McCoin Last Thread

[Reality Check]

Great question. Local I suspect is a planck volume and there are one for every possible planck increment of energy (motion) from some unknown absolute zero to whatever speed (velocity) might describe particle entanglement.

The thing is our physics are bound by Lorentz and v = c becomes an existance limit within our universe but if you blast off in space to high relavistic speeds I suspect you will begin to measure (see) or experience objects that were outside your c band universe inertial rest reference.

Also it would mean that some objects which would now exceed v = c that were before your acceleration were receeding have now ceased to exist in your new universal surroundings.

Not quite right. Our physics is not limited by "Lorentz". It is extended by the Lorentz transformation in SR to be more correct for observers moving at high velocities in inertial reference frames. v=c is not an "existence limit". Physical objects just cannot get to velocities > c (N.B. light actually exists and travels at v=c). The objects do not cease to exist in your new universal surroundings - you just cannot see them. That is why there is an observable universe.

I do not what you mean by "c band universe inertial rest reference" but at velocities approaching c you do see unusual effects, e.g. see the Optical Effects of Special Relativity YouTube video.

If local is a Planck volume then you need a quantum gravity theory to describe the physics - how is your string theory?

So that is one question answered. What about the rest:
What is an "absolute measure system"?
Is there a F10,000?

What about:
F1=0, F2=0.01c, F3=0.02c, F4=0.03c, Fn......Etc. Such that (F1,000=0.9c - F4) = 0.06c;
Is that an "absolute measure system" also and so what is the difference between the 2 absolute measure systems?

As far as I can see every one of the Fn is an inertial reference frame, i.e. an observer in it is moving at a constant velocity. All you are doing is picking out another arbitrary inertial reference frame and offsetting the velocities measured in the Fn by that observers velocity.

And:
What is a "c band universe inertial rest reference"? My guess is the observable universe if "c band universe" is the objects in the universe traveling <= c and "inertial rest reference" is an inertial reference frame (but what is "rest" doing in there? )
Why is F4 so special. Why can we not subtract F1 (a velocity of 0) to get an "absolute measure system"?

 

[MacM]

Not quite right. Our physics is not limited by "Lorentz". It is extended by the Lorentz transformation in SR to be more correct for observers moving at high velocities in inertial reference frames. v=c is not an "existence limit". Physical objects just cannot get to velocities > c (N.B. light actually exists and travels at v=c). The objects do not cease to exist in your new universal surroundings - you just cannot see them. That is why there is an observable universe.

I do not what you mean by "c band universe inertial rest reference" but at velocities approaching c you do see unusual effects, e.g. see the Optical Effects of Special Relativity YouTube video.

If local is a Planck volume then you need a quantum gravity theory to describe the physics - how is your string theory?

So that is one question answered. What about the rest:
What is an "absolute measure system"?
Is there a F10,000?

What about:
F1=0, F2=0.01c, F3=0.02c, F4=0.03c, Fn......Etc. Such that (F1,000=0.9c - F4) = 0.06c;
Is that an "absolute measure system" also and so what is the difference between the 2 absolute measure systems?

As far as I can see every one of the Fn is an inertial reference frame, i.e. an observer in it is moving at a constant velocity. All you are doing is picking out another arbitrary inertial reference frame and offsetting the velocities measured in the Fn by that observers velocity.

And:
What is a "c band universe inertial rest reference"? My guess is the observable universe if "c band universe" is the objects in the universe traveling <= c and "inertial rest reference" is an inertial reference frame (but what is "rest" doing in there? )
Why is F4 so special. Why can we not subtract F1 (a velocity of 0) to get an "absolute measure system"?

Unfortunately all you are doing is reciting rhetoric and SR. I'm proposing that what you call light may have a completely different origin and your invariance if merely a measure based on differrent photons at different absolute universal energies.


Actually nothing you have said addresses the issues raised but merely recites existing concepts.

Not interested.

 

[Reality Check]

Unfortunately all you are doing is reciting rhetoric and SR. I'm proposing that what you call light may have a completely different origin and your invariance if merely a measure based on differrent photons at different absolute universal energies.

Actually nothing you have said addresses the issues raised but merely recites existing concepts.

Not interested.

I am not "reciting rhetoric and SR".
I am not addressing the issue raised because you have not raised any intelligible issue.
I am asking questions about what your terms mean.
But if your terms mean nothing then I guess we are back to your meaningless non-science again.

BTW:
Are you saying that light is not an electromagnetic wave? Or that light is not a photon? Or that wave/particle duality is false? Or?
What does "different absolute universal energies" mean?

 

[Uncayimmy]

Unfortunately all you are doing is reciting rhetoric and SR. I'm proposing that what you call light may have a completely different origin and your invariance if merely a measure based on differrent photons at different absolute universal energies.


Actually nothing you have said addresses the issues raised but merely recites existing concepts.

Not interested.

First, you don't seem to know the meaning of rhetoric.

Second, you have proposed nothing. You might think you have, but you have not. Either we're all failing to understand something complex or you are not communicating your ideas very well.

Once again, show the math. Without it, you have nothing.

 

[MacM]

Are you saying that light is not an electromagnetic wave? Or that light is not a photon? Or that wave/particle duality is false? Or?

I suspect that what you refer to as a photon is very simular to photons generated by Cerenkov Radiation but just where the medium is spatial vacuum.

That is something is exceeding v = c for that medium. Further that the photon measured is one generated at some quantum value of energy relative to the observer and hence the observer motion changes when and where a photon is measured.

That is observers with different velocities to the source are measuring different photons not that "a" photon has an invariant velocity to all observers.

I further suspect that the carrier wave(s) for production of light therefore exist at every concievable value upto and including a speed (veloicty) required to link particles in entanglement.

It is you veloicty relative to this unseen spatial fabric or energy that results in all measured relavisitc processes.

What does "different absolute universal energies" mean?

To understand such terminologies you must fisrt forfiet the idea that there is no actual absolute rest and accept that frames are nothing more tha some energy level (meaning motion velocities) within the dynamic spatial background.

All inertial frames are relative to some absolute background but locally we can only measure or sense relative to the local rest reference (which actually may - most likely ) has velocity universally.

 

[MacM]

First, you don't seem to know the meaning of rhetoric.

WEBSTER:

Rhetoric 2: using or characterized by mere rhetoric, or artificial eloquence; showy and elaborate in style.

Seems appropriate to me. Hollow meaningless diatribe quoting existing theory as a basis of discussion. Anything not consistant with that is outside realm of consideraton.

Why didn't you emphasize the further definition below in your link?

*************************

Related Words

grandiloquence, grandiosity, magniloquence, empty talk, empty words, hot air, palaver

*********************************

You are correct. It is complex, I am not making it clear and there is no math.

This is something that most here have not been trained to do and unfortunatley that is to think for yourselves.

That is not meant to be negative, you are trained in regurgitating what has been done before you and to manipulate formulas.

 

[Reality Check]

You are correct. It is complex, I am not making it clear and there is no math.

This is something that most here have not been trained to do and unfortunatley that is to think for yourselves.

That is not meant to be negative, you are trained in regurgitating what has been done before you and to manipulate formulas.

That is the point:
Not only are you not makig "it" clear - you have not even stated what "it" is in any way that we can understand.
You thus leave us with no option but to try to read your mind (is that what you mean by "think for yourselves" ?).

A suggestion:

1. Create a glossary of your personal terms for various things (so that we have a way to translate them into things that are commonly used).
2. State your issue clearly using only terms in your glossary. Including mathematics would be good (and clearer).

Here is a start:

• "absolute measure system" = ?
• "different absolute universal energies" = ?
• "c band universe inertial rest reference" = ?

P.S. You still have not answered my questions but once you know what you are taking about, we can return to them.

 

[Uncayimmy]

WEBSTER:

Rhetoric 2: using or characterized by mere rhetoric, or artificial eloquence; showy and elaborate in style.

Okay, I take it back. You don't know what it means to show artificial eloquence or be showy and elaborate in style.

Seems appropriate to me. Hollow meaningless diatribe quoting existing theory as a basis of discussion. Anything not consistant with that is outside realm of consideraton.

Let's take 'em one by one:

Hollow - How is the Theory of Relativity hollow?
Meaningless - See above. It has plenty of meaning.
Diatribe - A sharply abusive denunciation? No way. The post was quite civil.

I don't believe English has a word that means what you want it to mean, which is that you received an explanation based on currently accepted theory. This little exchange demonstrates your biggest problem, Mac. You use words in ways that other people don't. This applies to physics as well as English. And you get irritated with us for not understanding you.

That is not meant to be negative, you are trained in regurgitating what has been done before you and to manipulate formulas.

I haven't been trained in diddly squat when it comes to relativity. What I do see is a large group of people using a common language to communicate ideas. For most of history those ideas did not exist. The language evolved and definitions became accepted.

Now you come along and start using terms that already have meaning, yet you don't even come close to explaining what it is that you really mean.

So, show the math. It's the least ambiguous language we mortals have. Or are you saying you cannot do that?

 

[MacM]

I'll post replies tonight (going for Chemo now).

For those not already indoctrinated Einstein made a speach wherein he stated SR does NOT disprove the existance of an aether; plus GR REQUIRES it.

http://www.mountainman.com.au:80/aether_0.html

 

[Cuddles]

But my statement only applies to those that have posted SR rhetoric and not considered what is being said.

And this is your big problem - you simply dismiss everyone who disagrees with you by claiming they're listening to what you say. They have considered what you say, and they disagree with it.

That is it doesn't matter what SR says if the foundation of SR is being questioned.

What nonsense. It is what SR says that is exactly what matters. Theories are tested by looking at what they say and comparing that to observation of what actually happens. The simple fact is that SR and GR match those observation very well. That will remain true no matter how much you dispute their founding assumptions. The only way for a theory to supplant them is to make predictions that match observation even better.

This is your other big problem - you don't appear to understand how science works. You can't just argue that your idea sounds good, you have to make predictions and then test them. The only way to dispute a theory is by showing that what it says is either internally consistent or wrong. By dismissing the predictions of the theory you are trying to dispute, you make it impossible for anything you say to be relevant in any way.

 

[Reality Check]

Good luck with the Chemo MacM.

I'll post replies tonight (going for Chemo now).

For those not already indoctrinated Einstein made a speach wherein he stated SR does NOT disprove the existance of an aether; plus GR REQUIRES it.

http://www.mountainman.com.au:80/aether_0.html

And I quote with emphasis for those not already deluded

More careful reflection teaches us, however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence of an ether,; only we must give up ascribing a definite state of motion to it, i.e. we must by abstraction take from it the last mechanical characteristic which Lorentz had still left it. We shall see later that this point of view, the conceivability of which shall at once endeavour to make more intelligible by a somewhat halting comparison, is justified by the results of the general theory of relativity.

In Einsteins own words MacM is right - SR ignores the existence of a ether because the ether has no physical properties but that does not mean that it does not exist. GR justifies this.

This is basically what the Wikipedia article in Lorentz ether theory says

Viewed as a theory of elementary particles, Lorentz's electron/ether theory was superseded during the first few decades of the 20th century, first by quantum mechanics and then by quantum field theory. As a general theory of dynamics, Lorentz and Poincare had already (by about 1905) found it necessary to invoke the principle of relativity itself in order to make the theory match all the available empirical data. By this point, the last vestiges of a substantial ether had been eliminated from Lorentz's "ether" theory, and it become both empirically and deductively equivalent to special relativity. The only difference was the metaphysical[C 7] postulate of a unique absolute rest frame, which was empirically undetectable and played no role in the physical predictions of the theory. As a result, the term "Lorentz ether theory" is sometimes used today to refer to a neo-Lorentzian interpretation of special relativity. The prefix "neo" is used in recognition of the fact that the interpretation must now be applied to physical entities and processes (such as the standard model of quantum field theory) that were unknown in Lorentz's day.

and the [c 7] citation:

Lorentz commented that the difference between his and Einstein's view was purely metaphysical, and could be left to the metaphysicians.

 

[MacM]

And this is your big problem - you simply dismiss everyone who disagrees with you by claiming they're listening to what you say. They have considered what you say, and they disagree with it.



What nonsense. It is what SR says that is exactly what matters. Theories are tested by looking at what they say and comparing that to observation of what actually happens. The simple fact is that SR and GR match those observation very well. That will remain true no matter how much you dispute their founding assumptions. The only way for a theory to supplant them is to make predictions that match observation even better.

This is your other big problem - you don't appear to understand how science works. You can't just argue that your idea sounds good, you have to make predictions and then test them. The only way to dispute a theory is by showing that what it says is either internally consistent or wrong. By dismissing the predictions of the theory you are trying to dispute, you make it impossible for anything you say to be relevant in any way.

Please turn on the light and look deep into the mirrow.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Please turn on the light and look deep into the mirrow.

Well, you've convinced me. Since all these other idiots have it wrong, can you tell me how I can use this new theory to make some money? A PM is fine.

Thanks!

 

[sol invictus]

For those not already indoctrinated Einstein made a speach wherein he stated SR does NOT disprove the existance of an aether; plus GR REQUIRES it.

As he says, it requires a very peculiar form of ether - an ether that's deformed by the presence of mass and energy within it, and one that has no definite state of motion (that's the part you have so much difficulty with). It's so totally unlike the 19th century conception of ether that the term has fallen completely into disuse.

The ether he's discussing is what physicists today refer to as the metric of spacetime - it's a completely standard and very well understood part of physics. It's the first thing you study when you learn general relativity.

As I've tried to explain to you, the defining characteristic of GR is that all freely moving observers will obtain identical results if they perform identical, local experiments - in other words, they will never, under any circumstances, be able to detect their speed or direction of motion. However they will be able to detect their linear acceleration or rotation - that's the primary sense in which GR requires an "ether".

 

[Cuddles]

Please turn on the light and look deep into the mirrow.

Is that some kind of fish?

 

[MacM]

Good luck with the Chemo MacM.


And I quote with emphasis for those not already deluded

In Einsteins own words MacM is right - SR ignores the existence of a ether because the ether has no physical properties but that does not mean that it does not exist. GR justifies this.

This is basically what the Wikipedia article in Lorentz ether theory says

and the [c 7] citation:

Thanks RC for your post in all respects.

 

[MacM]

Well, you've convinced me. Since all these other idiots have it wrong, can you tell me how I can use this new theory to make some money? A PM is fine.

Thanks!

Hey if I could do that you'd be reading my published works -

 

[MacM]

As he says, it requires a very peculiar form of ether - an ether that's deformed by the presence of mass and energy within it, and one that has no definite state of motion (that's the part you have so much difficulty with). It's so totally unlike the 19th century conception of ether that the term has fallen completely into disuse.

The ether he's discussing is what physicists today refer to as the metric of spacetime - it's a completely standard and very well understood part of physics. It's the first thing you study when you learn general relativity.

As I've tried to explain to you, the defining characteristic of GR is that all freely moving observers will obtain identical results if they perform identical, local experiments - in other words, they will never, under any circumstances, be able to detect their speed or direction of motion. However they will be able to detect their linear acceleration or rotation - that's the primary sense in which GR requires an "ether".

My primary objection to modern phusics is that it is virtually pure mathematics. Math is good, necessary and useful but current theories lack any physical views.

 

[MacM]

Is that some kind of fish?

Opps. It was late. Lets try "Mirror" -

 

[Reality Check]

My primary objection to modern phusics is that it is virtually pure mathematics. Math is good, necessary and useful but current theories lack any physical views.

I would like to know what your criteria was for this statement, e.g. your own opinion, some survey of all scientists, the difference in numbers of experimental vs theoretical scientists, the difference in numbers of experimental vs theoretical science journals, the experimental vs theoretical science budget (US or other?), etc.

Modern physics is what physics has been ever since Galileo Galilei - a mixture of theoretical (mathematical) and experimental physics. The current theories do have "physical views" - they match the physical observations.

But "physical views" may mean something different to you since you seem to have your own definitions and terms for many things.

And why "modern" and "current"? Mathematics has been a vital part of physics (and all science) since at least Galileo's time. Are you about to throw away all science since then because it is too mathematical for your tastes?