McCoin Last Thread

[Reality Check]

Actually this isn't entirely correct. I'll have to try and find his ONE post where he acknowledged that my concept of physics could be employed but that he would continue to use relativity because it would be far simplier. I also agreed with him. My view of physics gets rather complex but my point is not to throw out relati ity but to acknowledge it is a convienent mathematical tool but poor physical theory. Further that what is important is to discorver the reality.

What is a "physical theory"?

Perhaps you mean a theory that agrees with the physical preconceptions of human beings as they have evolved, e.g. the properties we measure for an object moving at a slow velocity will be the same as the properties of an object moving at a very high velocity.

If you mean a theory in physics then relativity is a very good physical theory since it has been confirmed by many experiments (Experimental Basis of Special Relativity).

ETA:
The phrase "his ONE post" suggests that somewhere Dr Lincoln agrees with something you post. What about the (how many?) times he states that you have misconceptions about special relativity - do we ignore these posts?

 

[RussDill]

1 - When you calculate the time distance affect of the jet and it's noise you are computing the ONLY relaity.

OK, so here you are saying that the universe makes sense, there is only one reality. You are either making a basis for an argument or you are attacking a straw man. From your "ONLY", I take it you are attacking some perceived claim that there is more than one reality.

The rest is what is just illusions of motion.

I'm confused. What part is an illusion? The plane moving? Seeing the plane moving? Hearing the plane moving?

It may seem real to you but it is not real and there is and will be no permanent physical affects caused by the illusion.

Again, what illusion? Are you saying that the sound waves that reach me in response to the collision of who knows how many air molecules is some kind of illusion? Do you mean that people who thought they took off from LAX and landed at ORD didn't really get to Chicago?

The ONLY reality is that the jet is producing the noise LOCALLY in it's proper frame..

You can't just banter words without explaining their meaning. What does "LOCALLY" mean? What is a "proper frame"?

2 - There is not and never have been units of converson involved.

I'm pretty sure the speed of light has always had units of velocity attached to it.

I gave E=mc^2 as an example of the ratio of volumes.

Ok, a volume is something that has length, width, and depth, right? The units of volume must be length cubed, right? such as meters^3, or cubic centimeters (cc)?

Which values in this equation do you think are volumes? If they are E and m, can you give me an equation to relate cc's or cubic inches to joules (E) and kilograms (m)?

The ratio is a factor which in the example would be 9E16 period. NO units period except those of your initial volume multiplied by the factor..

Where does the 9*10^16th factor come from? c^2, right? I think you'll find that 299,792,458 m/s represents the number of meters that light travels in one second. You'll find that the meter was originally defined in relation to the distance from the equator to the north pole through Paris, this distance being defined as 10,000,000 meters. It was later redefined so that it represented the speed of light in whole units. The second has even a longer history. It originally goes back to the Babylonians having a base 60 number system or some such. They could have just as easily used 80 If the second were instead defined as 1/80th of a minute instead of 1/60th of a minute, then light would cover 224844343.5 meters in a second. This would change c^2 to 5*10^16th.

Is this making any sense? Am I losing you anywhere? Why would the selection of a number base by the Babylonians thousands of years ago effect the results of physical experiments today?

Also, with your volume conversion formula, can you provide an experiment that would confirm it?

 

[Ziggurat]

1 - When you calculate the time distance affect of the jet and it's noise you are computing the ONLY relaity.

You missed the point entirely.

2 - There is not and never have been units of converson involved. I gave E=mc^2 as an example of the ratio of volumes. The ratio is a factor which in the example would be 9E16 period. NO units period except those of your initial volume multiplied by the factor..

Except that in E=mc², E and m do not have the same units. The fact that c is not unitless is required for equality. If you multiply a volume by c², what you end up with will not be a volume, just as if you multiply m by c² you don't get a mass. And if you use units other than SI, c² won't even be 9x10¹⁶ m²/s². All you're doing is demonstrating that you really don't understand units. You could try to prove me wrong by doing the calculations with units, but I know you won't. You will avoid doing any math at all.

 

[MacM]

What is a "physical theory"?

Perhaps you mean a theory that agrees with the physical preconceptions of human beings as they have evolved, e.g. the properties we measure for an object moving at a slow velocity will be the same as the properties of an object moving at a very high velocity.

If you mean a theory in physics then relativity is a very good physical theory since it has been confirmed by many experiments (Experimental Basis of Special Relativity).

ETA:
The phrase "his ONE post" suggests that somewhere Dr Lincoln agrees with something you post. What about the (how many?) times he states that you have misconceptions about special relativity - do we ignore these posts?

No I'm afraid you are the one with a definition problem here. SR ;provides absolutely NO physical basis for it's mathematical relationships. i.e. - HOW does space-time interchange - that would be a physical theory. Not merely HOW mathematically as a relationship.

AND no I do not and have not disregarded the number of times Dr Licoln and I disagree. But I also note just as here Dr Lincoln often asserted I didn't understand or that I misunderstood something which I actually did or do know.

But I disagree with emphatically and in some cases what you claim SR says isn't what SR actually is. So the confusion here is not my lack of knowledge about what is claimed but your lack of understanding the objection.

That may well me as much my fault in presentation but also in part due to your (not you personally) inability to think outside the formal mathematical confines of relativity.

 

[RussDill]

No I'm afraid you are the one with a definition problem here. SR ;provides absolutely NO physical basis for it's mathematical relationships. i.e. - HOW does space-time interchange - that would be a physical theory. Not merely HOW mathematically as a relationship.

You still haven't really defined anything. What is a "Physical basis"? and how does it differ from a "mathematical relationship". I think I see where you might be going, but I'm not sure.

When Newton formulated the laws of gravity, he used *only* a mathematical relationship. He could not determine by what mechanism it operates. Is that what you are getting at?

AND no I do not and have not disregarded the number of times Dr Licoln and I disagree. But I also note just as here Dr Lincoln often asserted I didn't understand or that I misunderstood something which I actually did or do know.

Just because you think you understand something doesn't mean that you do understand it. I think we've all had "ah-ha" moments when we realize that what we thought we understood we do not understand.

But I disagree with emphatically and in some cases what you claim SR says isn't what SR actually is. So the confusion here is not my lack of knowledge about what is claimed but your lack of understanding the objection.

That may well me as much my fault in presentation but also in part due to your (not you personally) inability to think outside the formal mathematical confines of relativity.

Yes PLEASE. I've asked you many times to provide concise definitions of the words, phrases, and modifiers you use, but have received no response.

 

[Reality Check]

No I'm afraid you are the one with a definition problem here. SR ;provides absolutely NO physical basis for it's mathematical relationships. i.e. - HOW does space-time interchange - that would be a physical theory. Not merely HOW mathematically as a relationship.

AND no I do not and have not disregarded the number of times Dr Licoln and I disagree. But I also note just as here Dr Lincoln often asserted I didn't understand or that I misunderstood something which I actually did or do know.

But I disagree with emphatically and in some cases what you claim SR says isn't what SR actually is. So the confusion here is not my lack of knowledge about what is claimed but your lack of understanding the objection.

That may well me as much my fault in presentation but also in part due to your (not you personally) inability to think outside the formal mathematical confines of relativity.

Do you know how to click on links and read web pages?

The physical basis for SR is the physical results from experiments confirmed its predictions.

"HOW does space-time interchange" is not an issue. We physically measure that the the universe acts as if Lorentz invariance works (if that is what you mean). This is modeled mathematically. That is what science does - get used to it !

 

[The Man]

No I'm afraid you are the one with a definition problem here. SR ;provides absolutely NO physical basis for it's mathematical relationships. i.e. - HOW does space-time interchange - that would be a physical theory. Not merely HOW mathematically as a relationship. <snip>

“NO physical basis..”? So I guess that whole consistency of the speed of light thing doesn’t count as being ‘physical’? “HOW does space-time interchange”? Well that can be expressed “mathematically as a relationship” as well a “physical theory” both encompassed by relativity.

 

[Ziggurat]

No I'm afraid you are the one with a definition problem here. SR ;provides absolutely NO physical basis for it's mathematical relationships. i.e. - HOW does space-time interchange - that would be a physical theory. Not merely HOW mathematically as a relationship.

Space-time doesn't interchange. It is what it is. What changes is coordinates - technically speaking, though, our coordinates do not interchange, they transform. And the mathematics describes what happens physically. Just like mathematics describes what happens physically if we rotate. Now, it is indeed possible to create transformations of coordinates which have no physical meaning, but Lorentz transformations, just like rotations, are not merely mathematical relationships: they are physically meaningful because they preserve angles and lengths. In the case of Lorentz transformations, the lengths and angles are not Euclidean, but the universe need not be, and is not, Euclidean.

 

[realpaladin]

Personally, I prefer to admire "sound-minded" individuals, on the principle that a sound mind is a virtue, and would certainly be strong when necessary (but would not exercise strength in the pursuit of un-soundness).

I am not looking for wholesome virtues in my entertainment package. Just entertainment value is enough.

No fun in someone starting an argument and then quickly calling 'uncle' when beaten with reason

 

[theprestige]

I am not looking for wholesome virtues in my entertainment package. Just entertainment value is enough.

No fun in someone starting an argument and then quickly calling 'uncle' when beaten with reason

Heh. That's a very excellent point.

 

[MacM]

“NO physical basis..”? So I guess that whole consistency of the speed of light thing doesn’t count as being ‘physical’? “HOW does space-time interchange”? Well that can be expressed “mathematically as a relationship” as well a “physical theory” both encompassed by relativity.

Actually it is far more likely that the invariance is a fucntion of an illusion based on lack of full knowledge about the basic structure of the universe. invariance is most likely linked to parrticle entanglement. That is an many. many FTL carrier signal which based on observer motion relative to that field at v = c roduces photons.

That is it is far more likely that what different observers are seeing are different photons rather than the same photon at different times and different places.

 

[MacM]

Space-time doesn't interchange. It is what it is. What changes is coordinates - technically speaking, though, our coordinates do not interchange, they transform. And the mathematics describes what happens physically. Just like mathematics describes what happens physically if we rotate. Now, it is indeed possible to create transformations of coordinates which have no physical meaning, but Lorentz transformations, just like rotations, are not merely mathematical relationships: they are physically meaningful because they preserve angles and lengths. In the case of Lorentz transformations, the lengths and angles are not Euclidean, but the universe need not be, and is not, Euclidean.

Sorry but the very concept of different physical affects for different observers is simply ludricrus. Something physical is physical period. IT doesn't vanish and then become somethingelse.

i.e. - swapping time dilation for length contraction as a matter of observer vantage point.

It works mathematically. Nothing wrong with that. But it is assinine as a physical concept.

 

[MacM]

Sharing Dr Lincoln's last message to me since it made me laugh.
******************************************************


Re: Health Notice
by Lincoln on June 18th, 2009, 5:02 pm

I thank you for your forbearance.

Although the more I think about it, in many of our debates, you had a passing resemblance to that knight in The Holy Grail http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QH39nI8ZerQ "What? That? That's just a flesh wound!. It occurs to me that I hope you are able to supply some of that determination to the lung cancer.

Be sure to keep us informed with news both good and bad.


Lincoln
Resident Member
Posts: 5191
Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Location: Deep in a lab...

 

[Ziggurat]

Sorry but the very concept of different physical affects for different observers is simply ludricrus.

But there aren't different physical effects. There are different coordinates. But there's nothing special about special relativity in this respect. If you rotate your reference frame, you transform length and width. Nothing intrinsically different about length contraction and time dilation.

Something physical is physical period. IT doesn't vanish and then become somethingelse.

Nobody said anything about anything vanishing.

i.e. - swapping time dilation for length contraction as a matter of observer vantage point.

Which is not fundamentally different from swapping length for width when you rotate.

It works mathematically. Nothing wrong with that. But it is assinine as a physical concept.

Argument from incredulity will get you nowhere.

And I'm still waiting for your volume conversion with units. You won't do it because you can't.

 

[TjW]

You missed the point entirely.



Except that in E=mc², E and m do not have the same units. The fact that c is not unitless is required for equality. If you multiply a volume by c², what you end up with will not be a volume, just as if you multiply m by c² you don't get a mass. And if you use units other than SI, c² won't even be 9x10¹⁶ m²/s². All you're doing is demonstrating that you really don't understand units. You could try to prove me wrong by doing the calculations with units, but I know you won't. You will avoid doing any math at all.

No I'm afraid you are the one with a definition problem here. SR ;provides absolutely NO physical basis for it's mathematical relationships. i.e. - HOW does space-time interchange - that would be a physical theory. Not merely HOW mathematically as a relationship.

AND no I do not and have not disregarded the number of times Dr Licoln and I disagree. But I also note just as here Dr Lincoln often asserted I didn't understand or that I misunderstood something which I actually did or do know.

But I disagree with emphatically and in some cases what you claim SR says isn't what SR actually is. So the confusion here is not my lack of knowledge about what is claimed but your lack of understanding the objection.

That may well me as much my fault in presentation but also in part due to your (not you personally) inability to think outside the formal mathematical confines of relativity.

You haven't been explicit enough for him, Zig. You know what Dorothy Parker said about horticulture.

MacM:
In classical physics, there's only 3 dimensions we actually measure. There's length, and mass, and time.
Some concepts are useful enough that we chunk them together and give them a name. Speed, for example. Speed, whether it's in miles per hour or meters per second, is always in the same dimensions of length divided by time.

We can express energy in different ways; we speak of Joules, and kilowatt-hours, and horsepower-hours, and so on.
But all of these different terms actually have the same dimensions.
The dimensions of energy are mass * length * length/(time * time)
A Joule, then, is 1 kg (m^2)/(s^2).
A kilowatt-hour is 3 600 000 (kg (m^2)) / (s^2)
A horsepower-hour is a little more non-obvious and irritating to work out, because of the awkwardness of the implied acceleration in using lbs-force in the definition.
A horsepower is defined as 33000 ft-lbsforce/minute.
So a horsepower-hour is that times an hour.
(33000 lbs mass x 1 ft (for the foot-pounds) x 32ft/sec^2 (to find the force exerted by 1 lb mass)/ 1 minute) x 60 minutes in the hour.
And when you look at the dimensions of the answer, it's in lbs mass x ft ^2 x sec^2.
Dividing by minutes in the horsepower definition is canceled by multiplying the 60 minutes in the hour of the horsepower-hour definition.
So we're left with lbs mass, a foot from the foot-pounds, a foot from the implied acceleration of pounds force, and the 1/sec^2 of that same implied acceleration.
The dimensions are (mass x len x len)/(time x time)

So look at the dimensions of the right hand side of E = mC^2.

m is mass. C has dimensions of length/time. So the dimensions are:
mass x length/time x length/time, which rearranged, is mass x length^2/time^2

If Einstein had multiplied those quantities together and tried to claim they were anything but energy, we would never have heard of him.

 

[mikekoz68]

Thank you and

Ya, I don't that was meant as a compliment. You seem to be avoiding the "show the math" comments and until there is some math to back up what you're saying, it will remain a pile of gibberish.

I am sorry to hear about your condition (if it is indeed true hate to be skeptical here but it is a popular forum ploy) and wish you a full recovery.

 

[Tubbythin]

Sorry but the very concept of different physical affects for different observers is simply ludricrus. Something physical is physical period. IT doesn't vanish and then become somethingelse.

Is the speed of light in vacuum "something physical"?

 

[MacM]

But there aren't different physical effects. There are different coordinates. But there's nothing special about special relativity in this respect. If you rotate your reference frame, you transform length and width. Nothing intrinsically different about length contraction and time dilation.



Nobody said anything about anything vanishing.



Which is not fundamentally different from swapping length for width when you rotate.



Argument from incredulity will get you nowhere.

And I'm still waiting for your volume conversion with units. You won't do it because you can't.

The old Texas 2 step doesn't cut it.

You can pretend that time and space are one and the same but relativity has distinct formulas to compute the respective affects either time dilation (one physical affect) or length contraction (the second physical affect).

Transforming from one to the other buys you nothing.

You are still claiming one affect for one observer and a different affect for another observer of the same relative velocity.

 

[MacM]

You haven't been explicit enough for him, Zig. You know what Dorothy Parker said about horticulture.

MacM:
In classical physics, there's only 3 dimensions we actually measure. There's length, and mass, and time.
Some concepts are useful enough that we chunk them together and give them a name. Speed, for example. Speed, whether it's in miles per hour or meters per second, is always in the same dimensions of length divided by time.

We can express energy in different ways; we speak of Joules, and kilowatt-hours, and horsepower-hours, and so on.
But all of these different terms actually have the same dimensions.
The dimensions of energy are mass * length * length/(time * time)
A Joule, then, is 1 kg (m^2)/(s^2).
A kilowatt-hour is 3 600 000 (kg (m^2)) / (s^2)
A horsepower-hour is a little more non-obvious and irritating to work out, because of the awkwardness of the implied acceleration in using lbs-force in the definition.
A horsepower is defined as 33000 ft-lbsforce/minute.
So a horsepower-hour is that times an hour.
(33000 lbs mass x 1 ft (for the foot-pounds) x 32ft/sec^2 (to find the force exerted by 1 lb mass)/ 1 minute) x 60 minutes in the hour.
And when you look at the dimensions of the answer, it's in lbs mass x ft ^2 x sec^2.
Dividing by minutes in the horsepower definition is canceled by multiplying the 60 minutes in the hour of the horsepower-hour definition.
So we're left with lbs mass, a foot from the foot-pounds, a foot from the implied acceleration of pounds force, and the 1/sec^2 of that same implied acceleration.
The dimensions are (mass x len x len)/(time x time)

So look at the dimensions of the right hand side of E = mC^2.

m is mass. C has dimensions of length/time. So the dimensions are:
mass x length/time x length/time, which rearranged, is mass x length^2/time^2

If Einstein had multiplied those quantities together and tried to claim they were anything but energy, we would never have heard of him.

I appreciate your time and effort here but it is wasted. I just made a very general analogy by referring to the E = mc^2 relationship when comparing mass as being compacted space along the same ratios.

He and others continue (even after being told) that there were no units involved in the comparison but merely the suggested 9E16 / 1 ratio (SEE no units factor).

If you don't know then perhaps you should be advised that I have had formal educaion in mechanical, electrical and nuclear engineering, plus electronics. So talking to me as though I am some Jr High student is frankly an insult.

But the bigger insult is for these persons to continue to make issue where none exists.

 

[MacM]

Ya, I don't that was meant as a compliment. You seem to be avoiding the "show the math" comments and until there is some math to back up what you're saying, it will remain a pile of gibberish.

I am sorry to hear about your condition (if it is indeed true hate to be skeptical here but it is a popular forum ploy) and wish you a full recovery.

Thanks. Not a ploy I'm afraid. Asking for and expecting no sympathy. I did it to myself by smoking.