Zero Light!
Henry Wilson
by light, (according to SR, that is), then if there was NO light, there
could be NO space.
Maybe there is no space anyway. Maybe Nemo is right.
There are only particles, separated by distance ct.
It is only our human perceptive system that collates the particle data and
resolves all the 'ct's' into various component x,y,z's and
sqrt(c^2.tor^2+x^2+y^2+z^2)'s, thus creating the concept of 3-4.D space.
Uncle Al
>
> It has occurred to me that, since so many aspects of space are determined
> by light, (according to SR, that is), then if there was NO light, there
> could be NO space.
Matter at any temp above absolute zero emits by the blackbody curve.
Fiat lux. TILT.
[snip]
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Henry Wilson
>Henry Wilson wrote:
>>
>> It has occurred to me that, since so many aspects of space are determined
>> by light, (according to SR, that is), then if there was NO light, there
>> could be NO space.
>
>Matter at any temp above absolute zero emits by the blackbody curve.
>Fiat lux. TILT.
>[snip]
>
I know.
What if there was no matter? Could there be space, then?
Ryan Morris
"Henry Wilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
news:3c4df9d1...@news.bigpond.com...
Uncle Al
>
> On Tue, 22 Jan 2002 23:36:43 GMT, Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>
> >Henry Wilson wrote:
> >>
> >> It has occurred to me that, since so many aspects of space are determined
> >> by light, (according to SR, that is), then if there was NO light, there
> >> could be NO space.
> >
> >Matter at any temp above absolute zero emits by the blackbody curve.
> >Fiat lux. TILT.
> >[snip]
> >
> I know.
> What if there was no matter? Could there be space, then?
Heisenberg - if there is spacetime there is stuff in it by default.
You don't even need mass for gravity - the Weyl tensor. What would
define the extent of a universe absent both persistent matter and
energy?
Floris Kuik
Henry Wilson <He...@the.edge> schreef in berichtnieuws
3c4dea54...@news.bigpond.com...
> It has occurred to me that, since so many aspects of space are determined
> by light, (according to SR, that is), then if there was NO light, there
> could be NO space.
What has light gotta do with it. Photons just happen to travel at c speed
...
> Maybe there is no space anyway. Maybe Nemo is right.
> There are only particles, separated by distance ct.
> It is only our human perceptive system that collates the particle data and
> resolves all the 'ct's' into various component x,y,z's and
> sqrt(c^2.tor^2+x^2+y^2+z^2)'s, thus creating the concept of 3-4.D space.
It's defenitely the human perceptive. I guess we humans are just trying to
describe what we experience. For all we know we could be in a "Matrix"
right? :)
Floris
Paul Mays
Floris Kuik wrote:
> Henry Wilson <He...@the.edge> schreef in berichtnieuws
> 3c4dea54...@news.bigpond.com...
> > It has occurred to me that, since so many aspects of space are determined
> > by light, (according to SR, that is), then if there was NO light, there
> > could be NO space.
>
> What has light gotta do with it. Photons just happen to travel at c speed
Evidence that photons travel at c or at any speed at all would be nice...
Floris Kuik
Paul Mays <Pa...@Mays.com> schreef in berichtnieuws
3C4E7721...@Mays.com...
>
>
> Floris Kuik wrote:
>
> > Henry Wilson <He...@the.edge> schreef in berichtnieuws
> > 3c4dea54...@news.bigpond.com...
> > > It has occurred to me that, since so many aspects of space are
determined
> > > by light, (according to SR, that is), then if there was NO light,
there
> > > could be NO space.
> >
> > What has light gotta do with it. Photons just happen to travel at c
speed
>
> Evidence that photons travel at c or at any speed at all would be nice...
>
You're like a century behind I guess :)
franz heymann
Paul Mays <Pa...@Mays.com> wrote in message
news:3C4E7721...@Mays.com...
>
>
> Floris Kuik wrote:
>
> > Henry Wilson <He...@the.edge> schreef in berichtnieuws
> > 3c4dea54...@news.bigpond.com...
> > > It has occurred to me that, since so many aspects of space are
determined
> > > by light, (according to SR, that is), then if there was NO
light, there
> > > could be NO space.
> >
> > What has light gotta do with it. Photons just happen to travel at
c speed
>
> Evidence that photons travel at c or at any speed at all would be
nice...
Lecher lines + a modicum of intelligence to allow a wee bit of logical
deduction.
Franz Heymann
Uncle Al
>
> Floris Kuik wrote:
>
> > Henry Wilson <He...@the.edge> schreef in berichtnieuws
> > 3c4dea54...@news.bigpond.com...
> > > It has occurred to me that, since so many aspects of space are determined
> > > by light, (according to SR, that is), then if there was NO light, there
> > > could be NO space.
> >
> > What has light gotta do with it. Photons just happen to travel at c speed
>
> Evidence that photons travel at c or at any speed at all would be nice...
http://rattler.cameron.edu/EMIS/journals/LRG/Articles/Volume4/2001-4will/index.html
Lightspeed has been accurately measured round trip and one way. What
is your problem?
Henry Wilson
>Paul Mays wrote:
>>
>> Floris Kuik wrote:
>>
>> > Henry Wilson <He...@the.edge> schreef in berichtnieuws
>> > 3c4dea54...@news.bigpond.com...
>> > > It has occurred to me that, since so many aspects of space are determined
>> > > by light, (according to SR, that is), then if there was NO light, there
>> > > could be NO space.
>> >
>> > What has light gotta do with it. Photons just happen to travel at c speed
>>
>> Evidence that photons travel at c or at any speed at all would be nice...
>
>http://rattler.cameron.edu/EMIS/journals/LRG/Articles/Volume4/2001-4will/index.html
>Lightspeed has been accurately measured round trip and one way. What
>is your problem?
NEVER measured one-way, Al.
Henry Wilson
>Henry Wilson wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 22 Jan 2002 23:36:43 GMT, Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Henry Wilson wrote:
>> >>
>> >> It has occurred to me that, since so many aspects of space are determined
>> >> by light, (according to SR, that is), then if there was NO light, there
>> >> could be NO space.
>> >
>> >Matter at any temp above absolute zero emits by the blackbody curve.
>> >Fiat lux. TILT.
>> >[snip]
>> >
>> I know.
>> What if there was no matter? Could there be space, then?
>
>Heisenberg - if there is spacetime there is stuff in it by default.
>You don't even need mass for gravity - the Weyl tensor. What would
>define the extent of a universe absent both persistent matter and
>energy?
Now what if all the matter in the universe accumulated into one tiny
conglomerate from which no light escapes. As the matter cools, it contracts
to a point. There is no light outside that point and therefore no space.
That is because so many aspects of space are dependent on light that it
couldn't be described without light. or gravity, for that matter.
Martin Hogbin
"Paul Mays" <Pa...@Mays.com> wrote in message news:3C4E7721...@Mays.com...
> Evidence that photons travel at c or at any speed at all would be nice...
>
What exactly is your point here?
Martin Hogbin
robert egri
> Henry Wilson wrote:
> >
> > It has occurred to me that, since so many aspects of space are determined
> > by light, (according to SR, that is), then if there was NO light, there
> > could be NO space.
>
> Matter at any temp above absolute zero emits by the blackbody curve.
> Fiat lux. TILT.
> [snip]
How does a negative temperature body emit "blackbody" radiation if it
does at all? I am thinking of the neighborhood of metastable states
where the entropy is a decreasing function of increasing internal
energy.
Uncle Al
>
> On Wed, 23 Jan 2002 17:15:55 GMT, Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>
> >Paul Mays wrote:
> >>
> >> Floris Kuik wrote:
> >>
> >> > Henry Wilson <He...@the.edge> schreef in berichtnieuws
> >> > 3c4dea54...@news.bigpond.com...
> >> > > It has occurred to me that, since so many aspects of space are determined
> >> > > by light, (according to SR, that is), then if there was NO light, there
> >> > > could be NO space.
> >> >
> >> > What has light gotta do with it. Photons just happen to travel at c speed
> >>
> >> Evidence that photons travel at c or at any speed at all would be nice...
> >
> >http://rattler.cameron.edu/EMIS/journals/LRG/Articles/Volume4/2001-4will/index.html
> >Lightspeed has been accurately measured round trip and one way. What
> >is your problem?
>
> NEVER measured one-way, Al.
Read the scholarly reference, then tell that physics group they didn't
do the experiment and publish the results. Am I surrounded by morons?
It's in the refereed literature. It happened. Do you think you can
sacrifice a goat, read its entrails, and belch wisdom?
Uncle Al
Negative kelvin temps are real world interesting if you can get rid of
the inert positive temp matrix. Optical hole burning only populates
one excited state. The rest of the stuff is just stuff.
Do you think a working laser rod or a withered crone being MRI'd at
Medicare expense does anything out of the ordinary blackbody
radiation-wise? A population inversion doesn't affect species not
participating. If you invert aligned nuclear spin states the
electrons don't much care. If you try something like EPR or adiabatic
demagnization of paramagnetic salts for cooling, the electrons whose
spins are not aligned and population inverted don't much care about
what is happening to their confreres, ditto the nuclei.
If you took cryogenic atomic ortho-hydrogen in a hellacious flat
magnetic field to align both nuclei and electrons (and prevent
recombination to molecules), then inverted both spins against the
field... I doubt anything would seem amiss in the macroscopic view. I
could be wrong here and would enjoy seeing the math offered in
counterpoint (respecting First and Second Law thermodyanmics
limitiations). Note that even 20-tesla fields don't give you
percentage nuclear alignments vs ambient thermal noise. Your basic 60
MHz proton NMR at ambient temp had a population inversion around 15
protons net out of every million. 300 MHz proton NMR doesn't do a
whole lot better - run the math for kT vs the energy of a 300 MHz
photon and stick it in the population equilibrium equation.
Paul Mays
Floris Kuik wrote:
> Paul Mays <Pa...@Mays.com> schreef in berichtnieuws
> 3C4E7721...@Mays.com...
> >
> >
> > Floris Kuik wrote:
> >
> > > Henry Wilson <He...@the.edge> schreef in berichtnieuws
> > > 3c4dea54...@news.bigpond.com...
> > > > It has occurred to me that, since so many aspects of space are
> determined
> > > > by light, (according to SR, that is), then if there was NO light,
> there
> > > > could be NO space.
> > >
> > > What has light gotta do with it. Photons just happen to travel at c
> speed
> >
> > Evidence that photons travel at c or at any speed at all would be nice...
> >
>
> You're like a century behind I guess :)
Nope... pretty up to date in fact... When you detect a photon
you detect it at a specific point in time... If you sample it over
a period of time it collapses to a wave function...
Now read all the "new" stuff you can and make a logical argument
that a photon that can only be observed at a point in time travels
at all....You cannot sample one at point a then at point b and say
its the same one.... The only time a photon exist to be observed
is during Zero motion time specific point... Observe it with any
time function and its a EM wave....
Paul Mays
Uncle Al wrote:
> Paul Mays wrote:
> >
> > Floris Kuik wrote:
> >
> > > Henry Wilson <He...@the.edge> schreef in berichtnieuws
> > > 3c4dea54...@news.bigpond.com...
> > > > It has occurred to me that, since so many aspects of space are determined
> > > > by light, (according to SR, that is), then if there was NO light, there
> > > > could be NO space.
> > >
> > > What has light gotta do with it. Photons just happen to travel at c speed
> >
> > Evidence that photons travel at c or at any speed at all would be nice...
>
> http://rattler.cameron.edu/EMIS/journals/LRG/Articles/Volume4/2001-4will/index.html
> Lightspeed has been accurately measured round trip and one way. What
> is your problem?
No problem with the velocity of a propagated wave traversing non zero
space at c... But no one has observed a photon anywhere other than
at the time specific point of observation... Add time ( or distance) and
you speak only of an EM wave...
Paul Mays
There is no validation that a photon moves at all...
The EM wave that is observed as a photon at a point specific
time is a energy signature we detect and decipher to give us
a little ball of stuff understanding... But if I pick up 101.1 FM
Rock on my radio I understand it as sound.. The EM wave
is not what I observer... I observed the data in a way, converted
by a device, that I can comprehend. The act of observing the
photon effects the observation of it, and it can only be observed
or comprehended as a photon at a specific point in time..
Add time or distance to the observation and you observe only
the EM wave...Such is the way of duality...
Spaceman
>The point was just to tweak a nipple or two...
I knew there was a reason I read you still.
<G>
>There is no validation that a photon moves at all...
actually,
it waves ....<G>
but not up and down.
linear.
(visable photon)
when it waves up and down and left and right...
FM...
they all wave at once around the one waving
like they were stuck with ......electrons <G>
thier is motion.
just not such that it moves more than it's frequency rate back and forth or
spin.
etc...
. (the more of them we make do it.. the more that surround it will
respond the same..)
.
so it does not shoot across the sky like a ball at all,
but it waves all the little balls that are surrounding it..,
it' picks up vibration of all around it and transfers that vibration
to all electrons it touches.
vibrate and spin and all that fun stuff gives us sound and light and things we
can't see..
and motion of them is electric to me...<G>
!
electrons rule!
OK?
It is that simple,
don't let anyone fool you.
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
http://www.realspaceman.com
robert egri
> robert egri wrote:
> >
> > Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message news:<3C4DF78D...@hate.spam.net>...
> > > Henry Wilson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It has occurred to me that, since so many aspects of space are determined
> > > > by light, (according to SR, that is), then if there was NO light, there
> > > > could be NO space.
> > >
> > > Matter at any temp above absolute zero emits by the blackbody curve.
> > > Fiat lux. TILT.
> > > [snip]
> >
> > How does a negative temperature body emit "blackbody" radiation if it
> > does at all? I am thinking of the neighborhood of metastable states
> > where the entropy is a decreasing function of increasing internal
> > energy.
>
> Negative kelvin temps are real world interesting if you can get rid of
> the inert positive temp matrix. Optical hole burning only populates
> one excited state. The rest of the stuff is just stuff.
>
Alright, maybe I should have phrased my question differently: how is
the blackbody radiation of the body is affected by the presence of
little amount of negative temprature stuff?
[...]
> Note that even 20-tesla fields don't give you
> percentage nuclear alignments vs ambient thermal noise. Your basic 60
> MHz proton NMR at ambient temp had a population inversion around 15
> protons net out of every million. 300 MHz proton NMR doesn't do a
> whole lot better - run the math for kT vs the energy of a 300 MHz
> photon and stick it in the population equilibrium equation.
If I could do it I wouldn't be asking your opinion :(. Thanks anyway.
Floris Kuik
Paul Mays <Pa...@Mays.com> schreef in berichtnieuws
Ok but you know I mean they know for a long time light in vaccuum travels at
c.
Paul Mays
Floris Kuik wrote:
OK... to a point... Define "light".... If your definition is that "light" is
an EM wave yes it traverses a non-zero distance at c ... But the
issue was does a Photon travel at all... Since you ( or anyone ) have
not and cannot observe a Photon except at a specific point it time, It
is never observed to move at all... This is of course if you consider
a photon a little ball of "stuff" ... If you consider a photon an EM
wave that is only interpreted by the observer as a particle then yes
it does travel.....
Henry Wilson
>Henry Wilson wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 23 Jan 2002 17:15:55 GMT, Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Paul Mays wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Floris Kuik wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Henry Wilson <He...@the.edge> schreef in berichtnieuws
>> >> > 3c4dea54...@news.bigpond.com...
>> >> > > It has occurred to me that, since so many aspects of space are determined
>> >> > > by light, (according to SR, that is), then if there was NO light, there
>> >> > > could be NO space.
>> >> >
>> >> > What has light gotta do with it. Photons just happen to travel at c speed
>> >>
>> >> Evidence that photons travel at c or at any speed at all would be nice...
>> >
>> >http://rattler.cameron.edu/EMIS/journals/LRG/Articles/Volume4/2001-4will/index.html
>> >Lightspeed has been accurately measured round trip and one way. What
>> >is your problem?
>>
>> NEVER measured one-way, Al.
>
>Read the scholarly reference, then tell that physics group they didn't
>do the experiment and publish the results. Am I surrounded by morons?
>It's in the refereed literature. It happened. Do you think you can
>sacrifice a goat, read its entrails, and belch wisdom?
Nah! OWLS never been measured. Tom says so and he should know!
franz heymann
Henry Wilson <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
I don't know which Tom you are referring to, but he is wrong. The
measurement of one-way light speed has been described in this ng more
than once before.
Franz Heymann
Charles Cagle
<He...@the.edge(Henry> wrote:
Finally, someone who doesn't have his head up his ass! Well, done,
friend, well done.
Step two: Come to the realization that particles are bundles of
relationships between other 'bundles' of relationships. In other
words, no hard marble down front and center stage.
CC.
Charles Cagle
<Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
> Henry Wilson wrote:
> >
> > It has occurred to me that, since so many aspects of space are determined
> > by light, (according to SR, that is), then if there was NO light, there
> > could be NO space.
>
> Matter at any temp above absolute zero emits by the blackbody curve.
> Fiat lux. TILT.
> [snip]
Spock: "I have been and always shall be your friend. Live long and
prosper."
In the altered words of Spock: "You have been a moron and you shall
always will be a moron. Go away nitwit."
UncleAl is the classic example of the intellectual being created with
the shift lever for intellectual gifts far above the average man but
with the shift lever for 'wisdom' in neutral.
Martin Hogbin
"Paul Mays" <Pa...@Mays.com> wrote in message news:3C4F50A7...@Mays.com...
> The point was just to tweak a nipple or two...
>
> There is no validation that a photon moves at all...
> The EM wave that is observed as a photon at a point specific
> time is a energy signature we detect and decipher to give us
> a little ball of stuff understanding... But if I pick up 101.1 FM
> Rock on my radio I understand it as sound.. The EM wave
> is not what I observer... I observed the data in a way, converted
> by a device, that I can comprehend. The act of observing the
> photon effects the observation of it, and it can only be observed
> or comprehended as a photon at a specific point in time..
> Add time or distance to the observation and you observe only
> the EM wave...Such is the way of duality...
>
Ok, fair enough, but I am sure that Floris had no intention of
bringing QM into the discussion.
The point being made was that light travels at speed of c.
Martin Hogbin
Paul Mays
Martin Hogbin wrote:
Martin...
No the point was a photon traverses non zero distance at c...
My point was that a photon is not a physical object as many
think it is. It is only the method with which we observe that
causes us to conceptualize it as such...
Henry Wilson
Oh YES? Please tell me about it!
>
>Franz Heymann
>
>
nightbat
Spock's character iteration's are pure fantasy and Sci Fi
imagination. Uncle Al's, while toxic and to the point, are based on
scientific reference, fact, and deep theoretical thought and calculated
geometric chirality mathematical presented formulae. As an attentive
interested casual listener of your posts, Mr. Cagle, your own manner can
be exceedingly toxic when referencing or addressing fellow comment to
your theoretical pronouncements. The absence of light would not detract
from the factual existence of space that it resides in. The fact of
light enables spatial determination ability to comparable referenced
originating points and relative vector distances plus referenced time
not in validity dependence or absences of those perimeters themselves. A
blind man in the absence of ability to see light understands the reality
of space and spatial parameters. The existence of space is objective and
its true understanding subjective to our intellectual abilities. Wisdom
is relative to the observer not the beholder. And all knowledge and
wisdom steams from logic not contingent on either but their precursor.
the nightbat
Paul Mays
Paul Mays wrote:
Further more.... can you explain the difference between
a MHz wave and a 1nm wave? Why do we not speak
of Photons of radio waves ?
Martin Hogbin
"Paul Mays" <Pa...@Mays.com> wrote in message news:3C52F51E...@Mays.com...
>
>
> Martin Hogbin wrote:
>
> >
> > Ok, fair enough, but I am sure that Floris had no intention of
> > bringing QM into the discussion.
> >
> > The point being made was that light travels at speed of c.
> >
> No the point was a photon traverses non zero distance at c...
As does a classical pulse of light, which is what the original
question was about.
> My point was that a photon is not a physical object as many
> think it is.
I agree that it is not like an everyday object.
> It is only the method with which we observe that
> causes us to conceptualize it as such...
I am not sure that I can disagree with that, but the photon has
proved a very useful concept.
Martin Hogbin
James Hunter
nightbat wrote:
> nightbat wrote
>
> Spock's character iteration's are pure fantasy and Sci Fi
> imagination. Uncle Al's, while toxic and to the point, are based on
> scientific reference, fact, and deep theoretical thought and calculated
> geometric chirality mathematical presented formulae. As an attentive
> interested casual listener of your posts, Mr. Cagle, your own manner can
> be exceedingly toxic when referencing or addressing fellow comment to
> your theoretical pronouncements. The absence of light would not detract
> from the factual existence of space that it resides in.
Uncle Al is quite obviously another geo wanker.
The absense of *light* and quantum/relativity dorks has nothing to with the
issue.
The absense of E-M has everything to do with the issue.
nightbat
nightbat
Don't blame scientists for the tower of babble, it was there
before science began. Each scientific discipline deserves as much
variance in terms or mathematical pertinence and non interdisciplinary
understanding as in the lay babble worldly one. It is customary to
reserve particular applicable much varied speech and symbol customs
originated in antiquity. Just check any US GIO inter bureaucratic
correspondence against common English usage or understanding. Particular
physics photon(s) term use not customary when referenced as radio wave
term as in electronics.
the nightbat
franz heymann
Henry Wilson <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
No I will not fall for that one.
I have told you, specifically, about the relevant experiments in a
previous encounter between us. Judging by your comments at
the time, you did not understand what the experiments were
about. The nature of your comments made me pretty certain
that you never actually read the references I gave at the time so
I won't bother looking them up again. Hard luck on you if you
don't realise that the measurement of the one way speed of
photons is an everyday occurrence in high energy labs all over
the world
Franz Heymann
franz heymann
Paul Mays <Pa...@Mays.com> wrote in message
You would do no wrong if you were to speak of the photons of radio
waves. However, because of the existence of the Correspondence
Principle, it would be unnecessarily cumbersome to do so.
Franz Heymann
>
Paul Mays
franz heymann wrote:
And I will say again.... No lab...No experiment..No observation of
a "photon" traversing non zero distance.... Ever....
I think ( I know, who cares) that it is important to understand
that all EM waves propagate at c (or local variant of c )
and only the observation makes it seem to be a physical
particle, which it is not...
Carry that over to any particle that displays the aspect of
duality and you begin to understand that what our devices
tell us is the energy signature in a way that seems as though
its a physical particle when observed at a specific point in time.
And they may be perceived as having inertia mass, rest mass
or many features that we perceive as a real physical particle
because of the method of observation and the quantum state
that permeates the device as well as the observer...
--Paul--
Henry Wilson
<franz....@care4free.net> wrote:
I followed up those references. They were all about isotropy and not direct
measurements of OWLS.
They were all suspect!
Henry Wilson
>
>
>franz heymann wrote:
>
>> Henry Wilson <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
>>
>> No I will not fall for that one.
>>
>> I have told you, specifically, about the relevant experiments in a
>> previous encounter between us. Judging by your comments at
>> the time, you did not understand what the experiments were
>> about. The nature of your comments made me pretty certain
>> that you never actually read the references I gave at the time so
>> I won't bother looking them up again. Hard luck on you if you
>> don't realise that the measurement of the one way speed of
>> photons is an everyday occurrence in high energy labs all over
>> the world
>>
>> Franz Heymann
>
>And I will say again.... No lab...No experiment..No observation of
>a "photon" traversing non zero distance.... Ever....
>I think ( I know, who cares) that it is important to understand
>that all EM waves propagate at c (or local variant of c )
...only in the direction of the wave symmetry vector...
Roland Karlsson
> Evidence that photons travel at c or at any speed at all would be nice...
Interesting statement!
Now .. I have read some of your replies and I understand
what you are trying to say.
You can detect the photon only once. Therefore you cannot
measure its speed. But ... you forget that you can emit
it once and then detect it once. Then you can measure
its speed.
You also say that it is a particle only when detected.
When travelling, it is an EM wave. But ... when emitted it
is a particle and when detected it is a particle.
So, of course you can define the speed of the photon in
any way you want. I chose to define it as the distance
between the emitter and the detector divided by the time it
takes from emitter to detector. Then it has speed.
Roland
Henry Wilson
wrote:
How can you be certain it is the movement of ONE photon that you are
measuring?
>
>
>Roland
Paul Mays
Roland Karlsson wrote:
> Paul Mays <Pa...@Mays.com> wrote in news:3C4E7721...@Mays.com:
>
> > Evidence that photons travel at c or at any speed at all would be nice...
>
> Interesting statement!
>
> Now .. I have read some of your replies and I understand
> what you are trying to say.
>
> You can detect the photon only once. Therefore you cannot
> measure its speed. But ... you forget that you can emit
> it once and then detect it once. Then you can measure
> its speed.
No you cannot... There is no method to emit a photon as
a discrete particle... We can only emit a beam of light
,a flash of light, a pulse of light ect... In all cases where
we detect a "photon" it is as a discreet energy signature
of a pulsed or continuous EM wave at the freq. we are
observing... at a zero time frame... Add time , any time
.... and the "photon" collapses to is EM wave..
Such is the way of duality.... It never is a particle in
the sense that it occupies 3d space.. It only seems
to be a particle because of the method of observation
and interpretation. In the same way we observe and
interpret ,using your radio, the EM wave of your
favorite music station....
>
>
> You also say that it is a particle only when detected.
> When travelling, it is an EM wave. But ... when emitted it
> is a particle and when detected it is a particle.
No .. I said it is not and will never be a particle... It is a
EM wave that we detect at Zero time and we perceive
it as a physical particle because of the method of observation..
>
>
> So, of course you can define the speed of the photon in
> any way you want. I chose to define it as the distance
> between the emitter and the detector divided by the time it
> takes from emitter to detector. Then it has speed.
Then you are only defining the propagation velocity of
an EM wave... not a photon...
>
>
> Roland
--
Curley's Theorem: woob+woob<={nyuck^2x}
Stephen Speicher
>
> Roland Karlsson wrote:
>
> > Paul Mays <Pa...@Mays.com> wrote in news:3C4E7721...@Mays.com:
> >
> > > Evidence that photons travel at c or at any speed at all would be nice...
> >
> > Interesting statement!
> >
> > Now .. I have read some of your replies and I understand
> > what you are trying to say.
> >
> > You can detect the photon only once. Therefore you cannot
> > measure its speed. But ... you forget that you can emit
> > it once and then detect it once. Then you can measure
> > its speed.
>
> No you cannot... There is no method to emit a photon as
> a discrete particle... We can only emit a beam of light
> ,a flash of light, a pulse of light ect...
While even very faint laser pulses obey Poissonian statistics for
the photon number, it is now possible to achieve single photon
emission through excitation of a single quantum dot. See:
"Single-photon emission from exciton complexes in individual
quantum dots," R. M. Thompson et al., _Physical Review B_, 6420
(20): 1302-+ Nov 15 2001.
"Electrically driven single-photon source," _Science_, Z. L.
Yuan, 295 (5552): 102-105 Jan 4 2002.
Stephen
s...@compbio.caltech.edu
Welcome to California. Bring your own batteries.
Printed using 100% recycled electrons.
--------------------------------------------------------
Bilge
Re: Zero Light! to usenet:
>
>
>Roland Karlsson wrote:
>>
>> You can detect the photon only once. Therefore you cannot
>> measure its speed. But ... you forget that you can emit
>> it once and then detect it once. Then you can measure
>> its speed.
>
>No you cannot... There is no method to emit a photon as
>a discrete particle...
name? As an example take a nucleus, Z,N that beta decays to an
excited state in the daughter, like 57Cu to the 2nd excited
state in 57Ni (1.113MeV) which then gamma decays to the 57Ni
gs, 57Ni* -> 57Ni + 1.113 MeV \gamma. That decay can be observed
by measuring the gamma ray (a photon) and the positron from
the beta decay in coincidence.
> We can only emit a beam of light ,a flash of light, a
>pulse of light ect... In all cases where we detect a "photon" it is as a
>discreet energy signature of a pulsed or continuous EM wave at the freq.
I think I've just dispelled this notion.
>we are observing... at a zero time frame... Add time , any time .... and
>the "photon" collapses to is EM wave.. Such is the way of duality.... It
>never is a particle in the sense that it occupies 3d space.. It only
>seems to be a particle because of the method of observation and
>interpretation. In the same way we observe and interpret ,using your
>radio, the EM wave of your favorite music station....
I can interpret all of these things in a strict particle picture with
no problem. The choice is one of convenience, not reality.
>> You also say that it is a particle only when detected.
>> When travelling, it is an EM wave. But ... when emitted it
>> is a particle and when detected it is a particle.
>
>No .. I said it is not and will never be a particle... It is a
>EM wave that we detect at Zero time and we perceive
>it as a physical particle because of the method of observation..
And this is incorrect.
>> So, of course you can define the speed of the photon in
>> any way you want. I chose to define it as the distance
>> between the emitter and the detector divided by the time it
>> takes from emitter to detector. Then it has speed.
>
>Then you are only defining the propagation velocity of
>an EM wave... not a photon...
This is almost reasonable. You cannot define a distance with
a single photon, but only because the information is in correlations,
not because you can't detect the photons.
Paul Mays
Stephen Speicher wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Jan 2002, Paul Mays wrote:
> >
> > Roland Karlsson wrote:
> >
> > > Paul Mays <Pa...@Mays.com> wrote in news:3C4E7721...@Mays.com:
> > >
> > > > Evidence that photons travel at c or at any speed at all would be nice...
> > >
> > > Interesting statement!
> > >
> > > Now .. I have read some of your replies and I understand
> > > what you are trying to say.
> > >
> > > You can detect the photon only once. Therefore you cannot
> > > measure its speed. But ... you forget that you can emit
> > > it once and then detect it once. Then you can measure
> > > its speed.
> >
> > No you cannot... There is no method to emit a photon as
> > a discrete particle... We can only emit a beam of light
> > ,a flash of light, a pulse of light ect...
>
> While even very faint laser pulses obey Poissonian statistics for
> the photon number,
No... you are only observing zero time slice of the Pulse. And yes
of course it would meet a predicted number of seemingly physical
particles because the device used to "count" photons is observing
the wave in discreet zero time slices at intervals... An we interpret
the data in a way that seems to be a physical particle.
> it is now possible to achieve single photon
> emission through excitation of a single quantum dot. See:
It is_not_ now possible to produce a single moving photon from a
quantum dot... You should read the "theories" then tell me
when and where we get the quantum dots ....
>
>
> "Single-photon emission from exciton complexes in individual
> quantum dots," R. M. Thompson et al., _Physical Review B_, 6420
> (20): 1302-+ Nov 15 2001.
Again.. this text is "theoretical" and what is actually produced is a
very short pulsed cohesive wave..
>
>
> "Electrically driven single-photon source," _Science_, Z. L.
> Yuan, 295 (5552): 102-105 Jan 4 2002.
>
> Stephen
> s...@compbio.caltech.edu
>
> Welcome to California. Bring your own batteries.
>
> Printed using 100% recycled electrons.
> --------------------------------------------------------
--
Roland Karlsson
> No you cannot... There is no method to emit a photon as
> a discrete particle... We can only emit a beam of light
> ,a flash of light, a pulse of light ect...
There are lots of processes that emit single photons.
There are also processes that emit dual photons. If
you detect one of the photons nearby and the other
say 1 kilometre away you can measure the speed of
the photon. I see no problems with that.
> No .. I said it is not and will never be a particle... It is a
> EM wave that we detect at Zero time and we perceive
> it as a physical particle because of the method of observation..
If it is a particle or not is a matter of definition.
How do you define a particle? If you say that you must be
able to stop it and put it in a box, then it is not a
particle. Because as soon as you stop it disappears.
But, as you say .. when it is detected it is "perceived"
as a particle. Is this not enough to call it a particle?
BTW. I am in rather deep water right now. I don't really
know what I am talking about :)
Roland
Paul Mays
Roland Karlsson wrote:
> Paul Mays <Pa...@Mays.com> wrote in news:3C54AB67...@Mays.com:
>
> > No you cannot... There is no method to emit a photon as
> > a discrete particle... We can only emit a beam of light
> > ,a flash of light, a pulse of light ect...
>
> There are lots of processes that emit single photons.
> There are also processes that emit dual photons. If
> you detect one of the photons nearby and the other
> say 1 kilometre away you can measure the speed of
> the photon. I see no problems with that.
Point me to a ref for a working process that can be
verified as producing a single or dual photon... Not
theoretical... but that produces a single verified photon..
You may detect a photon if you use a device that is
designed to detect a EM wave at a point in time but
that is not the same as producing a single photon..
In other words.. We ain't done it yet...
If you turn on your radio and get a signal
that is decoded by the device so you hear your
music... The music is not what was observed..
Same concept for all EM waves... If you
sample an EM wave , whether it be Rf, or laser
and you use a device that is intrinsically designed
to sample at specific points in time you observe
a Zero velocity event and the signature of the
em wave is understood as a single point of energy
and most call it a photon. But since it can only be
sample and observed in zero time its cannot be
verified that it moved at all.. But if in your method
of observation linear time is a function then it
is only seen as an EM Wave.. Duality...
>
>
> > No .. I said it is not and will never be a particle... It is a
> > EM wave that we detect at Zero time and we perceive
> > it as a physical particle because of the method of observation..
>
> If it is a particle or not is a matter of definition.
No I disagree... A particle to be a physical particle must
have physical properties the most important one is
it must occupy a volume of 3d space.. There are more
but that one sets the bar for a physical particle.
>
> How do you define a particle? If you say that you must be
> able to stop it and put it in a box, then it is not a
> particle. Because as soon as you stop it disappears.
Yup it does... because it was never a real little ball of
stuff in the first place.. It was a EM wave measured
with zero time reference.. Take a sine wave and
look at any point along it but at Zero time.. It is at
that specific time a energy "pop" it has no physical
properties just a energy signature.. If I build a device
that can sample that discrete point and get a measurement
it would seem to be a single "particle" but add any
time at all and its a sign wave....
>
> But, as you say .. when it is detected it is "perceived"
> as a particle. Is this not enough to call it a particle?
I think it is the best way to do calculations and predictions
but the question was does a photon travel at c... I said
there is no way to validate that it indeed moves at all..
That's what started this mess.....
>
>
> BTW. I am in rather deep water right now. I don't really
> know what I am talking about :)
>
> Roland
--
Paul Mays
Bilge wrote:
> Paul Mays said some stuff about
> Re: Zero Light! to usenet:
> >
> >
> >Roland Karlsson wrote:
> >>
> >> You can detect the photon only once. Therefore you cannot
> >> measure its speed. But ... you forget that you can emit
> >> it once and then detect it once. Then you can measure
> >> its speed.
> >
> >No you cannot... There is no method to emit a photon as
> >a discrete particle...
>
> Sure there is. How many _different_ ways would you like me to
> name? As an example take a nucleus, Z,N that beta decays to an
> excited state in the daughter, like 57Cu to the 2nd excited
> state in 57Ni (1.113MeV) which then gamma decays to the 57Ni
> gs, 57Ni* -> 57Ni + 1.113 MeV \gamma. That decay can be observed
> by measuring the gamma ray (a photon) and the positron from
> the beta decay in coincidence.
or maybe you observe a short gamma ray EM wave burst and observe a
zero time slice as a perceived particle.
>
>
> > We can only emit a beam of light ,a flash of light, a
> >pulse of light ect... In all cases where we detect a "photon" it is as a
> >discreet energy signature of a pulsed or continuous EM wave at the freq.
>
> I think I've just dispelled this notion.
not really...
>
>
> >we are observing... at a zero time frame... Add time , any time .... and
> >the "photon" collapses to is EM wave.. Such is the way of duality.... It
> >never is a particle in the sense that it occupies 3d space.. It only
> >seems to be a particle because of the method of observation and
> >interpretation. In the same way we observe and interpret ,using your
> >radio, the EM wave of your favorite music station....
>
> I can interpret all of these things in a strict particle picture with
> no problem. The choice is one of convenience, not reality.
Absolutely... The only reason I keep twistin nipples.. I just want
to get to the point that the data collected by a device is the
extrapolation of the event being observed and is intrinsically
linked to the observer. So sure a photon or any other particle
can be used as a model but there is no way to determine a
particle that has the aspect of duality is in fact a real ball of stuff...
>
>
> >> You also say that it is a particle only when detected.
> >> When travelling, it is an EM wave. But ... when emitted it
> >> is a particle and when detected it is a particle.
> >
> >No .. I said it is not and will never be a particle... It is a
> >EM wave that we detect at Zero time and we perceive
> >it as a physical particle because of the method of observation..
>
> And this is incorrect.
Depends on who ya ask....
>
>
> >> So, of course you can define the speed of the photon in
> >> any way you want. I chose to define it as the distance
> >> between the emitter and the detector divided by the time it
> >> takes from emitter to detector. Then it has speed.
> >
> >Then you are only defining the propagation velocity of
> >an EM wave... not a photon...
>
> This is almost reasonable.
Almost ! Its stunning.... ; )
> You cannot define a distance with
> a single photon, but only because the information is in correlations,
> not because you can't detect the photons.
If you detect a photon it will be a zero time slice.. No time .. No velocity..
Add time (any time) mix well and poof.. EM wave....
Bilge
Re: Zero Light! to usenet:
>
>
>
>> Paul Mays <Pa...@Mays.com> wrote in news:3C54AB67...@Mays.com:
>>
>> > No you cannot... There is no method to emit a photon as
>> > a discrete particle... We can only emit a beam of light
>> > ,a flash of light, a pulse of light ect...
>>
>> There are lots of processes that emit single photons.
>> There are also processes that emit dual photons. If
>> you detect one of the photons nearby and the other
>> say 1 kilometre away you can measure the speed of
>> the photon. I see no problems with that.
>
>Point me to a ref for a working process that can be
>verified as producing a single or dual photon... Not
>theoretical... but that produces a single verified photon..
Any beta-gamma coincidence experiment and in general, gamma
spectroscopy. For experimental information, look under any of the
following: gammasphere, yrast, beta gamma coincidence (e.g, Phys. Rev. C
53 96 (1996)), pair production, pair anihilation, quantum cryptography,
quantum teleportation, single-photon detection. The list is endless.
>You may detect a photon if you use a device that is designed to detect a
>EM wave at a point in time but that is not the same as producing a single
>photon.. In other words.. We ain't done it yet...
You just don't understand it yet.
>If you turn on your radio and get a signal that is decoded by the device
>so you hear your music... The music is not what was observed.. Same
>concept for all EM waves... If you sample an EM wave , whether it be Rf,
>or laser and you use a device that is intrinsically designed to sample at
>specific points in time you observe a Zero velocity event and the
>signature of the em wave is understood as a single point of energy and
>most call it a photon. But since it can only be sample and observed in
>zero time its cannot be verified that it moved at all.. But if in your
>method of observation linear time is a function then it is only seen as an
>EM Wave.. Duality...
This is meaningless. I suggest a freshman/sophomore level modern
physics book.
>No I disagree... A particle to be a physical particle must have physical
>properties the most important one is it must occupy a volume of 3d space..
>There are more but that one sets the bar for a physical particle.
[...]
>with zero time reference.. Take a sine wave and look at any point along
>it but at Zero time.. It is at that specific time a energy "pop" it has no
>physical properties just a energy signature.. If I build a device that
>can sample that discrete point and get a measurement it would seem to be a
>single "particle" but add any time at all and its a sign wave....
No, it's called an interference pattern.
[...]
>
>I think it is the best way to do calculations and predictions
>but the question was does a photon travel at c... I said
>there is no way to validate that it indeed moves at all..
This is metaphysical mumbo-jumbo.
Paul Mays
Bilge wrote:
> Paul Mays said some stuff about
> Re: Zero Light! to usenet:
> >
> >
> >Roland Karlsson wrote:
> >
> >> Paul Mays <Pa...@Mays.com> wrote in news:3C54AB67...@Mays.com:
> >>
> >> > No you cannot... There is no method to emit a photon as
> >> > a discrete particle... We can only emit a beam of light
> >> > ,a flash of light, a pulse of light ect...
> >>
> >> There are lots of processes that emit single photons.
> >> There are also processes that emit dual photons. If
> >> you detect one of the photons nearby and the other
> >> say 1 kilometre away you can measure the speed of
> >> the photon. I see no problems with that.
> >
> >Point me to a ref for a working process that can be
> >verified as producing a single or dual photon... Not
> >theoretical... but that produces a single verified photon..
>
>
> Any beta-gamma coincidence experiment and in general, gamma
> spectroscopy. For experimental information, look under any of the
> following: gammasphere, yrast, beta gamma coincidence (e.g, Phys. Rev. C
> 53 96 (1996)), pair production, pair anihilation, quantum cryptography,
> quantum teleportation, single-photon detection. The list is endless.
That's just plain dumb dude..... The list is most certainly not endless..
And anyway Not One of the Ref's you mention either produce
or detect individual photons.... Sorry you seem to not be very high
in your reading comprehension skills....
Bilge... good name....
>
>
> >You may detect a photon if you use a device that is designed to detect a
> >EM wave at a point in time but that is not the same as producing a single
> >photon.. In other words.. We ain't done it yet...
>
Oh.. yes I do....
>
> You just don't understand it yet.
>
> >If you turn on your radio and get a signal that is decoded by the device
> >so you hear your music... The music is not what was observed.. Same
> >concept for all EM waves... If you sample an EM wave , whether it be Rf,
> >or laser and you use a device that is intrinsically designed to sample at
> >specific points in time you observe a Zero velocity event and the
> >signature of the em wave is understood as a single point of energy and
> >most call it a photon. But since it can only be sample and observed in
> >zero time its cannot be verified that it moved at all.. But if in your
> >method of observation linear time is a function then it is only seen as an
> >EM Wave.. Duality...
>
> This is meaningless. I suggest a freshman/sophomore level modern
> physics book.
Your inability to comprehend does not mean I am saying
anything meaningless....
And anyway.. been there done that...and a tad more...
>
>
> >No I disagree... A particle to be a physical particle must have physical
> >properties the most important one is it must occupy a volume of 3d space..
> >There are more but that one sets the bar for a physical particle.
>
> [...]
>
> >with zero time reference.. Take a sine wave and look at any point along
> >it but at Zero time.. It is at that specific time a energy "pop" it has no
> >physical properties just a energy signature.. If I build a device that
> >can sample that discrete point and get a measurement it would seem to be a
> >single "particle" but add any time at all and its a sign wave....
>
> No, it's called an interference pattern.
>
No it is not... Read it again and enlighten us with your
vast intellect of where any thing I said even hints at
a interference pattern....
>
> [...]
>
> >
> >I think it is the best way to do calculations and predictions
> >but the question was does a photon travel at c... I said
> >there is no way to validate that it indeed moves at all..
>
> This is metaphysical mumbo-jumbo.
Your inability to comprehend does not equate to my speaking mumbo jumbo...
Do you actually know what metaphysical means.... Cause it
ain't in my words....
Bilge
>> the beta decay in coincidence.
>
> or maybe you observe a short gamma ray EM wave burst and observe a
> zero time slice as a perceived particle.
[...]
>If you detect a photon it will be a zero time slice..
>No time .. No velocity.. Add time (any time) mix well and poof..
>EM wave....
And according to your so-called conjecture, should my gamma
detectors be made of Si or Ge and why?
Bilge
----- And the winner of the Golden Shovel Award for this week is:
Paul Mays for advancing the art of pompous sophistry by shoveling the
article, "Re: Zero Light!" to sci.physics.relativity:
Well, let's check yours. What did you find wrong with the prc
article that was specifically referenced? In particular, what feature
in which of the gamma ray spectra shown, supports your claim? Or let's
try an easier one: what was the title of the prc article given to you
as a reference (for which -you_ asked)?
>Bilge... good name....
Yes. You've shown just how good, too.
[...]
>>
>> This is meaningless. I suggest a freshman/sophomore level modern
>> physics book.
>
>Your inability to comprehend does not mean I am saying
>anything meaningless....
Then I suggest a high school level introductory level text.
>And anyway.. been there done that...and a tad more...
Then you'll be backing up your claims with some mathematics?
[...]
[...]
>>
>> This is metaphysical mumbo-jumbo.
>
>Your inability to comprehend does not equate to my speaking mumbo jumbo...
I agree. Your mumbo-jumbo doesn't require my approval to be mumbo-jumbo.
I wouldn't presume to take credit for the mumbo-jumbo you've created. The
fact that I can't find any real physics beneath the lacadasically crafted
subterfuges and brazen sophistry is merely an indicator of degree not an
attempt to deprive you of any derision by upgrading your conjectures to
something less hokey.
Roland Karlsson
> Point me to a ref for a working process that can be
> verified as producing a single or dual photon... Not
> theoretical... but that produces a single verified photon..
>
First I thought you were up to something and I did
not understand. Now I understand that I was wrong.
And so are you. There are lots of processes
that generates a controllable number of photons.
I suggest that you look at nuclear and particle
physics.
Roland
Charles Cagle
<nigh...@home.ffni.com> wrote:
> nightbat wrote
>
> Spock's character iteration's are pure fantasy and Sci Fi
> imagination. Uncle Al's, while toxic and to the point, are based on
> scientific reference, fact, and deep theoretical thought and calculated
> geometric chirality mathematical presented formulae.
Deep theoretical thought is right. The idea that UncleAl can think is
itself a theory.
> As an attentive interested casual listener of your posts, Mr. Cagle,
> your own manner can be exceedingly toxic when referencing or
> addressing fellow comment to your theoretical pronouncements.
I've never as toxic to others as they are to themselves.
> The absence of light would not detract from the factual existence of
> space that it resides in. The fact of light enables spatial
> determination ability to comparable referenced originating points and
> relative vector distances plus referenced time not in validity
> dependence or absences of those perimeters themselves. A blind man in
> the absence of ability to see light understands the reality of space
> and spatial parameters. The existence of space is objective and its
> true understanding subjective to our intellectual abilities. Wisdom
> is relative to the observer not the beholder. And all knowledge and
> wisdom steams from logic not contingent on either but their
> precursor.
Boy oh Boy what a cartload of nonsensical double talk.
A thing that has no properties isn't much of a thing. So much for your
intuitive belief in 'space'.
CC.
Charles Cagle
> nightbat wrote
>
> Spock's character iteration's are pure fantasy and Sci Fi
> imagination. Uncle Al's, while toxic and to the point, are based on
> scientific reference, fact, and deep theoretical thought and calculated
> geometric chirality mathematical presented formulae.
Deep theoretical thought is right. The idea that UncleAl can think is
itself a theory.
> As an attentive interested casual listener of your posts, Mr. Cagle,
> your own manner can be exceedingly toxic when referencing or
> addressing fellow comment to your theoretical pronouncements.
I'm never as toxic to others as they are to themselves.
> The absence of light would not detract from the factual existence of
> space that it resides in. The fact of light enables spatial
> determination ability to comparable referenced originating points and
> relative vector distances plus referenced time not in validity
> dependence or absences of those perimeters themselves. A blind man in
> the absence of ability to see light understands the reality of space
> and spatial parameters. The existence of space is objective and its
> true understanding subjective to our intellectual abilities. Wisdom
> is relative to the observer not the beholder. And all knowledge and
> wisdom steams from logic not contingent on either but their
> precursor.
Boy oh Boy what a cartload of nonsensical double talk.
Stephen Speicher
> Curley's Theorem: woob+woob<={nyuck^2x}
>
Sounds like you have been reading too much Fritjof Capra. I'm not
interested in your bizarre view of reality, so go argue with
someone else. Try alt.paranet.metaphysics.
cb
introductory links on the topic. I would like to know more.
"Henry Wilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
> It has occurred to me that, since so many aspects of space are determined
> by light, (according to SR, that is), then if there was NO light, there
> could be NO space.
> There are only particles, separated by distance ct.
> It is only our human perceptive system that collates the particle data and
> resolves all the 'ct's' into various component x,y,z's and
> sqrt(c^2.tor^2+x^2+y^2+z^2)'s, thus creating the concept of 3-4.D space.
Henry Wilson
>I've found your post extrmely interesting. Could you post more of a
>introductory links on the topic. I would like to know more.
There are no links. I just woke up with the idea one morning. These things
happen.
The point is, according to SR in particular, the FORM of space is really
defined by the way in which an observer uses light for communication. Space
changes for different observers because of the way the SEE it, using EM.
How could space exist if there were no light with which to determine its
'shape'?
Eric Prebys
Henry Wilson wrote:
>
> On Wed, 20 Feb 2002 18:07:52 -0500, "cb" <spa...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> >I've found your post extrmely interesting. Could you post more of a
> >introductory links on the topic. I would like to know more.
>
> There are no links. I just woke up with the idea one morning. These things
> happen.
> The point is, according to SR in particular, the FORM of space is really
> defined by the way in which an observer uses light for communication. Space
> changes for different observers because of the way the SEE it, using EM.
>
For the record, this is NOT the picture according to SR, it's the
picture of a mathematically and scientifically illiterate imbecile
named Henry Wilson.
Henry Wilson
>
>
>Henry Wilson wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 20 Feb 2002 18:07:52 -0500, "cb" <spa...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>>
>> >I've found your post extrmely interesting. Could you post more of a
>> >introductory links on the topic. I would like to know more.
>>
>> There are no links. I just woke up with the idea one morning. These things
>> happen.
>> The point is, according to SR in particular, the FORM of space is really
>> defined by the way in which an observer uses light for communication. Space
>> changes for different observers because of the way the SEE it, using EM.
>>
>
>For the record, this is NOT the picture according to SR, it's the
>picture of a mathematically and scientifically illiterate imbecile
>named Henry Wilson.
mind your own busines, Prebys. This kind of issue requires brains. It's far
too hard for you.
Paul B. Andersen
"Henry Wilson" <HWilson@..> wrote in message news:3c755929...@news.bigpond.com...
> On Wed, 20 Feb 2002 18:07:52 -0500, "cb" <spa...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> The point is, according to SR in particular, the FORM of space is really
> defined by the way in which an observer uses light for communication. Space
> changes for different observers because of the way the SEE it, using EM.
This is of course plain wrong.
But who would expect anything else, considering the source? :-)
Paul
Eric Baird
>How could space exist if there were no light with which to determine its
>'shape'?
Well, if there were no signals and no fields whatsoever in a region of
space (and no gravitaitonal field), then it could be argued that the
region of space in question actually has no physical existence.
If there are no gravitational fieldlines that enter the "region", then
there are no lines that you can point along in space to say
"there it is!".
Einstein once wrote that if you take away the gravitational field
parameters, you don't have "empty" space --- you don't _even_ have
space.
If you could take a region containing an object and divert all
external fieldlines so that they all somehow "miss" the object and its
region, then what you've effectively done is to take the object and
its region and blobbed it off from normal spacetime into its own baby
universe.
(an unusual solution to the Schrodinger Cat problem)
=Erk= (Eric Baird)
Henry Wilson
So, in effect, you are saying that space is absolute, Paul?
>
>Paul
>
>
Paul B. Andersen
"Henry Wilson" <HWilson@..> wrote in message news:3c7c61f...@news.bigpond.com...
So, in effect, I am saying that you are talking utter nonsense, Henry.
You shouldn't try to say anything about what is "according to SR",
because you obviously have no clue, and get it wrong every time.
Paul
Henry Wilson
<paul.b....@hia.no> wrote:
>
>"Henry Wilson" <HWilson@..> wrote in message news:3c7c61f...@news.bigpond.com...
>> So, in effect, you are saying that space is absolute, Paul?
>
>So, in effect, I am saying that you are talking utter nonsense, Henry.
>
>You shouldn't try to say anything about what is "according to SR",
>because you obviously have no clue, and get it wrong every time.
Maybe I do it just to annoy you.
>
>Paul
>
>
Henry Wilson, Henry Wilson's free thought Laboratory,
The frontier of scientific invention.
www.users.bigpond.com/rmrabb/HW.htm
Henry Wilson
<eric_...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 21 Feb 2002 20:36:40 GMT, HWilson@.. (Henry Wilson) wrote:
>
>>How could space exist if there were no light with which to determine its
>>'shape'?
>
>Well, if there were no signals and no fields whatsoever in a region of
>space (and no gravitaitonal field), then it could be argued that the
>region of space in question actually has no physical existence.
>
>If there are no gravitational fieldlines that enter the "region", then
>there are no lines that you can point along in space to say
>"there it is!".
>
>Einstein once wrote that if you take away the gravitational field
>parameters, you don't have "empty" space --- you don't _even_ have
>space.
There you go. Tell Paul I was right.
>
>If you could take a region containing an object and divert all
>external fieldlines so that they all somehow "miss" the object and its
>region, then what you've effectively done is to take the object and
>its region and blobbed it off from normal spacetime into its own baby
>universe.
It would leave an empty hole in space. Not sure about 'spacetime'. Maybe
time could still exist without space.
>
>(an unusual solution to the Schrodinger Cat problem)
>
>=Erk= (Eric Baird)
>
Henry Wilson, Henry Wilson's free thought Laboratory,
Paul B. Andersen
"Henry Wilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:3c7d419f...@news.bigpond.com...
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2002 11:18:16 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
> <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Henry Wilson" <HWilson@..> wrote in message news:3c7c61f...@news.bigpond.com...
>
> >> So, in effect, you are saying that space is absolute, Paul?
> >
> >So, in effect, I am saying that you are talking utter nonsense, Henry.
> >
> >You shouldn't try to say anything about what is "according to SR",
> >because you obviously have no clue, and get it wrong every time.
>
> Maybe I do it just to annoy you.
Could be.
You have however succeeded in convincing that your really are stupid,
and are not only pretending.
So if you are only pretending, you have succeeded in fooling me.
Either way, you have succeeded.
Paul
Henry Wilson
<paul.b....@hia.no> wrote:
>
>"Henry Wilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:3c7d419f...@news.bigpond.com...
>> On Wed, 27 Feb 2002 11:18:16 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
>> <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Henry Wilson" <HWilson@..> wrote in message news:3c7c61f...@news.bigpond.com...
>>
>> >> So, in effect, you are saying that space is absolute, Paul?
>> >
>> >So, in effect, I am saying that you are talking utter nonsense, Henry.
>> >
>> >You shouldn't try to say anything about what is "according to SR",
>> >because you obviously have no clue, and get it wrong every time.
>>
>> Maybe I do it just to annoy you.
>
>Could be.
>You have however succeeded in convincing that your really are stupid,
>and are not only pretending.
>So if you are only pretending, you have succeeded in fooling me.
>Either way, you have succeeded.
>
>Paul
>
Paul, the whole of SR is based on an unproven postulate. There is no
logical reason why that postulate should be correct. In fact it is quite
obviously wrong and based on the misconception that OWLS is constant
because TWLS has always measured as constant to within only about 1 part in
10^9 - which is not good enough.
My demonstartions have shown WHY the postulate and its consequences are
wrong.
You agree that nothing *physically* changes with velocity yet you insist
that muons live longer when they travel near c towards earth.
All the so called supporting evidence comes from either null results, fast
moving charged particles or other highly suspect experiments and
interpretations.
Why should I not treat SR as a joke?
franz heymann
Henry Wilson <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
[Snip]
Henry, you are a repetitive fool who has been disabused of your
erroneous
thoughts quite frequently in the past by coountless contributors to
this ng..
Go and find your dummy
Franz Heymann
Bilge
>>
>Paul, the whole of SR is based on an unproven postulate.
Of course henry, you moron. If you could prove a postulate, it
would be called a theorem, not a postulate. How many times do you
have to be told the same thing before it sinks in? Would it help
to use a 9-iron?
>There is no logical reason why that postulate should be correct.
Of course there is henry. If you are confused by it, then it
stands to reason that it's correct.
[...]
>
>My demonstartions have shown WHY the postulate and its consequences are
>wrong.
Your demonstration only shows that there are people that shouldn't
be allowed to use a keyboard without supervision.
[...]
>
>Why should I not treat SR as a joke?
Your delivery is poor and you don't have a punch line.
Henry Wilson, Henry Wilson's thought free Lavatory,
The anals of scientific retention.
www.lusers.bigpondscum.com/rmrabb/HW.dim
Paul B. Andersen
"Henry Wilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:3c7e9349...@news.bigpond.com...
I rather think your posting is a good argument for why Henry Wilson
should be treated as a joke.
Paul
Henry Wilson
What, given up on srp have you Heymann? I agree with all the abuse you have
been getting from him.
Eric Baird
>On Wed, 27 Feb 2002 00:14:07 +0000 (UTC), Eric Baird
><eric_...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 21 Feb 2002 20:36:40 GMT, HWilson@.. (Henry Wilson) wrote:
>>
>>>How could space exist if there were no light with which to determine its
>>>'shape'?
>>
>>Well, if there were no signals and no fields whatsoever in a region of
>>space (and no gravitaitonal field), then it could be argued that the
>>region of space in question actually has no physical existence.
>>
>>If there are no gravitational fieldlines that enter the "region", then
>>there are no lines that you can point along in space to say
>>"there it is!".
>>
>>Einstein once wrote that if you take away the gravitational field
>>parameters, you don't have "empty" space --- you don't _even_ have
>>space.
>
>There you go. Tell Paul I was right.
Nearly.
I think you are generally right about the basic philosophical
principle, that one should not be able to make physical measurements
of a quantity of "nothing" ("how does reality remember what distance
is supposed to exist between two surfaces, if the distance is truly
empty?"), but you were on more dodgy territory when you brought in
special relativity.
There /are/ arguments in print that, under SR, Minkowski's description
suggests that causal reality is maintained by the way that lightcones
mesh together, and that could suggest to the reader that perhaps
reality might be undermined if those lightcones were blocked, but
under special relativity the geometry is supposed to be fixed and
absolute, irrespective of whether there are really any lightsignals or
observers in the region or not.
This is actually one of the main gripes that I personally have with
the special theory, that its relativistic geometrical description of
the physics of observers exchanging signals does not disappear when
those observers and their signals and fields are taken away. Special
relativity declares that an absolute medium is unnecessary, but it
replaces it with a different entity that still has some worryingly
"absolute" characteristics, and which dictates the form of the
physical interactions without itself being affected ("external
causation").
Under GR-type theories, an explicit medium emerges once again, but
it's no longer an "added" feature (it is the total field that's
already there), and it (hopefully!) no longer has the same "absolute"
properties, it conditions the behaviour of masses, fields and signals,
but they also condition it back -- to pick up an old theme, space
becomes an extension of bodies, and bodies become condensations of
space.
Here's a short chunk from Einstein's "Relativity and the Problem of
Space" ('Relativity' book, Appendix V, pp.150-151) ::
:: " This rigid four-dimensional space of the special theory
:: of relativity is to some extent a four-dimensional analogue
:: of H.A. Lorentz's rigid three-dimensional aether. For
:: this theory also the following statement is valid: The
:: description of physical states postulates space as being
:: initially given and as existing independently. Thus even
:: this theory does not dispel Descartes' uneasiness concerning
:: the independent, or indeed, the /a priori/ existence
:: of "empty space". The real aim of the elementary
:: discussion given here is to show to what extent these
:: doubts are overcome by the general theory of relativity. "
:: ...
So ...
... IMO you did correctly identify a slightly awkward area of SR, but
saying that SR's "spacetime" depends for its existence on the
existence of signals would seem to be wrong ... SR's spacetime
supposes a particular structure that was devised using arguments that
involve the exchange of signals between observers, but under SR, that
structure is supposed to still be there even if the observers and
their fields and signals aren't <ick>.
>>If you could take a region containing an object and divert all
>>external fieldlines so that they all somehow "miss" the object and its
>>region, then what you've effectively done is to take the object and
>>its region and blobbed it off from normal spacetime into its own baby
>>universe.
>
>It would leave an empty hole in space.
But if no external fieldlines pointed into that hole, we'd be back to
the situation where there was no direction that one could point in to
say "there's a hole over there!" It might be difficult or impossible
for a newcomer to the region to know that anything had been removed.
If we create a repulsive field component shell around a payload region
of space and increase the strength of the component so that the
payload region becomes progressively less connected to the outside
universe, and eventually the shielding effect becomes total, with the
payload region completely disconnected and curved back on itself, then
we effectively have a time-aligned wormhole mouth between our universe
and the future offspring universe that the payload region forms.
Once the separation becomes complete, the connection has closed, the
mouth has healed over again, and any wierd field components associated
with the mouth have been allowed to dissipate, we could be left with a
completely normal-looking region of spacetime.
(OK, ok, so the usual "fieldline" idea probably isn't legal in
situations where connectivity varies with time, but that's another
issue)
>Not sure about 'spacetime'. Maybe
>time could still exist without space.
But again, if those time coordinates did not relate to anything that
we had any hope of observing ...
If we blob off a baby universe that becomes completely disconnected,
then local time coordinates do exist in that universe branch, but they
don't neccessarily relate to anything in our own universe after the
branchpoint, except indirectly.
You could try to define a sort of arbitrary super-spacetime that
normal spacetime is embedded in, and that might allow you to assign a
superspace volume to a "region" that appears to us as a point, and
assign notional "time" coordinates to layers through that volume, but
that might look like just a clever exercise (unless there was some
clear objective in mind, such as assigning a volume to a region
"behind" a point-particle, outside normal space, as a way of
explaining the particle's properties) .
<BACK TO SCHRODINGER'S CAT>
[CLEFTS AND ENTROPIC FURNACES]
On the other hand, if the Schrodinger shielding is not quite absolute,
and the payload (cat-containing) region stays connected by a small
umbilical, then what we have is a "fold" or "cleft" rather than a
wormhole, there's no illegal geometry-change, and the payload region
can either evaporate into normal space through the cleft, or reenter
with a vengeance when we switch off the shielding.
This /might/ be rather disastrous.
Since the payload region is largely isolated from normal space, its
rate of timeflow might be an awful lot faster than ours (since it
doesn't see most of "our" background gravitation), and when the thing
reenters, a cosmological amount of local time might have elapsed
within the folded region. The cat's fundamental particles might have
decayed, leaving us with E=[cat]c^2 of radiant energy (wiping out your
lab's city centre), or, if the payload region has taken up that energy
by expanding, with a nasty reentry shockwave (again, a bit of a
disaster).
If we want to avoid having ourselves a cat-bomb with 100% mass-energy
conversion, we'd probably need to bleed energy out of the region and
let it evaporate in a (hopefully!) controlled way.
Might be a useful energy-source, but you'd probably want to put in
legislation saying that it could only be used off-planet, just in case
Something Went Wrong
(depending on the reentry characteristics, and what happens when you
reassociate two regions whose physics might have diverged, the
subsequent shockwave might make a conventional fission detonation look
a bit wimpy)
>>=Erk= (Eric Baird)
: "... and then the, uh, Russians put /our/ camera made by
: /our/ German scientists and /your/ film made by ...
: /your/ German scientists, into /their/ satellite made by ...
: /their/ German scientists, and, uh, up it went, round and round ... "
: -- Patrick McGoohan, in "Ice Station Zebra"
Henry Wilson
>>
I might take some time to absorb what you are saying here.
I think 4D space is 'absolute' but with arbitrary origins of its four axes.
In other words, to any single observer 4D space is absolute.
>
>>>If you could take a region containing an object and divert all
>>>external fieldlines so that they all somehow "miss" the object and its
>>>region, then what you've effectively done is to take the object and
>>>its region and blobbed it off from normal spacetime into its own baby
>>>universe.
>>
>>It would leave an empty hole in space.
>
>But if no external fieldlines pointed into that hole, we'd be back to
>the situation where there was no direction that one could point in to
>say "there's a hole over there!" It might be difficult or impossible
>for a newcomer to the region to know that anything had been removed.
It becomes rather nonsensical, doesn't it.
>
>
>If we create a repulsive field component shell around a payload region
>of space and increase the strength of the component so that the
>payload region becomes progressively less connected to the outside
>universe, and eventually the shielding effect becomes total, with the
>payload region completely disconnected and curved back on itself, then
>we effectively have a time-aligned wormhole mouth between our universe
>and the future offspring universe that the payload region forms.
>Once the separation becomes complete, the connection has closed, the
>mouth has healed over again, and any wierd field components associated
>with the mouth have been allowed to dissipate, we could be left with a
>completely normal-looking region of spacetime.
Don't let your imagination run wild, now Eric.
>
>(OK, ok, so the usual "fieldline" idea probably isn't legal in
>situations where connectivity varies with time, but that's another
>issue)
>
>>Not sure about 'spacetime'. Maybe
>>time could still exist without space.
I don't think Time and Space are related in any way.
WE can use light.years as a measurement of space - but we could just as
easily use 'ant.seconds' meaning the distance an ant walks in a second.
>
>But again, if those time coordinates did not relate to anything that
>we had any hope of observing ...
>
>If we blob off a baby universe that becomes completely disconnected,
>then local time coordinates do exist in that universe branch, but they
>don't neccessarily relate to anything in our own universe after the
>branchpoint, except indirectly.
very true.
Henry Wilson, Henry Wilson's free thought Laboratory,
At the frontier of scientific invention.
www.users.bigpond.com/rmrabb/HW.htm
franz heymann
Henry Wilson <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
> On Fri, 1 Mar 2002 09:50:03 -0000, "franz heymann"
> <franz....@care4free.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >Henry Wilson <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
> >news:3c7e9349...@news.bigpond.com...
> >> On Thu, 28 Feb 2002 12:04:23 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
> >> <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote:
> >>
> >
> >[Snip]
> >
> >Henry, you are a repetitive fool who has been disabused of your
> >erroneous
> >thoughts quite frequently in the past by coountless contributors to
> >this ng..
> >Go and find your dummy
> >
> >Franz Heymann
> >
> What, given up on srp have you Heymann? I agree with all the abuse
you have
> been getting from him.
That does not surprise me at all.
Franz Heymann
Paul B. Andersen
"Henry Wilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:3c87d5fb...@news.bigpond.com...
> I think 4D space is 'absolute' but with arbitrary origins of its four axes.
There is no 4D space in SR.
Space is 3D, time is 1D, spacetime is 4D.
> In other words, to any single observer 4D space is absolute.
Sure. 4D spacetime is "absolute" in the sense taht every
event is unique, and does not depend in any way of frames
of reference.
So what?
That does not mean that "time" is absolute.
It does not mean that "space" is absolute.
It does not mean that "velocity" is absolute.
[..]
> I don't think Time and Space are related in any way.
>
> WE can use light.years as a measurement of space - but we could just as
> easily use 'ant.seconds' meaning the distance an ant walks in a second.
Or "days of travel" which has been used for millenniums.
So what? It is utterly irrelevant to the question of whether
or not time and space is related in any way.
In SR, they sure are connected.
The spacetime interval between two events is invariant.
You might say that the spacetime interval is "absolute",
independent of frames of reference.
But the spatial and temporal componens of the interval
(distance and time) depend on the frame of reference.
And SR is as you know a valid theory, very well
confirmed by a lot of experiments and falsified by none.
Paul
Big Bird
> Or "days of travel" which has been used for millenniums.
> So what? It is utterly irrelevant to the question of whether
> or not time and space is related in any way.
The wonderful introductory book "Spacetime Physics" (by Taylor and
Wheeler) contains the following analogy: In a kingdom, distances in
the east-west direction are measured in miles, but distances in the
"holy" north-south direction are measured in kilometers. Nobody thinks
much about it, any place is maked by a mile-number and a
kilometer-number and the fact that there is a simple constant that
could relate the two numbers never really occurs to anybody, becayse
clearly east-west and north-south are entirely unrelated, the one
being holy and the other only being a direction.
Until someone realizes that two teams of geometers have used different
references to establish north: one team uses geaographic north, while
the other uses magnetic north. And so two types of maps exists, where
the coordinates of things are slightly different from each other,
while describing the same things and the same relationships between
the things. And the attempt to figure out the conversion form the one
type of map to the other type of map (a rotation, really) leads to the
insight that there's nothing "holy" about the north-south direction
after all and that you can easily convert from one reference frame to
the other by means of some simple trig functions.
I'm not going to give away the ending, of course. Read the book
yourself.
Henry Wilson
<paul.b....@hia.no> wrote:
>
>"Henry Wilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:3c87d5fb...@news.bigpond.com...
>> I think 4D space is 'absolute' but with arbitrary origins of its four axes.
>
>There is no 4D space in SR.
>Space is 3D, time is 1D, spacetime is 4D.
Spacetime is a mthematical entity, not a physical one.
>
>> In other words, to any single observer 4D space is absolute.
>
>Sure. 4D spacetime is "absolute" in the sense taht every
>event is unique, and does not depend in any way of frames
>of reference.
It still depends on where the origins of the four components are set.
>So what?
>That does not mean that "time" is absolute.
>It does not mean that "space" is absolute.
>It does not mean that "velocity" is absolute.
Quite right.
>
>[..]
>
>> I don't think Time and Space are related in any way.
>>
>> WE can use light.years as a measurement of space - but we could just as
>> easily use 'ant.seconds' meaning the distance an ant walks in a second.
>
>Or "days of travel" which has been used for millenniums.
>So what? It is utterly irrelevant to the question of whether
>or not time and space is related in any way.
No it isn't.
>
>In SR, they sure are connected.
>The spacetime interval between two events is invariant.
>You might say that the spacetime interval is "absolute",
>independent of frames of reference.
>But the spatial and temporal componens of the interval
>(distance and time) depend on the frame of reference.
This all comes about because of the assumption that information travels at
light speed and not instantaneously.
I have said before, if an event occurs here now, it occurs everywhere
'now', instantly. Its presence will not be registered however.
>
>And SR is as you know a valid theory, very well
>confirmed by a lot of experiments and falsified by none.
AND Falsified and ridiculed by my computer simulations.
>
>Paul
David Evens
>On Fri, 8 Mar 2002 14:41:08 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
><paul.b....@hia.no> wrote:
>>"Henry Wilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:3c87d5fb...@news.bigpond.com...
>>> I think 4D space is 'absolute' but with arbitrary origins of its four axes.
>>
>>There is no 4D space in SR.
>>Space is 3D, time is 1D, spacetime is 4D.
>
>Spacetime is a mthematical entity, not a physical one.
Yes, we KNOW that you do not believe that there is a universe, Henry.
>>> In other words, to any single observer 4D space is absolute.
>>
>>Sure. 4D spacetime is "absolute" in the sense taht every
>>event is unique, and does not depend in any way of frames
>>of reference.
>
> It still depends on where the origins of the four components are set.
No, it does not depend in any way on frames of reference.
>>So what?
>>That does not mean that "time" is absolute.
>>It does not mean that "space" is absolute.
>>It does not mean that "velocity" is absolute.
>
>Quite right.
So you ARE recognising that your pretense about absolute frames is
wrong.
>>[..]
>>
>>> I don't think Time and Space are related in any way.
>>>
>>> WE can use light.years as a measurement of space - but we could just as
>>> easily use 'ant.seconds' meaning the distance an ant walks in a second.
>>
>>Or "days of travel" which has been used for millenniums.
>>So what? It is utterly irrelevant to the question of whether
>>or not time and space is related in any way.
>
>No it isn't.
And you support this assumption with...?
>>In SR, they sure are connected.
>>The spacetime interval between two events is invariant.
>>You might say that the spacetime interval is "absolute",
>>independent of frames of reference.
>>But the spatial and temporal componens of the interval
>>(distance and time) depend on the frame of reference.
>
>This all comes about because of the assumption that information travels at
>light speed and not instantaneously.
>I have said before, if an event occurs here now, it occurs everywhere
>'now', instantly. Its presence will not be registered however.
You forgot to support your assumption that events are not things that
happen at specific places.
>>And SR is as you know a valid theory, very well
>>confirmed by a lot of experiments and falsified by none.
>
>AND Falsified and ridiculed by my computer simulations.
How does you being ridiculous about your own (false and inconsistent)
assumptions create problems for reality?
>Henry Wilson, Henry Wilson's thought-free Lavatory,
>At the frontier of antiscientific evasion.
>www.users.bigpond.com/rmrabb/HW.htm
franz heymann
Henry Wilson <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
[Snip]
> >And SR is as you know a valid theory, very well
> >confirmed by a lot of experiments and falsified by none.
>
> AND Falsified and ridiculed by my computer simulations.
Real life experiments are preferable to computer simulations.
Computer simulations by one Henry Wilson are highly likely to be
rubbish. Why should anybody pay any attention to them at all? If the
are soundly based on SR principles and properly executed, they will
confirm the results of real observations. If the do not, they will be
either examples of flawed compuer programming or of an incorrect
application of SR principles.
Franz Heymann
Dirk Van de moortel
"Henry Wilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:3c8954cd...@news.bigpond.com...
A keeper.
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html
Title: "My computer simulations falsify and ridicule the experiments"
Dirk Vdm
Stephen Speicher
In the far future, when historians stumble upon a record of your
"Fumbles" page, they will undoubtedly conclude that you were a
comedian who made up these words to make people laugh. If mankind
survives into the far future, they would just not believe that
the inanities uttered by the characters on your page could
actually have come from real people. I am sure they will
conclude: nobody could be that dumb. But, then again, perhaps the
archives of "Henry" and is ilk will also survive, and then that
future humanity will understand.
Stephen
s...@compbio.caltech.edu
Welcome to California. Bring your own batteries.
Printed using 100% recycled electrons.
--------------------------------------------------------
Paul B. Andersen
"Henry Wilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:3c8954cd...@news.bigpond.com...
> I have said before, if an event occurs here now, it occurs everywhere
> 'now', instantly. Its presence will not be registered however.
I just snapped my fingers in front of your nose, Henry.
You didn't register its presence, though.
> Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >And SR is as you know a valid theory, very well
> >confirmed by a lot of experiments and falsified by none.
>
> AND Falsified and ridiculed by my computer simulations.
I am sure the world will find the flicker on a computer screen
programmed by Henry Wilson much more convincing than real
experiments in the real world. A computer is after all infallible
and thus proves how nature works.
Don't you agree?
Paul
Henry Wilson
there are NO known experiments which directly support SR.
Tell me any that measure OWLS or prove that cntractions take place.
Come on Dirk, DO IT!
Henry Wilson
<s...@compbio.caltech.edu> wrote:
>On Sun, 10 Mar 2002, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>
>>
>> "Henry Wilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:3c8954cd...@news.bigpond.com...
>> > On Fri, 8 Mar 2002 14:41:08 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
>> > <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > >And SR is as you know a valid theory, very well
>> > >confirmed by a lot of experiments and falsified by none.
>> >
>> > AND Falsified and ridiculed by my computer simulations.
>>
>> A keeper.
>> http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html
>> Title: "My computer simulations falsify and ridicule the experiments"
>>
>
>In the far future, when historians stumble upon a record of your
>"Fumbles" page, they will undoubtedly conclude that you were a
>comedian who made up these words to make people laugh. If mankind
>survives into the far future, they would just not believe that
>the inanities uttered by the characters on your page could
>actually have come from real people. I am sure they will
>conclude: nobody could be that dumb. But, then again, perhaps the
>archives of "Henry" and is ilk will also survive, and then that
>future humanity will understand.
>
>Stephen
>s...@compbio.caltech.edu
>
You people remind me of the time when I was young and a bunch of christian
kids laughed at me because I told them there weren't any gods.
Henry Wilson
<paul.b....@hia.no> wrote:
>
>"Henry Wilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:3c8954cd...@news.bigpond.com...
>
>> I have said before, if an event occurs here now, it occurs everywhere
>> 'now', instantly. Its presence will not be registered however.
>
>I just snapped my fingers in front of your nose, Henry.
>You didn't register its presence, though.
Paul, the event of your snapping fingers occured at the same instant in
your frame and in mine. Information about that event took a certain time to
reach me.
If we know that delay, we can establish an 'instantaneous' time frame.
>
>> Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> >And SR is as you know a valid theory, very well
>> >confirmed by a lot of experiments and falsified by none.
>>
>> AND Falsified and ridiculed by my computer simulations.
>
>I am sure the world will find the flicker on a computer screen
>programmed by Henry Wilson much more convincing than real
>experiments in the real world. A computer is after all infallible
>and thus proves how nature works.
>Don't you agree?
That's why computer simulations are used universally to design gadgets
which are far too sophisticated for the minds of men (including SRians)..
Eric Baird
>"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message news:<a6af31$5sc$1...@snipp.uninett.no>...
>
>> Or "days of travel" which has been used for millenniums.
>> So what? It is utterly irrelevant to the question of whether
>> or not time and space is related in any way.
>
>
>The wonderful introductory book "Spacetime Physics" (by Taylor and
>Wheeler) contains the following analogy: In a kingdom ...
My favourite "coordinate system" tale is to do with the ancient
Egyptians. The Nile was critical to their civilisation, their
agriculture depended on it, and it was also their main commerce route,
traders would sail up the Nile in their boats with their sails up,
then drop the sails to drift downstream again with the river flow.
Consequently, "South" became synonymous with "upstream"
(shared hieroglyph = "boat with sails up")
and "North" with "downstream"
(shared hieroglyph = "boat with sails down")
Unfortunately, they later came across another river somewhere north of
Egypt that emptied into the Mediterranean in the "wrong" direction,
and apparently their their naming system couldn't cope.
In desperation, the scribes ended up calling the river something like
"where North is South".
=Erk= (Eric Baird)
: " I think I've fooled them so far. The great advantage of having a
: reputation for being stupid is that people are less suspicious of you."
: -- "Four Weddings and a Funeral"
Bilge
>there are NO known experiments which directly support SR.
No, there are no known experiments that you can understand which
support SR. That's different henry. Your level of understanding
doesn't reflect anything but the pre-school population (whom I hope
don't take offense at being underestimated).
>Tell me any that measure OWLS or prove that cntractions take place.
Just as soon as you prove such a thing as OWLS exists and proves
that length contraction doesn't take place.
>Come on Dirk, DO IT!
You're in his "fumbles" hall of fame; what more could you want?
>
>Henry Wilson, Henry Wilson's thought Lavatory,
>At the frontier of anal retention.
>www.users.bigdunce.com/dumrabbit/HW.htm
--
brodix
> Printed using 100% recycled electrons.
> --------------------------------------------------------
If energy can be neither created or destroyed and the passage of time
creates information and it takes energy to store information, then
information is being destroyed by the passage of time, so the thread
of time is being woven out of strands pulled from what has already
been woven. So the thread of time is not immortal, therefore not
absolute. Like a circle, it simply has no beginning or end.
Bilge
Re: Zero Light! to usenet:
>Stephen Speicher <s...@compbio.caltech.edu> wrote in message
>>
>> Printed using 100% recycled electrons.
>> --------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>If energy can be neither created or destroyed and the passage of time
>creates information and it takes energy to store information, then
Spaceman
>If energy can be neither created or destroyed and the passage of time
>creates information and it takes energy to store information, then
>information is being destroyed by the passage of time, so the thread
>of time is being woven out of strands pulled from what has already
>been woven. So the thread of time is not immortal, therefore not
>absolute. Like a circle, it simply has no beginning or end.
The passage of time does no such thing,
It does not "create" information,
Information creates itself and time is not needed as a thing
It's only needed as an ABSTRACT.
.
only mass is a thing and time is
just an abstract of a mass (thing)like a Ball moving a distance.(thing) like a
stick
funny,
the first known pendulum looked like a ball on the end of a stick to me too!
<LOL>
so.
time is not REAL at all so it does nothing.
but, the mass and the distance the mass moved
is the ONLY thing that does ANYTHING
in this Universe and probably others too.
:)
Time is supposed to be an absolute to the person that
wants any REAL thing to work.
Don't think clocks measure time for they don't truly measure days..
they measure a mass moving a distance.
and that is not what Time is supposed to be.
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
http://www.realspaceman.com
David Evens
Were you not ignorant of physics, you would know that Olaus Roemer
measured OWLS in 1675, which was in fact the VERY FIRST succesful
attempt to measure the speed of light. He got a very good value for
it, too. His main source of error was a very poor value for the
orbital radius of the Earth, rather than a poor time measurement.
>Henry Wilson, Henry Wilson's thought-free Lavatory,
>At the frontier of antiscientific evasion.
>www.users.bigpond.com/rmrabb/HW.htm
Paul B. Andersen
"Henry Wilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:3c8be106...@news.bigpond.com...
> On Sun, 10 Mar 2002 22:37:05 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
> <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Henry Wilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:3c8954cd...@news.bigpond.com...
> >
> >> I have said before, if an event occurs here now, it occurs everywhere
> >> 'now', instantly. Its presence will not be registered however.
> >
> >I just snapped my fingers in front of your nose, Henry.
> >You didn't register its presence, though.
>
> Paul, the event of your snapping fingers occured at the same instant in
> your frame and in mine. Information about that event took a certain time to
> reach me.
> If we know that delay, we can establish an 'instantaneous' time frame.
Everywhere includes right in front of your nose.
So the snap occurred right in front of your nose.
So how can there be a delay?
> >> Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >> >And SR is as you know a valid theory, very well
> >> >confirmed by a lot of experiments and falsified by none.
> >>
> >> AND Falsified and ridiculed by my computer simulations.
> >
> >I am sure the world will find the flicker on a computer screen
> >programmed by Henry Wilson much more convincing than real
> >experiments in the real world. A computer is after all infallible
> >and thus proves how nature works.
> >Don't you agree?
>
> That's why computer simulations are used universally to design gadgets
> which are far too sophisticated for the minds of men (including SRians)..
It's kind of sad that you do understand how hilarious this is, Henry.
You will never know what good laughs you are missing.
You are now threatening Ken's position as the funniest guy in the NG.
Keep it up!
Paul
Henry Wilson
<paul.b....@hia.no> wrote:
On the contrary. I just wish I had discovered SR at an earlier age so I
could have been laughing my head of all along.
>You are now threatening Ken's position as the funniest guy in the NG.
>Keep it up!
No, I'll never surpass Ken.
Henry Wilson
wrote:
That was an indirect TWLS experiment.
>
>>Henry Wilson, Henry Wilson's thought-free Lavatory,
>>At the frontier of antiscientific evasion.
>>www.users.bigpond.com/rmrabb/HW.htm
>
David Evens
And you support your assumption that there was a return beam of light
involved in observing the moon of Jupiter with...?
franz heymann
Henry Wilson <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
[Snip]
On the contrary. I just wish I had discovered SR at an earlier age so
I
> could have been laughing my head of all along.
You haven't discovered it yet, so are you just laughing in
anticipation or because of giving vent to your inanity?
Franz Heymann
Henry Wilson
wrote:
How were the positions and orbits of the moons determined in the first
place.
>
>>>>Henry Wilson, Henry Wilson's thought-free Lavatory,
>>>>At the frontier of antiscientific evasion.
>>>>www.users.bigpond.com/rmrabb/HW.htm
>>>
>>
>>
>>Henry Wilson, Henry Wilson's thought-free Lavatory,
>>At the frontier of antiscientific evasion.
>>www.users.bigpond.com/rmrabb/HW.htm
>
David Evens
Positions are determined by GEOMETRY. Orbits are determined by
looking at how the geometry changes with time. Since there isn'y any
time-based effects from the light source, nothing comes up with the
pretended light beam from the observer that you desperately want to
insert into Roemer's observations nearly 3 centuries before anyone had
technology to do such a thing.