are not scientific. You are saying, "Hey, my theory provides
explanations for some things in ways that are more intuitively
appealing than the explanations that your theory provides." That is
just not a good metric.
I reallllly wish I had come up with the aether model, I didn't. It
was there long before I was born. BTW, in your view what is a good
metric?
You want to have your math games be accepted as an explanation. You[/quote]
are just pushing the questions to a different place. Nothing useful
there.
[quote]
As I said, there's a model that 'explains' the 1/r^2 effect. Further,
Gauss describes it well enough without even needing that. It's not
arbitrary...
And it is wrong.
Explain...
Cat got your tongue?
See below.
I know better than 99.99% of all what this model is, certainly much
better than you. The model matches observations, explains Titus-
Bodes, and even predicts Pioneer's behavior, exactly... To bad others
look only hard enough to try to blow it off... But not the topic
here!
Interesting that you think that the evidence against LeSage models is
worth dismissing.
If I asked you to name those properties you would say what? I'd
reflect your own argument that 'you' cannot tell nature how it should
behave. Things don't exist in isolation you got to look at everything at
once.
You don't know the evidence against LeSage gravity?
Yes I do... You get it can't be because ... and obviously that didn't
happen. Plug in aberational fling, drag, vaporize and that just about
covers the bases...
What? None of this makes sense.
Feynman wrote a piece about LeSage gravity, in fact. Have you read
that?
Of course, that the drag part. There are three basic arguments,
aberration resulting in obital fling, drag (windage), and depositional
heating. thus the statement above.
Thus demonstrating PD's point that you are ignorant of the evidence[/quote]
against LeSage.
[quote]
What's elastic then???
It's the nature of the interaction *between* the particles. And note
that the particles that interact elastically never come in direct
contact with each other. You do know that, right?
No, not a priori. Elasticity is a property of the particles, not the
void between them 'in the kinetic theory model'.
No, that's not even correct, sorry. In kinetic theory, there is no
claim that elasticity is a property of the particles. It is only that
their interactions are elastic.
interaction of what!? 'Their' interatctions, the PARTICLES!
This is semantic circling.
Look, even in LeSage gravity, the interaction between the Earth and
the Moon is not elastic because of the properties of the Earth and the
Moon, it is because of the stuff that LeSage was there in the space
around them.
LeSage's model isn't based on basic kinetic theory, it's an
'attenuation' process model, that's how it works.
[/quote]
Or does not according to the universe.
[quote]
New explanatory relationships are not the same as distinguishing
predictions of *measurable* quantities. It is the latter that is the
arbiter in science, not the former.
What a poor excuse for a scientist. Saying "I don't care if it
provides a better explanation, new relationships, removal of
arbirarily defined terms, I don't want to know. I like my theories
just the way they are." You'll never peddle that mentality to me.
Frankly, science doesn't care what you think science should be about.
Science has its methodology for a reason.
Yeah, politics... I'm sure the clerics said the same thing to Bruno &
Gslileo.
The clerics weren't practicing science.
They 'thought' they were. It passed for the definition 'at the
time'.
[/quote]
No, they were fighting for religion, as you are now.
[quote]
It uses experimental measurement as the arbiter in cases of
model-distinguishing predictions for a reason.
I have absolutely no problem with that. My problem is with Bozo's
that accept 'that's just the way it is' as a better answer when a more
complete model exists.
You have needs for what a scientific model should be and do that are
simply not matched to what scientists actually do.
Yup, that's true. My standards are much higher than theirs...
But it's not science.
too bad, sucks to be them then...
[/quote]
Says the sad crank as he wallows in his ignorance. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| PD... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 4:21 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 21, 5:40 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 21, 2:19 pm, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 21, 2:59 pm, PaulStowe<theaether... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
That's my point about your misuse. mv^2/r isn't a force at all!
But you can mislead yourself (and many freshman students do) by
looking at an equation like F=mv^2/r and one like F=mg and think they
mean something similar.
Take a bucket of water, swing areound with your arm. Now, keep
chanting to yourself 'there ain't a force', 'there ain't a force'
increasing the rotation as your arm pulls from the shoulder scoket...
Yup, it's all fictious. Force results from ANY! Grad v.
It's the rope that is providing the force.
Yeah, it's your arm in my case above. That provides the r in v^2/r,
yup. But more fundamentally it's what's causing the Grad P. Newton
second law is better written F = Grad P. That momentum (P) can be
from the magnetic field, electric field, 'a rope', ... etc. This form
is the fundamental expression. It has better explanatory power.
Oh, Paul, this goes back to my earlier advice to get better acquainted
with classical physics. There's a big difference between grad(p) and dp/dt.
You are absolutely right, my mistake, F -> Grad E... A brain fart,
sorry.
[/quote]
Hmmm. The force of the arm is Grad E? What E?
[quote]
I'm not sure how much more of a serious discussion we can have if you
can't be a bit more serious about learning some of the physics you are
trying to talk about.
v^2/r is an acceleration.
It is the *result* of a sum of forces. It is not a force.
as long as the string holds (or your arm) centripital, centrifical
balance as tenstion in the string.
There is no "balance". The object at the end of the string is not in
equilibrium. The sum of the forces should not add to zero for this
reason.
Again, Paul, it might be useful to bone up on classical physics a bit
more before tackling relativity or quantum mechanics.
Read below and with a little more comprehension. Lookup the word
tension.
[/quote]
Yes, the string pulls on the hand in an amount equal to the pull of
the hand on the string. That is Newton's 3rd law.
Likewise, the object pulls on the string in an amount equal to the
pull of the string on the object, for the same reason.
But there is no force balance or equilibrium here. Please bone up on
freshman physics.
[quote]
The result is a radially direct
'real' force acting to 'pull' the string from the center. Now if you
want a 'real' fictious force the correloious fits the bill.
I'm sorry, but you just have a basic misunderstanding about how
science works.
No, there is no misunderstanding, I understand quite well, 'I' just
ain't buying it as valid. As I've said numerous times now, that type
of basis doesn't cut it, we have to find a better foundation.
Accepting ignorance as OK isn't.
It isn't ignorance. I know that's the label that YOU want to apply to
anything that doesn't meet your preconceived mold.
Then do what I've asked for the beginning, give an alternative
explanation for the basic characteristics of light.
[/quote]
Sure. The characteristics of light are a field with U(1) symmetry,
where a field is described with a set of values at every point in
space and time. The field also bears the properties of energy density,
momentum, and angular momentum, and these are quantized. Bearing those
properties, the field earns status as a physical entity.
[quote]
Furthermore, science is *defined* by the scientific method and the
process I described in the steps above. I realize that you want to
invoke a *different* method of investigation of physical phenomena.
It's just that it isn't quite science. It sounds *close* to science
but has a number of aberrant elements that makes it different from
science.
What 'abberent' elements. Acceptance ad hoc postulates as a basis?
[/quote]
No, YOURS has the aberrant elements, as I've laid out to you.
[quote]
The aether model isn't telling nature how it should be. It a model,
the model predict and, more importantly, explains behaviors, if the
model is right, then nature conforms to that behavior. It's your own
strawman claiming aetherist are demanding nature to behave as they
wish. It's simple, point to the experiment or observation that is in
direct conflict with the model.
Point to an experimental result that distinguishes it from relativity
in terms of predictive power. As I've told you repeatedly, THIS is how
models compete.
SR is pimple on the nose of nature... A unified model should do much
better than just SR.
SR does not claim to be an ultimate theory of everything, with
explanatory power for everything.
NO theory does that, nor has any theory ever done that.
The aether model does much better...
[/quote]
I don't see how.
[quote]
Here are some basic questions,
Where does charge come from?
Where does light speed come from?
What permits light to exist
What is the permittivity of free space?
What is the permeability of free spaced?
What is temperature?
What is thermoelectricity?
The aether model provides a straight forward answer to each one, can
you?
And again, you are trying to use metrics for quality of theory that
just are not scientific. You are saying, "Hey, my theory provides
explanations for some things in ways that are more intuitively
appealing than the explanations that your theory provides." That is
just not a good metric.
I reallllly wish I had come up with the aether model, I didn't. It
was there long before I was born. BTW, in your view what is a good
metric?
[/quote]
I've already told you this umpteen times. Accurate predictions of
measurable phenomena that distinguish it from competing theories. Do
you now remember me telling you this?
[quote]
As I said, there's a model that 'explains' the 1/r^2 effect. Further,
Gauss describes it well enough without even needing that. It's not
arbitrary...
And it is wrong.
Explain...
Cat got your tongue?
See below.
I know better than 99.99% of all what this model is, certainly much
better than you. The model matches observations, explains Titus-
Bodes, and even predicts Pioneer's behavior, exactly... To bad others
look only hard enough to try to blow it off... But not the topic
here!
Interesting that you think that the evidence against LeSage models is
worth dismissing.
If I asked you to name those properties you would say what? I'd
reflect your own argument that 'you' cannot tell nature how it should
behave. Things don't exist in isolation you got to look at everything at
once.
You don't know the evidence against LeSage gravity?
Yes I do... You get it can't be because ... and obviously that didn't
happen. Plug in aberational fling, drag, vaporize and that just about
covers the bases...
What? None of this makes sense.
Feynman wrote a piece about LeSage gravity, in fact. Have you read
that?
Of course, that the drag part. There are three basic arguments,
aberration resulting in obital fling, drag (windage), and depositional
heating. thus the statement above.
[/quote]
Yes, among other things. These are pretty difficult to overcome.
[quote]
What's elastic then???
It's the nature of the interaction *between* the particles. And note
that the particles that interact elastically never come in direct
contact with each other. You do know that, right?
No, not a priori. Elasticity is a property of the particles, not the
void between them 'in the kinetic theory model'.
No, that's not even correct, sorry. In kinetic theory, there is no
claim that elasticity is a property of the particles. It is only that
their interactions are elastic.
interaction of what!? 'Their' interatctions, the PARTICLES!
This is semantic circling.
Look, even in LeSage gravity, the interaction between the Earth and
the Moon is not elastic because of the properties of the Earth and the
Moon, it is because of the stuff that LeSage was there in the space
around them.
LeSage's model isn't based on basic kinetic theory, it's an
'attenuation' process model, that's how it works.
New explanatory relationships are not the same as distinguishing
predictions of *measurable* quantities. It is the latter that is the
arbiter in science, not the former.
What a poor excuse for a scientist. Saying "I don't care if it
provides a better explanation, new relationships, removal of
arbirarily defined terms, I don't want to know. I like my theories
just the way they are." You'll never peddle that mentality to me.
Frankly, science doesn't care what you think science should be about.
Science has its methodology for a reason.
Yeah, politics... I'm sure the clerics said the same thing to Bruno &
Gslileo.
The clerics weren't practicing science.
They 'thought' they were. It passed for the definition 'at the
time'.
[/quote]
Sorry, we are discussing the current definition of science. And that
involves the scientific method, as I've laid out to you.
[quote]
It uses experimental measurement as the arbiter in cases of
model-distinguishing predictions for a reason.
I have absolutely no problem with that. My problem is with Bozo's
that accept 'that's just the way it is' as a better answer when a more
complete model exists.
You have needs for what a scientific model should be and do that are
simply not matched to what scientists actually do.
Yup, that's true. My standards are much higher than theirs...
But it's not science.
too bad, sucks to be them then...
[/quote]
That's fine if you feel that way. At least you've acknowledged that
what you're doing is not science. You can call it whatever you want,
OTHER THAN science. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Dec 11, 2009 10:13 am
|
|