Perpetual Student
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2008
- Messages
- 4,852
An excellent example of blatant crackpottery, without a doubt!
Last edited:
Why is there so much crackpot physics?
- Thread starter Perpetual Student
- Start date
Since they are backed by the view held by Godel and Einstein in 1949, which can be traced back to ancient Greece.
There's no scientific content at all in the notion that time flows or that you can travel through it. How many times do I have to point to a clock, and point out that it's accumulating some kind of regular cyclic motion? Again, look at the idealised parallel-mirror light clock used used to explain time dilation. There's no actual time flowing or passing between the mirrors. It's just light, moving. That's scientific content. It's empirical, so your dismissal is wrong.
Wrong again, because c is the conversion factor between distance and time. Wrong because we don't treat time on an equal footing with space. Because there's a minus sign on the t term in the invariant Lorentz interval s² = x² + y² + z² - ct². And because we know we have freedom of motion through space but not through time. That isn't philosophical daydreaming.
Discussing time is not "playing with words", it's establishing an understanding of the t term in the mathematics of physics. And appreciating that it is not on an equal footing with the x y z terms. Something that you need to learn, Perpetual Student.
I referred to work by Andrew Worsley, who gives the electron Compton wavelength as 4π / n c^1½ metres, where n is a dimensionality conversion factor with a value of 1 which converts c into a dimensionless number. After that comes the proton/electron mass ratio c^½ / 3π. It came up in a conversation about something else where I'd won the argument hands down, and was used as deliberate distraction by people who had no counterargument. So do try to make a sincere discussion to the topic in hand, Clinger. Deliberate distractions in lieu of counterargument will not go unnoticed.
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Messages
- 8,266
You can do it as many times as you want, but it still won't support your argument.
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2008
- Messages
- 4,852
Yes, I made a careless error. The conversion factor is -c. My argument still holds that "treating time on an equal footing with space with ( -c ) as a conversion factor is essential to doing modern physics... Here we have still another sophomoric attempt at deflection.
And you've just made another careless error. The conversion factor is c. Not -c. It's distance over time. Not distance over minus time or minus distance over time. We convert energy to momentum by dividing by c, not minus c. The minus sign on the invariant interval is something else, related to Pythagoras' theorem. And you persist in your error of treating time on an equal footing with space. They aren't on an equal footing. Time is a dimension of measure, the space dimensions offer freedom of motion.
The last time somebody said that to me I'd showed them the fossils, the strata, the carbon dating, etc.
When somebody insists that a clock measures time passing like it's some gas meter hooked up to the flow of time, it's useless to try to get them to examine the empirical observable scientific evidence of what a clock actually does.
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Messages
- 8,266
You seem to have a very narrow idea of what it means to measure something.
W.D.Clinger
Philosopher
a running example of crackpot physics
Being wrong doesn't make you a crackpot. To qualify as a physics crackpot, you must persist in being wrong even after your errors have been explained time and again, so well and so often that your errors are obvious even to non-physicists.
To become a truly notorious crackpot, you should pretend your errors have never been explained, and you should proclaim victory at every opportunity.
Like this:
As we have explained, the value of Farsight's formula is 1837, or 18371, or 2748, or 142456, or 89000, depending on the units you choose to use. By inventing your own system of units, as the French did in 1799, you can make that formula work out to any value you like. So Farsight's formula explains nothing and has no predictive value. It's less than worthless.
The Worsley/Farsight formula cannot be rescued by Farsight's alleged "dimensionality conversion factor" n, because n does not appear within that formula. If Farsight knew how to repair his formula by applying his alleged "dimensionality conversion factor", he'd show us how to do it. Farsight has refused to do that, saying "It's just too difficult to explain."
When crackpots can't answer criticism, they often claim victory and say their critics have no argument, even when (as here) the crackpot's errors would be obvious to any scientifically literate high school student.
For example:
Being wrong doesn't make you a crackpot. To qualify as a physics crackpot, you must persist in being wrong even after your errors have been explained time and again, so well and so often that your errors are obvious even to non-physicists.
To become a truly notorious crackpot, you should pretend your errors have never been explained, and you should proclaim victory at every opportunity.
Like this:
I have already explained the absurdity of Dr Andrew Worsley's crackpot numerology.
That ratio should be dimensionless. Farsight's formula for that ratio is not dimensionless. Its dimensions are the square root of length divided by the square root of time.
As we have explained, the value of Farsight's formula is 1837, or 18371, or 2748, or 142456, or 89000, depending on the units you choose to use. By inventing your own system of units, as the French did in 1799, you can make that formula work out to any value you like. So Farsight's formula explains nothing and has no predictive value. It's less than worthless.
The Worsley/Farsight formula cannot be rescued by Farsight's alleged "dimensionality conversion factor" n, because n does not appear within that formula. If Farsight knew how to repair his formula by applying his alleged "dimensionality conversion factor", he'd show us how to do it. Farsight has refused to do that, saying "It's just too difficult to explain."
When crackpots can't answer criticism, they often claim victory and say their critics have no argument, even when (as here) the crackpot's errors would be obvious to any scientifically literate high school student.
For example:
Last edited:
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2008
- Messages
- 4,852
You lack of sophistication in mathematics is showing. For an n-dimensional space, distance is given by Δd2 = Δx12 + Δx22 + ... + Δxn2, by extension of the Pythagorean theorem. In contrast, the analogous equation for the metric in spacetime is give by (including time) with a conversion factor of -c as your equation above shows. The conversion of energy to/from momentum is not relevant. Good grief, go back to basics! Look up the derivation of these equations.
By the way, your equation should read s² = x² + y² + z² - (ct)², so one could equally say -c2 is the conversion factor; these are just words -- the equation (as I corrected it) is the actual statement.
Last edited:
Daylightstar
Philosopher
Psst, Farsight, I have a hot tip for you: "There are 1000 millimeters in a meter".
Perhaps you should teach the world that you can not open up a meter and find 1000 little millimeters crawling inside that 1 meter, it's ridiculous, isn't it?.
Educate and save the world along with physics Farsight, and make an end to this idiotic notion that there are 1000 millimeters in 1 meter
Daylightstar
Philosopher
You know Farsight, there are even people claiming that there are half millimeters in a meter, and centimeters and half centimeters.
Ask just one of those woo mongers to show you the evidence, let them show you an actual millimeter. Not even any of the other things they claim are in a meter, just one millimeter.
They can't. It's woo. You know it.
Ask just one of those woo mongers to show you the evidence, let them show you an actual millimeter. Not even any of the other things they claim are in a meter, just one millimeter.
They can't. It's woo. You know it.
Let me help you by translating that to non-baloney. The only non-baloney statement that "fixes the units", is to say that Andrew Worsley discovered the special physical constant "n= 1.00 seconds^(3/2) meters^(-5/2)" but forgot to mention it in his paper. That's a funny-looking constant, where did he get it? Nowhere, he made it up.
Let's translate Worsley's equation into a sensible unit system, then---let's measure distance in miles and time in hours.
Farsight in different units said:
Farsight in different units said:
That doesn't look like a discovery any more, does it? Why bother with the 4pi and c^3/2 when you're going to throw in a made-up constant anyway?
Because what Worsley did is called numerology. He did the following:
a) Look up the known electron Compton wavelength, in meters.
b) Look up the speed of light, in meters per second. (And, I'd guess, the fine structure constant, Newton's constant, and whatever else he thought he might need.)
c) Look up Pi, E, ln(2), and other mathematical constants
c) Randomly throw together constants and exponents until he found a combination that happened to line up.
I just did this myself in Mathematica. Here are ten different Worsley-like equations for the low-energy limit of the electromagnetic fine-structure constant.
alpha == 2/(3*E^2*Pi^3*Log[2]^(5/2))
alpha == (2*Sqrt[Log[2]])/(E^2*Pi^3)
alpha == Log[2]/(2*E*Pi^(5/2))
alpha == 1/(E^3*Pi^2*Log[2])
alpha == 1/(E^3*Pi^2*Log[2])
alpha == 1/(E^3*Pi^2*Log[2])
alpha == (3*Log[2]^2)/(E^3*Pi^2)
alpha == Log[2]^3/(3*E*Pi^(3/2))
alpha == (2*Log[2])/(3*E^3*Pi)
Here are a pile of different Worsley-like equations for the electron mass in MeV.
me == (2*E^(3/2))/(3*Pi^(5/2)*Log[2]^3)
me == (2*E^(3/2))/Pi^(5/2)
me == Sqrt[E]/(Pi*Log[2])^(3/2)
me == Sqrt[E]/(Pi*Log[2])^(3/2)
me == Sqrt[E]/(Pi*Log[2])^(3/2)
me == 3*Sqrt[E]*(Log[2]/Pi)^(3/2)
me == (2*E^2*(Log[2]/Pi)^(3/2))/3
me == 3/(2*Sqrt[E*Pi])
me == E/(3*Sqrt[Pi])
me == (E*Log[2]^3)/Sqrt[Pi]
me == (E*Log[2]^3)/Sqrt[Pi]
me == (E*Log[2]^3)/Sqrt[Pi]
me == 3/(E^(5/2)*Log[2]^2)
me == 2/(3*E*Log[2]^2)
me == (2*Log[2])/E
me == (Sqrt[Pi]*Log[2]^(3/2))/2
me == Pi/(E^2*Sqrt[Log[2]])
me == Pi/(E^2*Sqrt[Log[2]])
me == Pi/(E^2*Sqrt[Log[2]])
me == (3*Pi*Log[2]^(5/2))/E^2
me == Pi^2/(2*E^3*Log[2]^2)
me == (3*Pi^2*Log[2])/(2*E^3)
me == (Pi^2*Log[2])/(3*E^(3/2))
me == (Pi^3*(Log[2]/E)^(5/2))/2
Oh, you don't like those dimensions? What if you don't want to use MeV? Can't I say "there's a constant n that magically fixes the units?" No need! I can ask Mathematica to find numerological coincidences in any units you like! Mathematica, what is the electron mass in pico-femtograms, please?
me == (3*E^2)/(2*Pi^(5/2)*Log[2])
me == 3/(Pi^2*Log[2]^3)
me == (2*E^(3/2))/(3*Pi^2*Log[2]^3)
me == (2*E^(3/2))/Pi^2
me == (E^(5/2)*Sqrt[Log[2]])/(2*Pi^(3/2))
me == Sqrt[E]/(Pi*Log[2]^(3/2))
me == Sqrt[E]/(Pi*Log[2]^(3/2))
me == Sqrt[E]/(Pi*Log[2]^(3/2))
me == (3*Sqrt[E]*Log[2]^(3/2))/Pi
me == 1/(2*Sqrt[E]*Log[2]^3)
me == 3/(2*Sqrt[E])
me == (2*Sqrt[E*Log[2]])/3
me == (3*Sqrt[Pi])/(E^(5/2)*Log[2]^2)
me == (Pi*Log[2]^2)/Sqrt[E]
me == (Pi*Log[2]^2)/Sqrt[E]
me == (Pi*Log[2]^2)/Sqrt[E]
me == (Pi*Log[2]^(3/2))/2
me == (2*Pi^(3/2))/(3*E^(5/2)*Log[2]^3)
me == (2*Pi^(3/2))/E^(5/2)
me == (2*Pi^(5/2)*Log[2]^(3/2))/(3*E^2)
I must be better at this than Worsley, he only found one.
Last edited:
Just for good measure, I ran Mathematica on the particular Worsley numerology. Mathematica, find me expressions (to 0.5% accuracy) for the electron de Broglie wavelength (in meters), by combining smallish integers, pi, E, and c (in m/s):
(E^3*Pi)/(5*c^(3/2))
1/(6*c*E^2*Pi^3)
1/(8*c*E^4*Pi)
(2*E^(3/2)*Pi^2)/(7*c^(3/2))
2/(9*c*E^4*Pi^(3/2))
(3*Pi^3)/(c^(3/2)*E^2)
3/(4*c*E^(7/2)*Pi^3)
(4*Pi)/c^(3/2)
4/(5*c*E^3*Pi^(7/2))
(5*E^(3/2))/(c^(3/2)*Sqrt[Pi])
(5*E*Pi^(3/2))/(6*c^(3/2))
(5*E^3)/(8*c^(3/2))
(5*Pi^(7/2))/(8*c^(3/2)*E)
(3*Pi^3)/(c^(3/2)*E^2)
(6*E^(7/2))/(5*c^(3/2)*Pi)
3/(4*c*E^(7/2)*Pi^3)
(7*E^3)/(2*c^(3/2)*Pi^(3/2))
(7*Sqrt[E]*Pi^2)/(9*c^(3/2))
(4*Pi)/c^(3/2) <---- hey, look, I've rediscovered Worsley's expression
(3*Pi^3)/(c^(3/2)*E^2)
(9*E^4)/(7*c^(3/2)*Pi^(3/2))
Mathematica, find me expressions for the electron de Broglie wavelength (in feet) by combining pi, E, and C (in miles per hour)!
1/(7*c*E*Pi^2)
(E^3*Pi^(7/2))/(8*c^(3/2))
(2*E^3*Pi^3)/(9*c^(3/2))
(3*E^(7/2)*Pi^(3/2))/(4*c^(3/2))
3/(5*c*E^3*Pi^(3/2))
(4*E^(7/2)*Pi)/(3*c^(3/2))
4/(5*c*E*Pi^(7/2))
5/(9*c*E^(7/2)*Pi)
(6*Sqrt[E]*Pi^4)/(7*c^(3/2))
6/(7*c*Sqrt[E]*Pi^4)
(3*E^(7/2)*Pi^(3/2))/(4*c^(3/2))
(7*Pi^4)/(3*c^(3/2)*Sqrt[E])
7/(3*c*E^(3/2)*Pi^4)
7/(4*c*E^(7/2)*Pi^2)
(4*E^(7/2)*Pi)/(3*c^(3/2))
8/(7*c*(E*Pi)^(5/2))
9/(c*E^4*Pi^3)
(9*E^4)/(2*c^(3/2)*Sqrt[Pi])
And so on. A handful of these are, of course, much more accurate than the Worsley version.
ETA: Sorry, this is fun. Mathematica: find me expressions (to 0.5% accuracy) for the electron de Broglie wavelength (in meters), by combining smallish integers, pi, E, and the meaningless number c = 2505161615 ("yeppo" in alphanumeric code)
(E^4*Pi^(3/2))/c^(3/2)
1/(3*c*Pi^(7/2))
1/(3*c*E^4) <---- Strikingly simple, isn't it? All hail YEPPO, the secret codeword of the cosmos!
1/(4*c*E^2*Pi^(3/2))
(E*Pi)^(7/2)/(6*c^(3/2))
(E^4*Pi^(3/2))/c^(3/2)
1/(3*c*Pi^(7/2))
1/(3*c*E^4)
etc.
Mathematica: find me expressions for the electron de Broglie wavelength (in meters) by combining small integers, and powers of pi and c=11091918 (former Vice President Spiro Agnew's birthday)
1/(2*c^(3/2)*Pi^(3/2)) <--- maybe Agnew went back in time and bribed de Broglie to immortalize his birthday?
8/(9*c^(3/2)*Pi^2)
etc.
Mathematica, find me expressions for the electron de Broglie wavelength (in meters) by combining pi, small integers, and the number c=146500000, which happens to be the height of the Great Pyramid of Giza in microns.
Pi^2/(3^(3/4)*c^(3/2))
Pi^4/(16*Sqrt[2]*c^(3/2))
Sqrt[6*Pi]/c^(3/2)
7^(3/4)/c^(3/2) <---- Amazing, isn't it?
Pi^4/(16*Sqrt[2]*c^(3/2))
(8*2^(3/4))/(c^(3/2)*Pi)
(243*Sqrt[3])/(c^(3/2)*Pi^4)
(E^3*Pi)/(5*c^(3/2))
1/(6*c*E^2*Pi^3)
1/(8*c*E^4*Pi)
(2*E^(3/2)*Pi^2)/(7*c^(3/2))
2/(9*c*E^4*Pi^(3/2))
(3*Pi^3)/(c^(3/2)*E^2)
3/(4*c*E^(7/2)*Pi^3)
(4*Pi)/c^(3/2)
4/(5*c*E^3*Pi^(7/2))
(5*E^(3/2))/(c^(3/2)*Sqrt[Pi])
(5*E*Pi^(3/2))/(6*c^(3/2))
(5*E^3)/(8*c^(3/2))
(5*Pi^(7/2))/(8*c^(3/2)*E)
(3*Pi^3)/(c^(3/2)*E^2)
(6*E^(7/2))/(5*c^(3/2)*Pi)
3/(4*c*E^(7/2)*Pi^3)
(7*E^3)/(2*c^(3/2)*Pi^(3/2))
(7*Sqrt[E]*Pi^2)/(9*c^(3/2))
(4*Pi)/c^(3/2) <---- hey, look, I've rediscovered Worsley's expression
(3*Pi^3)/(c^(3/2)*E^2)
(9*E^4)/(7*c^(3/2)*Pi^(3/2))
Mathematica, find me expressions for the electron de Broglie wavelength (in feet) by combining pi, E, and C (in miles per hour)!
1/(7*c*E*Pi^2)
(E^3*Pi^(7/2))/(8*c^(3/2))
(2*E^3*Pi^3)/(9*c^(3/2))
(3*E^(7/2)*Pi^(3/2))/(4*c^(3/2))
3/(5*c*E^3*Pi^(3/2))
(4*E^(7/2)*Pi)/(3*c^(3/2))
4/(5*c*E*Pi^(7/2))
5/(9*c*E^(7/2)*Pi)
(6*Sqrt[E]*Pi^4)/(7*c^(3/2))
6/(7*c*Sqrt[E]*Pi^4)
(3*E^(7/2)*Pi^(3/2))/(4*c^(3/2))
(7*Pi^4)/(3*c^(3/2)*Sqrt[E])
7/(3*c*E^(3/2)*Pi^4)
7/(4*c*E^(7/2)*Pi^2)
(4*E^(7/2)*Pi)/(3*c^(3/2))
8/(7*c*(E*Pi)^(5/2))
9/(c*E^4*Pi^3)
(9*E^4)/(2*c^(3/2)*Sqrt[Pi])
And so on. A handful of these are, of course, much more accurate than the Worsley version.
ETA: Sorry, this is fun. Mathematica: find me expressions (to 0.5% accuracy) for the electron de Broglie wavelength (in meters), by combining smallish integers, pi, E, and the meaningless number c = 2505161615 ("yeppo" in alphanumeric code)
(E^4*Pi^(3/2))/c^(3/2)
1/(3*c*Pi^(7/2))
1/(3*c*E^4) <---- Strikingly simple, isn't it? All hail YEPPO, the secret codeword of the cosmos!
1/(4*c*E^2*Pi^(3/2))
(E*Pi)^(7/2)/(6*c^(3/2))
(E^4*Pi^(3/2))/c^(3/2)
1/(3*c*Pi^(7/2))
1/(3*c*E^4)
etc.
Mathematica: find me expressions for the electron de Broglie wavelength (in meters) by combining small integers, and powers of pi and c=11091918 (former Vice President Spiro Agnew's birthday)
1/(2*c^(3/2)*Pi^(3/2)) <--- maybe Agnew went back in time and bribed de Broglie to immortalize his birthday?
8/(9*c^(3/2)*Pi^2)
etc.
Mathematica, find me expressions for the electron de Broglie wavelength (in meters) by combining pi, small integers, and the number c=146500000, which happens to be the height of the Great Pyramid of Giza in microns.
Pi^2/(3^(3/4)*c^(3/2))
Pi^4/(16*Sqrt[2]*c^(3/2))
Sqrt[6*Pi]/c^(3/2)
7^(3/4)/c^(3/2) <---- Amazing, isn't it?
Pi^4/(16*Sqrt[2]*c^(3/2))
(8*2^(3/4))/(c^(3/2)*Pi)
(243*Sqrt[3])/(c^(3/2)*Pi^4)
Last edited:
It's an empirical view. You look at the apparatus, and what it's actually measuring. You don't blithely ignore that and say it's measuring something else. Do you? Amazingly the answer is yes, and the result is "crackpot physics". Me and the guys have spoken about this before, I reckon it's worth repeating, because it gets to the heart of what this thread's all about.
You know how I said that the guys at NIST have demonstrated that an optical clock runs slower than an identical optical clock a third of a metre above it? I mentioned this report, and said be wary of phrases like time passes more quickly and differences in the passage of time. Now take a look at the gif on this post. It's an idealised exaggerated version of parallel-mirror optical clocks at different elevations. It's idealised and exaggerated, but it isn't misleading - you know that any clock will run slower when it's lower. OK, look at the gif, take it in. Now, here's the crackpot test:
Is the speed of light constant?
And check out Comments on “Note on varying speed of light theories” where Magueijo and Moffat respond to criticism by Ellis.
Last edited:
No, you made two schoolboy errors by claiming the conversion factor between distance and time is 1/c² then -c, and now you're compounding the problem because you are confusing spacetime with space. Allow me to clarify. Setting aside whether it's interval squared, see spacetime intervals on the wiki spacetime page where you can read this:
In a Euclidean space, the separation between two points is measured by the distance between the two points. A distance is purely spatial, and is always positive. In spacetime, the separation between two events is measured by the invariant interval between the two events, which takes into account not only the spatial separation between the events, but also their temporal separation. The interval, s², between two events is defined as:
s² = Δr² - c²Δt² (spacetime interval),
where c is the speed of light, and Δr and Δt denote differences of the space and time coordinates, respectively, between the events.
The r replaces the x y z terms, and is merely a change in style. Look further down at light-like interval where you can read this:
In a light-like interval, the spatial distance between two events is exactly balanced by the time between the two events. The events define a squared spacetime interval of zero (s²=0). Light-like intervals are also known as "null" intervals. Events which occur to or are initiated by a photon along its path (i.e., while traveling at c, the speed of light) all have light-like separation.
It's a spacetime interval rather than a spatial distance, and it's a null interval. For a light beam, s²=0. But light beams don't actually travel a zero distance. Note that spacetime is an abstract mathematical "space" in which no motion occurs. It isn't space. We draw worldlines in it to represent motion through space over time, but a light beam doesn't move up its 45° worldline, and you wouldn't draw that worldline with a zero length.
It's relevant because for a photon we say E=hf and p=hf/c. And I reiterate, the conversion factor between distance and time is c. If you start with a distance and divide by c, the result is a time:
distance / (distance / time) => 1 / (1 / time) => time
Sorry for the typo. But again, c is the conversion factor between distance and time. Try doing what I did with -c². It doesn't work.Perpetual Student said:
Yep. It isn't called millimeter for nothing, and you can't open up a metre. But you can open up a clock, and you don't see time flowing through it. So your comparison is indeed ridiculous. Try to make a sensible contribution to the discussion next time.
dasmiller
Just the right amount of cowbell
But I can open up a yardstick and see distance moving through it?
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2008
- Messages
- 4,852
For someone who regularly makes careless errors, you do love to dwell on those of others to deflect attention from the weakness of your arguments.
You can label the "conversion factor" c, 1/c, -c, -1/c, 1/c2, -1/c2 depending on how one looks at the equation. I don't care; indulge yourself. The point is that your unfounded belief that a minus sign effects "footing" -- whatever you think that means -- is misguided. The equations of relativity treat time as a dimension with a conversion factor. That is a mathematical truth. Time is real, it is fundamental, it is a dimension in our most accurate and important model of the behavior of the universe. Motion is defined mathematically by Δx/Δt; there is no other definition of motion nor is there any physics with time as a derived quantity.
As you are so fond of saying, one does not "see time flowing inside of a clock." Nor does one see a gravitational field. It is nevertheless one of the fundamental forces of nature. Your "seeing" argument is nonsensical.