Maximal visual acuity
GogoJF
Lighted objects vs. EMR signals
January 3 2010, 10:13 PM
Anonymous
Re: The Special Relativity Solution and the Shrinking Univere
January 3 2010, 5:35 PM
STR only deals with signal latency. In other words the amount of time
elapsed between the transmission and reception of light signals over
changing distances. Thus, if one considers the "speed of light" to be
constant, the latency time is proportional to the distance.
If one uses this knowledge instead of placing "time" on a fourth
coordinate axis "perpendicular" to the conventional three of euclidean
space (which is, in reality,impossible) all the funny math is not
required.
Gogo: There is something completely different between "seeing" lighted
objects and measuring the speed c with light signals. Seeing the
object of the sun or moon does not function the same way as bouncing a
radio signal off of the moons' mirror. We use the term "speed of
light" when it should be expressed as the "speed of electromagnetic
radiation".
Light which is seen in the spectrum does not operate the same way as a
radio telescope. True, radio signals collected over time resembles a
light source on a photographic plate. Devices that detect the speed of
radio signals operate outside of the realm of the visible spectrum.
True, a radio signal is sent to the moon to be reflected and received
a signal back 2.5 seconds after it is sent. But, this has nothing to
do with observation on the "seeing" level.
Einstein used to love examples where you could "see" the logic- but,
more than that, he would put you into the "physical situation", when
dealing with light. Einstein's ideas were truly quantum theories not
macroscopic theories- the way he liked to explain them, though, were
always macroscopic.
These wonderful illusions- thought experiments that Einstein thought
of, are just that, illusions. They simply don't apply to the
macroscopic world which is dominated by the world of seeing.
The machinery of 'seeing" and the machinery of quantum mechanics
operate independently of each other. Einstein's STR and QM operate
differently, in reality. A missile operates in a accurate and precise
manner, but QM operates probabilistically.
We have not been able to get the "visible" into the QM domain. Every
time we do this we get chaos (Heisenberg). QM operates at a level that
the "seeing" world is completely unaware of. QM is still in its
infancy- there is still much to be learned and developed.
"Seeing", is defined by our maximum visual acuity. We start from this
base, and we build from it- this is our reality. According to Guyton,
the MVA of a person of normal vision is 1mm. (width-wise) at 10 meters
(length-wise). This makes the power of the unaided eye to say that,
for every one unit width-wise, I am allowed 10,000 units length-wise,
to be able to "see". But, there are many ways to measure MVA.
We can measure MVA by observing a single black dot in a lighted room.
Opposite of that would be to observe a "lighted" dot in a darkened
room. Even MVA has a dynamic range when we measure it.
dlzc
On Jan 3, 7:37 pm, GogoJF <jfgog...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> GogoJF
>
> Lighted objects vs. EMR signals
> January 3 2010, 10:13 PM
>
> Anonymous
>
> Re: The Special Relativity Solution and the
> Shrinking Univere
> January 3 2010, 5:35 PM
>
> STR only deals with signal latency.
No, you forget time dilation. Events in moving frames slow down, even
when you factor red or blue shift out.
<rest of crap snipped>
David A. Smith
GogoJF
Yes, but this would require a speed of an observer traveling with a
relative respect to the beam. What is the greatest speed which would
make the frames slow down. As humans, our top speed is maybe, 25,000
miles per hr. This motion means nothing with respect to the speed of
light. So, how can time dilation exist when the device to measure it
is fiction?
Tom Roberts
> On Jan 3, 8:46 pm, dlzc <dl...@cox.net> wrote:
>> No, you forget time dilation. Events in moving frames slow down, even
>> when you factor red or blue shift out.
>> <rest of crap snipped>
>
> relative respect to the beam.
There's no "beam" involved. Moving clocks identical with those at rest do NOT
remain synchronized with the clocks at rest in an inertial frame; when compared
appropriately the moving clock ticks fewer times than ones at rest.
> What is the greatest speed which would
> make the frames slow down. As humans, our top speed is maybe, 25,000
> miles per hr. This motion means nothing with respect to the speed of
> light.
Not true -- it "means something" when one can measure time accurately enough,
and modern atomic clocks can easily do that. Indeed, time dilation due to clocks
traveling in airplanes and automobiles has been measured.
And there are measurements of elementary particles traveling
~0.99999 c, so we know the functional form to the dilation
agrees with the prediction of SR.
> So, how can time dilation exist when the device to measure it
> is fiction?
We use INSTRUMENTS to measure it. The GPS satellites unequivocally register 38
microseconds per day more elapsed proper time than ground clocks. Of that, -7
us/day is due to their speed relative to the ECI frame, and 45 us/day is due to
their altitude.
You really need to LEARN something about the subject before attempting to write
about it.
Tom Roberts
Inertial
"GogoJF" <jfgo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:346f2472-9934-485e...@d20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
Because it is not fiction.
Mathal
Events from red shifted sources are in a slower time frame- relative
to us.
Events from blue shifted sources are in a faster time frame- relative
to us.
The 'slowing' is frame dependant, otherwise I agree completely (WRT
crap)
mathal
dlzc
On Jan 3, 9:08 pm, Mathal <mathmusi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 3, 6:46 pm, dlzc <dl...@cox.net> wrote:
> > On Jan 3, 7:37 pm, GogoJF <jfgog...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > GogoJF
>
> > > Lighted objects vs. EMR signals
> > > January 3 2010, 10:13 PM
>
> > > Anonymous
>
> > > Re: The Special Relativity Solution and the
> > > Shrinking Univere
> > > January 3 2010, 5:35 PM
>
> > > STR only deals with signal latency.
>
> > No, you forget time dilation. Events in moving
> > frames slow down, even when you factor red or
> > blue shift out.
>
> > <rest of crap snipped>
>
> Events from red shifted sources are in a slower
> time frame- relative to us.
Could they not be moving away from us, and that is part of the red
shift?
> Events from blue shifted sources are in a faster
> time frame- relative to us.
In SR, all moving sources are red shifted (time dilation). There is
an additional component, the classical Doppler shift, that can be more
apparent than the time dilation. You need to be careful with
assigning "frame" when you have not completed the calculations to
arrive at "frame".
> The 'slowing' is frame dependant, otherwise I
> agree completely (WRT crap)
Yes. The idiot first pretends that time does not exist, that he is
not a year older because a year has passed, and then he spawns a new
nym and tries this crap. Another year, another clown.
David A. Smith
Ste
> GogoJF
>
> Lighted objects vs. EMR signals
> January 3 2010, 10:13 PM
>
> Anonymous
>
> Re: The Special Relativity Solution and the Shrinking Univere
> January 3 2010, 5:35 PM
>
> STR only deals with signal latency. In other words the amount of time
> elapsed between the transmission and reception of light signals over
> changing distances. Thus, if one considers the "speed of light" to be
> constant, the latency time is proportional to the distance.
Correct. But the speed of light isn't (meaningfully) constant. A light
signal that passes through a gravitational lense before being
received, necessarily takes longer to arrive than a light signal that
takes the direct route (without passing through the lense). That lag
is not because light slowed down, but simply because it travelled
further.
> Einstein used to love examples where you could "see" the logic- but,
> more than that, he would put you into the "physical situation", when
> dealing with light. Einstein's ideas were truly quantum theories not
> macroscopic theories- the way he liked to explain them, though, were
> always macroscopic.
>
> These wonderful illusions- thought experiments that Einstein thought
> of, are just that, illusions. They simply don't apply to the
> macroscopic world which is dominated by the world of seeing.
>
> The machinery of 'seeing" and the machinery of quantum mechanics
> operate independently of each other. Einstein's STR and QM operate
> differently, in reality. A missile operates in a accurate and precise
> manner, but QM operates probabilistically.
There is certainly a discrepancy between Einstein's philosophy and
that of modern physics. As to which is wrong, I say modern physics.
The sub-atomic level does not operate probabilistically at all - it is
merely the case that we can only *measure* probabilities at the sub-
atomic level, for the simple reason that you can't measure sub-atomic
properties with atomic-sized measuring equipment.
> We have not been able to get the "visible" into the QM domain.
Only because there has been no attempt to do so. The quantum eraser
experiment is perfectly understandable, and causal, once you enforce
the rigor of a mechanical explanation instead of a mathematical one.
> Every
> time we do this we get chaos (Heisenberg). QM operates at a level that
> the "seeing" world is completely unaware of. QM is still in its
> infancy- there is still much to be learned and developed.
QM is just the same old story I'm afraid of people who start off by
saying things are different, and in time we realise that things aren't
different at all.
Inertial
"Ste" <ste_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:74ce199e-3622-4790...@34g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
Its more than that. Its not just a problem of whether we can make accurate
enough measurement.
>> We have not been able to get the "visible" into the QM domain.
>
> Only because there has been no attempt to do so. The quantum eraser
> experiment is perfectly understandable, and causal, once you enforce
> the rigor of a mechanical explanation instead of a mathematical one.
So what is this mechanical explanation .. esp in the delayed choice eraser
where cause happens after effect?
Ste
> "Ste" <ste_ro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> The machinery of 'seeing" and the machinery of quantum mechanics
> >> operate independently of each other. Einstein's STR and QM operate
> >> differently, in reality. A missile operates in a accurate and precise
> >> manner, but QM operates probabilistically.
>
> > There is certainly a discrepancy between Einstein's philosophy and
> > that of modern physics. As to which is wrong, I say modern physics.
> > The sub-atomic level does not operate probabilistically at all - it is
> > merely the case that we can only *measure* probabilities at the sub-
> > atomic level, for the simple reason that you can't measure sub-atomic
> > properties with atomic-sized measuring equipment.
>
> Its more than that. Its not just a problem of whether we can make accurate
> enough measurement.
I'm afraid I disagree. I have seen no practical experiment that proves
that the sub-atomic level is fundamentally probabilistic. It is merely
the theory behind QM that says that.
> >> We have not been able to get the "visible" into the QM domain.
>
> > Only because there has been no attempt to do so. The quantum eraser
> > experiment is perfectly understandable, and causal, once you enforce
> > the rigor of a mechanical explanation instead of a mathematical one.
>
> So what is this mechanical explanation .. esp in the delayed choice eraser
> where cause happens after effect?
Haha! It never fails to crack me up when those with an interest in the
physical sciences refer to "effect preceding cause" in a solemn tone.
The explanation for the quantum eraser experiment is that the wave-
like effects of interference are being caused by the convergence of
two EM fields, and the "photon" is not a particle at all, but the
measurable effect of the presence of the EM field (and of energy being
absorbed from this field).
Unless I missed something (please correct me...), the QEEx seems like
an elaborate demonstration of the common-or-garden principles of
electromagnetism, with smoke and mirrors (or with mirrors, at any
rate) included.
Inertial
> On 4 Jan, 11:59, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>> "Ste" <ste_ro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >> The machinery of 'seeing" and the machinery of quantum mechanics
>> >> operate independently of each other. Einstein's STR and QM operate
>> >> differently, in reality. A missile operates in a accurate and precise
>> >> manner, but QM operates probabilistically.
>>
>> > There is certainly a discrepancy between Einstein's philosophy and
>> > that of modern physics. As to which is wrong, I say modern physics.
>> > The sub-atomic level does not operate probabilistically at all - it is
>> > merely the case that we can only *measure* probabilities at the sub-
>> > atomic level, for the simple reason that you can't measure sub-atomic
>> > properties with atomic-sized measuring equipment.
>>
>> Its more than that. Its not just a problem of whether we can make
>> accurate
>> enough measurement.
>
> I'm afraid I disagree.
That doesn't surprise me
> I have seen no practical experiment that proves
> that the sub-atomic level is fundamentally probabilistic. It is merely
> the theory behind QM that says that.
>
>
>
>> >> We have not been able to get the "visible" into the QM domain.
>>
>> > Only because there has been no attempt to do so. The quantum eraser
>> > experiment is perfectly understandable, and causal, once you enforce
>> > the rigor of a mechanical explanation instead of a mathematical one.
>>
>> So what is this mechanical explanation .. esp in the delayed choice
>> eraser
>> where cause happens after effect?
>
> Haha! It never fails to crack me up when those with an interest in the
> physical sciences refer to "effect preceding cause" in a solemn tone.
But it does
> The explanation for the quantum eraser experiment is that the wave-
> like effects of interference are being caused by the convergence of
> two EM fields, and the "photon" is not a particle at all, but the
> measurable effect of the presence of the EM field (and of energy being
> absorbed from this field).
No . .that doesn't explain it
> Unless I missed something (please correct me...),
You have .. how a delayed choice quantum erase experiment is set up and what
happens in it
> the QEEx seems like
> an elaborate demonstration of the common-or-garden principles of
> electromagnetism, with smoke and mirrors (or with mirrors, at any
> rate) included.
Then you are ignorant. Please reduce your ignorance .. that requires
reading and studying and learning and being open to ideas to consider.
Ste
Ahaha! Now I've got to wipe tea off my monitor!
> > The explanation for the quantum eraser experiment is that the wave-
> > like effects of interference are being caused by the convergence of
> > two EM fields, and the "photon" is not a particle at all, but the
> > measurable effect of the presence of the EM field (and of energy being
> > absorbed from this field).
>
> No . .that doesn't explain it
Are you sure? In what way does that not explain it?
> > Unless I missed something (please correct me...),
>
> You have .. how a delayed choice quantum erase experiment is set up and what
> happens in it
I have scrutinised that bastard of an experiment until I was blue in
the face. I can see nothing about it that does not confirm my initial
apprehension of what I saw, which was that it is an elaborate setup of
semi-transparent mirrors, and the interference pattern occurs wherever
the mirrors are arranged so as to cause two beams from the same source
to converge.
Unless someone has a detailed argument for why that interpretation is
untenable, then that will remain my interpretation.
> > the QEEx seems like
> > an elaborate demonstration of the common-or-garden principles of
> > electromagnetism, with smoke and mirrors (or with mirrors, at any
> > rate) included.
>
> Then you are ignorant. Please reduce your ignorance .. that requires
> reading and studying and learning and being open to ideas to consider.
So everyone keeps telling me. I'm becoming decidedly sure that the
reason everyone here talks about by need to study, and refuse to
actually tell me where I'm going wrong, is because actually they
themselves don't understand - and that doesn't surprise me.
Incidentally you might want to brush up on what the experiment
actually involves:
http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/kim-scully/kim-scully-web.htm
Inertial
In what way DOES it explain it .. its just arbitrary hand-waving.
>> > Unless I missed something (please correct me...),
>>
>> You have .. how a delayed choice quantum erase experiment is set up and
>> what
>> happens in it
>
> I have scrutinised that bastard of an experiment until I was blue in
> the face.
And obviously still don't understand it
> I can see nothing about it that does not confirm my initial
> apprehension of what I saw, which was that it is an elaborate setup of
> semi-transparent mirrors, and the interference pattern occurs wherever
> the mirrors are arranged so as to cause two beams from the same source
> to converge.
Then you completely missed the point. Obviosuly going blue in the face does
not lead to any sort of understanding of the experimental setup or results
> Unless someone has a detailed argument for why that interpretation is
> untenable, then that will remain my interpretation.
It is simply nothing like what happens in the experiment. But what is the
point of telling yoiu what happens in the experiment if you've already
turned blue and not understood it.
>> > the QEEx seems like
>> > an elaborate demonstration of the common-or-garden principles of
>> > electromagnetism, with smoke and mirrors (or with mirrors, at any
>> > rate) included.
>>
>> Then you are ignorant. Please reduce your ignorance .. that requires
>> reading and studying and learning and being open to ideas to consider.
>
> So everyone keeps telling me.
maybe you should pay attention then
> I'm becoming decidedly sure that the
> reason everyone here talks about by need to study, and refuse to
> actually tell me where I'm going wrong, is because actually they
> themselves don't understand - and that doesn't surprise me.
Nope .. its because it is so difficult to discuss thing with you when you
just don't know enough to carry on a rational discussion
> Incidentally you might want to brush up on what the experiment
> actually involves:
> http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/kim-scully/kim-scully-web.htm
I know quite well what it involves .. no brushing up required.
You are the one who is failing to understand the setup or results .. not I.