The Fallacy of Steve Carlip's Speed of Gravity Argument
Traveler
additions.]
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909087
This paper at the link above is the same nonsense that Carlip has been
selling for years. The fallacy of the Carlipian argument can be seen
in the very abstract of the paper, as follows:
|The observed absence of gravitational aberration requires that
|"Newtonian" gravity propagate at a speed cg > 2 x 10^10 c. By
|evaluating the gravitational effect of an accelerating mass, I
|show that aberration in general relativity is almost exactly
|canceled by velocity-dependent interactions, permitting cg = c.
The fallacy is simply this. Take the simple case of two massive bodies
that are moving at the same speed and direction at a given distance
from each other. Their relative velocity is temporarily zero. In which
case (if you accept the relativist's creed that there is only relative
motion) there is no way that any velocity dependent information can be
transmitted from one body to the other (via carrier particles, if you
will) traveling at c, since the velocity is zero. The only way to
transmit velocity-dependent information is to assume absolute motion.
Now if you take a planetary system, or better yet, a stable galaxy
which is thousands of light years across, the situation gets much
worse. Not only is the near straight-line motion of the entire galaxy
across the universe impossible to transmit between the member bodies
(because, again, for all and practical purposes, the relative
straight-line velocity is zero) but now gravitating bodies are no
longer just moving in a straight line but orbiting in curved paths.
After thousands of light years, a body's position may very well be
thousands of light years away from where the (supposedly)
velocity-dependent information that just arrived would indicate. This
is assuming that such information is being transmitted at all. A
thousand light years of delay is enough to throw any system out of
stability. This is especially true in the case of extremely eccentric
orbits where directions and relative positions can change markedly
over a relatively short interval.
These are two of the reasons that I say that the GR cancellation trick
is crap. There are more but these will suffice for now.
The Newtonian approach, OTOH, assumes both absolute motion and
instantaneous (non-local) application of conservation laws. Certainly,
one could argue that, since the Newtonian system assumes the existence
of absolute motion, velocity-dependent information could then be
transmitted between moving bodies. But even then, as I demonstrated
above, this information would be useless in a gravitating system such
as a galaxy. There is clearly a need for a non-local (instantaneous)
application of gravitational influences between distant bodies in
orbit. This need is exacerbated by distance, not diminished.
|This cancellation is dictated by conservation laws and the
|quadrupole nature of gravitational radiation.
All conservation laws are nonlocal, meaning that they can be applied
over great distances, **if necessary**. If you want to use
conservation laws to explain gravity (which is all that should be used
as all processes are governed by conservation laws), that is fine by
me. But don't tell me that conservation laws are strictly local.
How can things influence others at a distance? Simply because space
(distance) is both abstract and an illusion of the mind. Position,
like every other property, is the intrinsic property of a particle,
not that of an external entity.
Addendum: The Fallacy of Exclusive Relativity
Let me add here that, given the relativist's creed regarding the
relativity of motion and position, how does body A know of its
velocity relative to body B (they could be thousands of light years
apart) so as to transmit this information to body B via quadrupole
mass moments? And vice versa? If the relativist's creed about the
exclusivity of relative motion is true, does that not imply that some
sort of non-local and instantaneous information sharing is taking
place? And if such a non-local sharing of information about relative
motion is already available to both body A and B, why communicate it
at the speed of light to the other body so as to correct the
aberration that would ensue due to propagation delay?
This is like killing two birds in one stone. :D The fallacy of
exclusive relativity and the fallacy of the propagation at c of
gravitational changes.
Louis Savain
-------------------------------------------------
Temporal Intelligence:
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/louis.savain/AI/Temporal_Intelligence.htm
The Silver Bullet:
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/louis.savain/AI/Reliability.htm
Nasty Little Truth About Spacetime Physics:
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/louis.savain/Crackpots/notorious.htm
Mike Varney
"Traveler" <eight...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:n2uh1v82uv6goi9sf...@4ax.com...
> [I thought
If true that would be cause for celebration.
Traveler
<var...@collorado.edu> wrote:
>If true that would be cause for celebration.
Mike Varnette, commenting on his possible repentance from being a
racist asshole and an inveterate ass kisser. :D
OC
> The Newtonian approach, OTOH, assumes both absolute motion and
> instantaneous (non-local) application of conservation laws. Certainly,
> one could argue that, since the Newtonian system assumes the existence
> of absolute motion, velocity-dependent information could then be
> transmitted between moving bodies.
Since when there is absolute motion in classical mechanics?
You usually speak of motion respect to a frame of reference, and the
only preference is given to frames of reference where Newton's first
law is true ("inertial frames of reference").
> But even then, as I demonstrated
> above, this information would be useless in a gravitating system such
> as a galaxy. There is clearly a need for a non-local (instantaneous)
> application of gravitational influences between distant bodies in
> orbit. This need is exacerbated by distance, not diminished.
>
> |This cancellation is dictated by conservation laws and the
> |quadrupole nature of gravitational radiation.
>
> All conservation laws are nonlocal, meaning that they can be applied
> over great distances, **if necessary**. If you want to use
> conservation laws to explain gravity (which is all that should be used
> as all processes are governed by conservation laws), that is fine by
> me. But don't tell me that conservation laws are strictly local.
What about the equation of continuity in classical electrodynamics
(which expresses the local conservation of charge)?
And what makes you think that local conservation laws cannot be
applied over great distances?
> How can things influence others at a distance? Simply because space
> (distance) is both abstract and an illusion of the mind. Position,
> like every other property, is the intrinsic property of a particle,
> not that of an external entity.
>
> <snip>
As far as I remember, classical physics got rid of action at distance
when the concept of local action of a field was introduced.
The main example is electrodynamics.
And since Coulmob's law for electrostatic interaction and Newton's law
for gravitational interaction have the same form, there is nothing in
the way of assuming that gravity is a local action of a field on a
body (instead of an action at distance between two bodies).
OC
Uncle Al
>
> [I thought
[SNIP]
Hubris, plus delusions of adequacy:
http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Hayek
Uncle Al wrote:
> Traveler wrote:
>
>>[I thought
>>
> [SNIP]
>
> Hubris, plus delusions of adequacy:
>
> http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html
We only wonder, why UA does not cure himself.
Hayek.
--
The small particles wave at
the big stars and get noticed.
:-)
Traveler
<Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>Hubris, plus delusions of adequacy:
says Uncle Adolf, the racist asshole, while contemplating how many
blacks and Mexicans he's planning to run over in 2003.
Traveler
o.ch...@rhul.ac.uk (OC) wrote:
>> <snip>
>> The Newtonian approach, OTOH, assumes both absolute motion and
>> instantaneous (non-local) application of conservation laws. Certainly,
>> one could argue that, since the Newtonian system assumes the existence
>> of absolute motion, velocity-dependent information could then be
>> transmitted between moving bodies.
>
>
>Since when there is absolute motion in classical mechanics?
>You usually speak of motion respect to a frame of reference, and the
>only preference is given to frames of reference where Newton's first
>law is true ("inertial frames of reference").
Relative means 'dependent' and absolute means 'independent'. The
former needs a frame of reference, while the latter does not.
Newton understood something that very few people understood. He tried
his best to explain that the relative is abstract and is impossible
without the absolute. This is true whether or not we can measure the
absolute, as nature does not care what we can or cannot measure.
Newton failed to get his point across mostly for political reasons.
>> But even then, as I demonstrated
>> above, this information would be useless in a gravitating system such
>> as a galaxy. There is clearly a need for a non-local (instantaneous)
>> application of gravitational influences between distant bodies in
>> orbit. This need is exacerbated by distance, not diminished.
>>
>> |This cancellation is dictated by conservation laws and the
>> |quadrupole nature of gravitational radiation.
>>
>> All conservation laws are nonlocal, meaning that they can be applied
>> over great distances, **if necessary**. If you want to use
>> conservation laws to explain gravity (which is all that should be used
>> as all processes are governed by conservation laws), that is fine by
>> me. But don't tell me that conservation laws are strictly local.
>
>
>What about the equation of continuity in classical electrodynamics
>(which expresses the local conservation of charge)?
>And what makes you think that local conservation laws cannot be
>applied over great distances?
Uh, could it be because it is local and local means 'at one point or
location'?
>> How can things influence others at a distance? Simply because space
>> (distance) is both abstract and an illusion of the mind. Position,
>> like every other property, is the intrinsic property of a particle,
>> not that of an external entity.
>>
>> <snip>
>
>
>As far as I remember, classical physics got rid of action at distance
>when the concept of local action of a field was introduced.
>The main example is electrodynamics.
What is the point here? What do I care that classical physics thinks
it got rid of action at a distance? The very concept of exclusive
relative motion is a form of action at a distance.
>And since Coulmob's law for electrostatic interaction and Newton's law
>for gravitational interaction have the same form, there is nothing in
>the way of assuming that gravity is a local action of a field on a
>body (instead of an action at distance between two bodies).
Well there is. Even Carlip mentions in his paper that, in order for
Newtonian gravity to work properly, changes in gravity would have to
be much greater than the speed of light, which is forbidden, thus
leaving only one alternative, non-local interactions.
Carlip and others tried to get around this problem by postulating that
information about the velocity of a moving source body is transmitted
at c to a target body, thus giving the target body a way of
determining the actual position of the source body. Problem is, the
source body has no way of knowing about its velocity relative to any
other body in the universe, short of possessing non-local abilities.
One then wonders, if a body can instantaneously determine the relative
motion between itself and another body over great distances, why does
it need to transmit it at c to the other body, especially since the
other body is privy to the same information? This point alone destroys
the Carlipian argument.
This is the fallacy of exclusive relativity that Newton tried to
explain to the world but failed because of his insistence on an
invisible absolute space.
Eric Gisse
wrote:
>In article <3E19AE80...@hate.spam.net>, Uncle Al
><Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>
>>Hubris, plus delusions of adequacy:
>
>says Uncle Adolf, the racist asshole, while contemplating how many
>blacks and Mexicans he's planning to run over in 2003.
>
Stop projecting.
Grumpy twit, all you do is insult, rant, and rave. You have nothing to
offer. Go away.
<snip>
Traveler
<kseggR...@uas.alaska.edu> wrote:
Ah. Another little ass-kissing friend of Uncle Adolf, wanting
desperately to impose his fascist and racist will on a public forum.
Too bad the little weak-minded dictator is so chicken shit.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Eric Gisse" <kseggR...@uas.alaska.edu> wrote in message news:e4nj1v43fob2170db...@4ax.com...
Don't count on it.
It is about to offer you something.
Dirk Vdm
Traveler
de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
Says de moortel, while kissing Uncle Adolf's racist ass. :D This is
fun.
Marion Hobba
Dirk Van de moortel
> Don't count on it.
> It is about to offer you something.
>
I would make a contribution to this thread if I wasn't laughing so much.
Newtonian gravitation is based Newtonian Mechanics which has the Galelain
transformations at its foundations. A simple analysis of these
transformations indicates they imply instantaneous action at a distance.
The fact we know from SR such is impossible (the validity of SR being backed
up by countless experiments including the very design of the monitor this
moron is writing this rubbish on)
Steve Carlip, being the excellent scientist he is, is basing his arguments
on experiment. But he would be aware of the above even better than I.
Thanks
Bill
Traveler
Hobba" <mho...@bigpond.com> wrote:
[cut]
>I would make a contribution to this thread if I wasn't laughing so much.
You just did by putting your foot in your mouth, moron.
>Newtonian gravitation is based Newtonian Mechanics which has the Galelain
>transformations at its foundations. A simple analysis of these
>transformations indicates they imply instantaneous action at a distance.
>The fact we know from SR such is impossible (the validity of SR being backed
>up by countless experiments including the very design of the monitor this
>moron is writing this rubbish on)
This has little to do with SR, crackpot. The issue has to do with
velocity-dependent quadrupole mass moments, which Carlip posits as the
main reason that GR does not need non-local action at a distance to
maintain stability in gravitating systems, whereas Newtonian gravity
does. Carlip is wrong for the reasons that I mentioned at the start of
the thread. The very concept of relative motion/position requires
non-local action at a distance.
So far, all I have seen in response to my argument is a bunch of ass
kissers masturbating in public. Not very impressive.
Refute my argument and I will concede defeat (unlike the know-it-all
assholes who post here, I am not one to hang one to my erroneous ways
in the face of strong contrary evidence). Otherwise go fuck a moose or
something, you pathetic ass kisser.
>Steve Carlip, being the excellent scientist he is, is basing his arguments
>on experiment. But he would be aware of the above even better than I.
Kissing ass as usual. Great argument! Not!
Marion Hobba
> >I would make a contribution to this thread if I wasn't laughing so much.
>
Lewis Savin replied
> You just did by putting your foot in your mouth, moron.
>
As I have replied to you before weak gravitational fields can be treated by
the methods of SR. Basic to SR is it is not possible to send signals (which
would include gravity) faster than light. Read a decent book like
Gravitation and Space-time by Ruffini to learn the true facts. The truth is
people like Steve Carlip and Reno Ruffini are world renowned experts in GR.
I respect (not ass kiss) my betters. I suggest you do the same.
Bill Hobba wrote:
> >Newtonian gravitation is based Newtonian Mechanics which has the Galelain
> >transformations at its foundations. A simple analysis of these
> >transformations indicates they imply instantaneous action at a distance.
> >The fact we know from SR such is impossible (the validity of SR being
backed
> >up by countless experiments including the very design of the monitor this
> >moron is writing this rubbish on)
Louis Savain wrote:
>
> This has little to do with SR, crackpot.
This has everything to do with SR as you would know if you read a decent
book like Introduction to Special Relativity by Rindler (another world
renowned expert). The principle of SR alone (which I challenge you to
define) implies the existence of an invariant speed. If that speed is
infinity then the Galilean transformation results and classical mechanics
holds. However it is found by experiment and consistency with maxwells
equations not to be infinity but the speed of light. This is the essence of
SR and why gravity, from very simple considerations, cannot travel faster
than light.
Louis Savain wrote:
The issue has to do with
> velocity-dependent quadrupole mass moments, which Carlip posits as the
> main reason that GR does not need non-local action at a distance to
> maintain stability in gravitating systems, whereas Newtonian gravity
> does. Carlip is wrong for the reasons that I mentioned at the start of
> the thread. The very concept of relative motion/position requires
> non-local action at a distance.
I have read Steve's paper and like all of his work an excellent piece it is
too (not ass kissing but respect - I developed respect for Steve long before
I knew who he was).
His arguments aside you are forgetting one basic principle - Lorentz
invariance does not allow instantaneous action at a distance. Newtonian
gravity is built on non local action at a distance (See Landau - Mechanics
where the existence of a Newtonian potential is shown to be equivalent to
instantaneous action at a distance). Both SR and GR are not.
Thanks
Bill
Traveler
Hobba" <mho...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>Bill Hobba wrote:
>> >I would make a contribution to this thread if I wasn't laughing so much.
>>
>
>Lewis Savin replied
>> You just did by putting your foot in your mouth, moron.
>>
>
>As I have replied to you before weak gravitational fields can be treated by
>the methods of SR. Basic to SR is it is not possible to send signals (which
>would include gravity) faster than light. Read a decent book like
>Gravitation and Space-time by Ruffini to learn the true facts. The truth is
>people like Steve Carlip and Reno Ruffini are world renowned experts in GR.
>I respect (not ass kiss) my betters. I suggest you do the same.
Listen asshole. Don't you fucking tell me to read a book. Everybody
knows that both SR and GR claim that there is no action at a distance.
Why are you setting up this chicken shit strawman? Is it so you can
look good while COMPLETELY IGNORING the issue being discussed? Did I
not tell you to go fuck a moose or something if you have nothing
better to do with your time, you ass kissing neanderthal?
Eric Gisse
wrote:
>In article <e4nj1v43fob2170db...@4ax.com>, Eric Gisse
><kseggR...@uas.alaska.edu> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 06 Jan 2003 10:06:06 -0800, Traveler <eight...@hotmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <3E19AE80...@hate.spam.net>, Uncle Al
>>><Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Hubris, plus delusions of adequacy:
>>>
>>>says Uncle Adolf, the racist asshole, while contemplating how many
>>>blacks and Mexicans he's planning to run over in 2003.
>>>
>>
>>Stop projecting.
>>
>>Grumpy twit, all you do is insult, rant, and rave. You have nothing to
>>offer. Go away.
>
>Ah. Another little ass-kissing friend of Uncle Adolf, wanting
>desperately to impose his fascist and racist will on a public forum.
>Too bad the little weak-minded dictator is so chicken shit.
>
>Louis Savain
You are such a hate-filled man. What did Uncle Al do to you, other
than politely tell you to fuck off?
I like Uncle Al because he says what needs to be said with a humorous
twist. I don't like you, because all you do is assault people's
character with libel and slander. Respect is earned, asshole.
Your web site shows that you are suffering from severe delusions of
grandure. I base that simple judgement on the observation that you
think your smater than every scientist who disagrees with you, and
software engineers.
Why do you continue assaulting people's character instead of their
ideas? I think its because its a lot easier than doing any work.
Oh, and stop projecting. Keep your homoerotic fantasies to yourself.
Traveler
<kseggR...@uas.alaska.edu> wrote:
>I like Uncle Al
I know you like Uncle Adolf. You're a fucking racist geezer just like
he is. With an army of ass kissers like you to defend him, he does not
need to address the issues.
So fuck you, Gisse, you ass kissing neanderthal! :D
Louis Savain
and...@attglobal.net
There's not one stupid insult in the posting below!
Of course, that still doesn't mean that you know what
you're talking about.
John Anderson
and...@attglobal.net
There's not one stupid insult in the posting below!
Of course, that still doesn't mean that you know what
you're talking about.
John Anderson
student
><Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>
>>Hubris, plus delusions of adequacy:
>
which Al usually responds when the OP has not made even a single point
otherwise worthy of comment....in this case I completely concur with Al.
Traveler
stu...@linuxbox.anom.com (student) wrote:
And your opinion matters because of what, did you say? Oh, I see. You
were too busy kissing Uncle Adolf's racist ass. :D
Richard Perry
All particles interact with their local field. This is the only
consistent solution to action at a distance. Changes in that field
propagate at the speed of light, since they 'are' in fact light. The
question is whether or not changes in gravity propagate at the speed of
light, because these propagating changes are 'not' light, and are not
therefore necessarily bound by the same rules.
--
Richard Perry
http://www.cswnet.com/~rper
Traveler
>Gee, Louis. Have you been taking your medication?
I just took a hit.
>There's not one stupid insult in the posting below!
Fuck! I'm loosing my form. Note that OC was the only poster in this
thread who tried to address the issue, although he failed, IMO.
>Of course, that still doesn't mean that you know what
>you're talking about.
Which, of course, you very conveniently fail to address. This is one
of the first things they teach you at MAKS (Mutual Ass Kissing
Society): If you have no clever rebuttal against your opponent's
argument (especially if you know he may tear you a new asshole), just
ignore it and come up with some nerdy ridicule instead. You are an ass
kissing neanderthal just like the others, aren't you, Anderson?
Stephen Speicher
> There's not one stupid insult in the posting below!
>
> Of course, that still doesn't mean that you know what
> you're talking about.
>
Since you commented, I read what he wrote. In a way, the
four-letter word rants by Savain are probably preferrable to this
intellectual tripe which he writes as he pulls himself up and out
of the gutter. You can laugh at the filthy word mentality of
Savain, but here, seeing his weak mind straining so hard to make
believe he grasps what comes from his intellectual betters, is
really pathetic. Savain truly is a blemish on the human race.
--
Stephen
s...@speicher.com
Ignorance is just a placeholder for knowledge.
Printed using 100% recycled electrons.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Traveler
<Pine.LNX.4.33.030106...@localhost.localdomain>,
Stephen Speicher <s...@speicher.com> wrote:
[cut]
>Since you commented, I read what he wrote.
Yeah, right. You read everyone of my posts, asshole, and you fucking
know it.
> In a way, the
>four-letter word rants by Savain are probably preferrable to this
>intellectual tripe which he writes as he pulls himself up and out
>of the gutter. You can laugh at the filthy word mentality of
>Savain, but here, seeing his weak mind straining so hard to make
>believe he grasps what comes from his intellectual betters, is
>really pathetic. Savain truly is a blemish on the human race.
IOW, Speicher knows I could tear him a new asshole if he dared to
venture a rebuttal that actually addressed the issue. But being the
spineless ass kisser that he is, he chooses the usual gutless
political route.
Did I ever tell you to pack Uncle Adolf up your ass, Speicher? :D
Traveler
<no_mail...@yahoo.com> wrote:
True. You have no argument from me there.
>This is the only consistent solution to action at a distance.
If by action at a distance, you are referring to non-locality, I have
to disagree. Non-locality is a confirmed phenomenon. And it makes
perfect sense from my perspective since I believe that conservation
laws are non-local.
>Changes in that field
>propagate at the speed of light, since they 'are' in fact light. The
>question is whether or not changes in gravity propagate at the speed of
>light, because these propagating changes are 'not' light, and are not
>therefore necessarily bound by the same rules.
According to Einstein, nothing can travel faster than light. And you
know what? As weird as it may sound, I agree 100% with Einstein on
this. I just don't believe that gravitational changes propagate. I
believe they are instantaneously applied in a universal and non-local
manner.
Marion Hobba
Louis Savain wrote:
> Listen asshole. Don't you fucking tell me to read a book. Everybody
> knows that both SR and GR claim that there is no action at a distance.
> Why are you setting up this chicken shit strawman? Is it so you can
> look good while COMPLETELY IGNORING the issue being discussed? Did I
> not tell you to go fuck a moose or something if you have nothing
> better to do with your time, you ass kissing neanderthal?
>
Then why claim otherwise? Or are you just against Steve (no this time he
deserves his full title) Dr Carlip's paper?
Thanks
Bill
Traveler
Hobba" <mho...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> Louis Savain wrote:
>> Listen asshole. Don't you fucking tell me to read a book. Everybody
>> knows that both SR and GR claim that there is no action at a distance.
>> Why are you setting up this chicken shit strawman? Is it so you can
>> look good while COMPLETELY IGNORING the issue being discussed? Did I
>> not tell you to go fuck a moose or something if you have nothing
>> better to do with your time, you ass kissing neanderthal?
>>
>
>Then why claim otherwise?
Why? Is there a fucking law against it? Just because it is claimed
does not automatically make it fucking gospel, you know. I suggest you
join the Raelians if you're looking for a cult to belong to. Maybe
Brigitte Boisselier can clone your fucking ass a thousand times and
create her own private cult of ass-kissing clones to worship her. :D
>Or are you just against Steve (no this time he deserves his full title)
>Dr Carlip's paper?
No. I am indeed claiming that gravitational changes are non-local. I
further claim that Steve Carlip (so does GR and all relativists, BTW,
whether they know it or not) assumes non-local gravitational
interactions in the very paper wherein he purports to demonstrate
otherwise.
The reason is the following. Carlip essentially claims that the source
velocity of body A is transmitted to body B at c in such a way that
body B can react to the gravitational pull of body A as if it were
coming from the actual (extrapolated from the velocity info) position
of body A, not the retarded position. This, in essence, replicates the
results obtained in Newtonian gravity which assumes that changes in
gravity are felt instantaneously between bodies regardless of
distance.
On page 2 of the his paper "Aberration and the Speed of Gravity",
Steve Carlip writes:
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909087
|It is certainly true, although perhaps not widely enough
|appreciated, that observations are incompatible with
|Newtonian gravity with a light-speed propagation delay
|added in [3,4]. If one begins with a purely central
|force and puts in a finite propagation speed by hand,
|the forces in a two-body system no longer point toward
|the center of mass, and the resulting tangential
|accelerations make orbits drastically unstable. A simple
|derivation is given in problem 12.4 of Ref. [4], where
|it is shown that Solar System orbits would shift
|substantially on a time scale on the order of a hundred
|years. By analyzing the motion of the Moon, Laplace
|concluded in 1805 that the speed of (Newtonian) gravity
|must be at least 7x10^6c [5]. Using modern astronomical
|observations, Van Flandern raised this limit to
|2x10^10c [1].
No argument there from anybody.
|But this argument, at least in its simplest form, holds
|only if one postulates that the relevant force is purely
|central and independent of the source velocity. As
|Poincare observed as early as 1905 [6,7], the effects of
|aberration can be drastically altered by velocity-
|dependent interactions. And indeed, for Maxwell's
|electrodynamics and Einstein's general relativity,
|such interactions occur [8].
Note Carlip's use of the words "source velocity" above. This is the
key to understanding the fallacy of his argument. This begs the
question, how does one determine source velocity in GR? Isn't velocity
in relativity always relative? How can body A know of its
instantaneous velocity relative to body B so as to communicate it to B
at the speed of light? Would that not require instant communication
between A and B? And if the system comprising body A and B already
"knows" their instantaneous relative velocity and position, why in the
fuck does it need to transmit it at the speed of light from one body
to another so as to correct a problem that should not exist in the
first place?
It is a rather simple thing to understand. This is the sort of thing
that completely destroys many of the assumptions of relativity. A good
part of it (not all of it) comes crumbling down like the world trade
center towers.
If you still don't get it, please don't reply.
Richard Perry
You'll have to follow closely, but there is no contradiction between
these views. I'll explain below.
>
> >Changes in that field
> >propagate at the speed of light, since they 'are' in fact light. The
> >question is whether or not changes in gravity propagate at the speed of
> >light, because these propagating changes are 'not' light, and are not
> >therefore necessarily bound by the same rules.
>
> According to Einstein, nothing can travel faster than light. And you
> know what? As weird as it may sound, I agree 100% with Einstein on
> this. I just don't believe that gravitational changes propagate. I
> believe they are instantaneously applied in a universal and non-local
> manner.
Even without wave propagation, you will still have particles interacting
with their local field, that is, even though an instantaneous connection
'appears' to occur between the particles. The solution is that the
particles and their field are one in the same entity. In addition,
propagation of a 'change' in field doesn't detract from the fact that
there is already field there, and moreover that local field is the
'instantaneous' superposition of the (non-local) fields of all other
particles in the universe. Propagation of 'change' in field is
accompanied and produced by changes in particle velocities (vectors).
all potentials are vector potentials.
As for the speed of gravity, I actually expect that to be c as well, or
near c in our region of the universe simply because gravity is an
electromagnetic effect. Moreover the perihelion advance of mercury
corresponds to a propagational delay of c, that is, such a delay will
perfectly account for mercury's orbit, and is in fact why GR predicted
it. GR is just Newton plus a gravitational propagation of c. Again, note
that the propagation is not really the propagation of field (field is
exerted nonlocally), it is the propagation of a 'change' in field.
OC
> In article <aea4c614.03010...@posting.google.com>,
> o.ch...@rhul.ac.uk (OC) wrote:
>
> >> <snip>
> >> The Newtonian approach, OTOH, assumes both absolute motion and
> >> instantaneous (non-local) application of conservation laws. Certainly,
> >> one could argue that, since the Newtonian system assumes the existence
> >> of absolute motion, velocity-dependent information could then be
> >> transmitted between moving bodies.
> >
> >
> >Since when there is absolute motion in classical mechanics?
> >You usually speak of motion respect to a frame of reference, and the
> >only preference is given to frames of reference where Newton's first
> >law is true ("inertial frames of reference").
>
> Relative means 'dependent' and absolute means 'independent'. The
> former needs a frame of reference, while the latter does not.
> Newton understood something that very few people understood. He tried
> his best to explain that the relative is abstract and is impossible
> without the absolute. This is true whether or not we can measure the
> absolute, as nature does not care what we can or cannot measure.
> Newton failed to get his point across mostly for political reasons.
I never thought that the motion of a body "needs" a frame of reference
(whatever it is meant with "need"), and I bet that classical mechanics
never says something like that.
A motion of a body is observed with respect to a frame of reference,
but the frame of reference does not affect the state of motion of the
body because it is a mathematical construct. It is like taking a
photograph of a system and drawing cartesian axes with markers on the
picture.
To describe a motion WE need a frame of reference, otherwise we cannot
deal with the motion of a body quantitatively.
Newton may have thought that there is a preferential (inertial) frame
of reference, but there is no way we can determine it within classical
mechanics.
> >> But even then, as I demonstrated
> >> above, this information would be useless in a gravitating system such
> >> as a galaxy. There is clearly a need for a non-local (instantaneous)
> >> application of gravitational influences between distant bodies in
> >> orbit. This need is exacerbated by distance, not diminished.
> >>
> >> |This cancellation is dictated by conservation laws and the
> >> |quadrupole nature of gravitational radiation.
> >>
> >> All conservation laws are nonlocal, meaning that they can be applied
> >> over great distances, **if necessary**. If you want to use
> >> conservation laws to explain gravity (which is all that should be used
> >> as all processes are governed by conservation laws), that is fine by
> >> me. But don't tell me that conservation laws are strictly local.
> >
> >
> >What about the equation of continuity in classical electrodynamics
> >(which expresses the local conservation of charge)?
> >And what makes you think that local conservation laws cannot be
> >applied over great distances?
>
> Uh, could it be because it is local and local means 'at one point or
> location'?
As far as I know local conservation is much stronger than global
conservation, because local conservation implies global conservation.
Take for example the conservation of charge in a system:
Global conservation means that the total charge of the system is
constant in time; you can decrease the charge in a point on one side
of the galaxy and increase at the same rate the charge in a point on
the other side.
Local conservation means that you can decrease charge in one point and
increase it at the same rate in another (the same as global
conservation), BUT the charge must flow from the first point to the
second.
You can't just make an electron disappear in one point and make it
reappear on the other side of the galaxy: the electron must travel all
the way from here to there.
> >> How can things influence others at a distance? Simply because space
> >> (distance) is both abstract and an illusion of the mind. Position,
> >> like every other property, is the intrinsic property of a particle,
> >> not that of an external entity.
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >
> >
> >As far as I remember, classical physics got rid of action at distance
> >when the concept of local action of a field was introduced.
> >The main example is electrodynamics.
>
> What is the point here? What do I care that classical physics thinks
> it got rid of action at a distance? The very concept of exclusive
> relative motion is a form of action at a distance.
What is this "exclusive relative motion"? (Especially "exclusive"
puzzles me.)
> >And since Coulmob's law for electrostatic interaction and Newton's law
> >for gravitational interaction have the same form, there is nothing in
> >the way of assuming that gravity is a local action of a field on a
> >body (instead of an action at distance between two bodies).
>
> Well there is. Even Carlip mentions in his paper that, in order for
> Newtonian gravity to work properly, changes in gravity would have to
> be much greater than the speed of light, which is forbidden, thus
> leaving only one alternative, non-local interactions.
Coulomb's law, exact for static systems, can be extended to systems
where changes in the electric field travel much faster that the
objects involved.
It is not hard to imagine that Newton's law for gravity can be
extended in the same way, under the same conditions. (What's wrong
with assuming that changes in gravitational field travel with the
speed of light?)
And all within classical mechanics.
> Carlip and others tried to get around this problem by postulating that
> information about the velocity of a moving source body is transmitted
> at c to a target body, thus giving the target body a way of
> determining the actual position of the source body. Problem is, the
> source body has no way of knowing about its velocity relative to any
> other body in the universe, short of possessing non-local abilities.
>
> One then wonders, if a body can instantaneously determine the relative
> motion between itself and another body over great distances, why does
> it need to transmit it at c to the other body, especially since the
> other body is privy to the same information? This point alone destroys
> the Carlipian argument.
>
> This is the fallacy of exclusive relativity that Newton tried to
> explain to the world but failed because of his insistence on an
> invisible absolute space.
>
> Louis Savain
By the way, I have no idea what Carlip wrote.
But the term "exclusive relativity" is puzzling.
OC
Franz Heymann
"Richard Perry" <no_mail...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3E1A3FF2...@yahoo.com...
[...]
> All particles interact with their local field. This is the only
> consistent solution to action at a distance. Changes in that field
> propagate at the speed of light, since they 'are' in fact light.
Photons, W+, W-, Z0, gluons
Franz Heymann
Jeff Krimmel
"Traveler" <eight...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1ank1v4kh48nb7fpj...@4ax.com...
Did you not continue reading to the very next paragraph?
|As a warm-up, let us first consider electrodynamics. It is well
|known that if a charged source moves at a constant velocity, the
|electric field experienced by a test particle points toward the
source's
|"instantaneous" position rather than its retarded position. Lorentz
|invariance demands that this be the case, since one may just as well
|think of the charge as being at rest while the test particle moves.
This
|effect does not mean that the electric field propagates
instantaneously;
|rather, the field of a moving charge has a velocity-dependent
|component that cancels the effect of propagation delay to first order
[9].
You ask:
>>This begs the question, how does one determine source velocity in GR?
Isn't velocity in relativity always relative? How can body A know of its
instantaneous velocity relative to body B so as to communicate it to B at
the speed of light?<<
Yes, velocity in relativity is always relative. Remember the first
postulate: the speed of light in a vaccum is constant for all observers,
regardless of their velocity relative to the source of the light itself.
Body A does not need to "know" its instantaneous velocity relative to body B
to communicate anything at the speed of light; if body A communicates
information to body B at the speed of light in one frame, it communicates
this information to body B at the speed of light in all other inertial
reference frames.
You now ask:
>>And if the system comprising body A and B already "knows" their
instantaneous relative velocity and position, why in the fuck does it need
to transmit it at the speed of light from one body to another so as to
correct a problem that should not exist in the first place?<<
What problem are you talking about here?
Regards,
Jeff
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Jeff Krimmel
"Traveler" <eight...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uvek1vgbceftg3ch6...@4ax.com...
> In article <hSqS9.122053$6H6.4...@twister.austin.rr.com>,
> stu...@linuxbox.anom.com (student) wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 06 Jan 2003 10:06:06 -0800, Traveler <eight...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> >>In article <3E19AE80...@hate.spam.net>, Uncle Al
> >><Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>>Hubris, plus delusions of adequacy:
> >>
> >>says Uncle Adolf, the [invective snipped ]
> >
> >which Al usually responds when the OP has not made even a single point
> >otherwise worthy of comment....in this case I completely concur with Al.
>
> And your opinion matters because of what, did you say?
For the same reason that yours matters, or mine, or any other who chooses to
post to this group.
ralph sansbury
> http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909087
self consistent interpretation of the observed data?
1)The GR curvature of space is tantamount to the premise that the
gravitational force of a large object on a smaller object at a
great distance (that causes the smaller object to orbit the
larger) not only determines the centripetal acceleration of the
object as in Newton's theory but also determines the rate of
change of acceleration. And it is this premise that avoids any
problems then with the speed of light delay in the radiating
force field as both objects move.
2) That this premise may also only work in the context of
orbital systems including perhaps galaxies that seem to be
moving in a straight line but might might be moving around some
center.
Richard Perry
These so-called particles are distributions of vector potentials in
space wrt a real particle, and are distributed in the field (space)
surrounding the real particle. They consisting entirely of perterbations
in the field. Your pseudo-particles don't interact with the field, being
actually a characteristic of that field, which is why, you crackpot,
they don't interact with one another, but do interact with real
particles.
Eric Gisse
wrote:
>In article <dv7k1vcqgnsjgcdvh...@4ax.com>, Eric Gisse
><kseggR...@uas.alaska.edu> wrote:
>
>>I like Uncle Al
>
>I know you like Uncle Adolf. You're a fucking racist geezer just like
>he is. With an army of ass kissers like you to defend him, he does not
>need to address the issues.
>
>So fuck you, Gisse, you ass kissing neanderthal! :D
>
>Louis Savain
Way to not respond to the rest of the post. So basically, you had a
grudge against Al and hate anyone who doesn't hate him the way you do.
Nifty.
Traveler
<kseggR...@uas.alaska.edu> wrote:
>On Mon, 06 Jan 2003 17:12:30 -0800, Traveler <eight...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <dv7k1vcqgnsjgcdvh...@4ax.com>, Eric Gisse
>><kseggR...@uas.alaska.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>I like Uncle Al
>>
>>I know you like Uncle Adolf. You're a fucking racist geezer just like
>>he is. With an army of ass kissers like you to defend him, he does not
>>need to address the issues.
>>
>>So fuck you, Gisse, you ass kissing neanderthal! :D
>>
>>Louis Savain
>
>Way to not respond to the rest of the post. So basically, you had a
>grudge against Al and hate anyone who doesn't hate him the way you do.
>Nifty.
Yeah, that's right. I hate the motherfucker because not only is he a
fucking racist asshole, but he is a fucking ass-kissing politician to
boot. So indeed, anybody who kisses Uncle Adolf's ass is even worse
then he is.
Traveler
I have no problem with the above. This is, in fact, the reason that
Newton believed (correctly, I should add) that true positions and true
velocities (whether or not we can measure them) are absolute.
The relativist doctrine, however, is that everything (i.e., all
velocities and all positions) is relative and there is no absolute.
This is a rather stupid stance to take because, if that were true, one
would end up with a self-referential system. This is just one of the
many reasons that everything in nature is absolute.
>Newton may have thought that there is a preferential (inertial) frame
>of reference, but there is no way we can determine it within classical
>mechanics.
The point that Newton made is that everything is absolute and the
relative is abstract, not physical. The absolute has no use for a
reference frame to be compared to, since it is absolute. Only the
relative must be compared to reference frame. Newton was wrong about
the need for an absolute space (or reference frame). In an absolute
system, the position of a particle is not the property of an external
space (how could it be, since it is the position OF the particle?),
but an intrinsic variable property of the particle.
>> >> But even then, as I demonstrated
>> >> above, this information would be useless in a gravitating system such
>> >> as a galaxy. There is clearly a need for a non-local (instantaneous)
>> >> application of gravitational influences between distant bodies in
>> >> orbit. This need is exacerbated by distance, not diminished.
>> >>
>> >> |This cancellation is dictated by conservation laws and the
>> >> |quadrupole nature of gravitational radiation.
>> >>
>> >> All conservation laws are nonlocal, meaning that they can be applied
>> >> over great distances, **if necessary**. If you want to use
>> >> conservation laws to explain gravity (which is all that should be used
>> >> as all processes are governed by conservation laws), that is fine by
>> >> me. But don't tell me that conservation laws are strictly local.
>> >
>> >
>> >What about the equation of continuity in classical electrodynamics
>> >(which expresses the local conservation of charge)?
>> >And what makes you think that local conservation laws cannot be
>> >applied over great distances?
>>
>> Uh, could it be because it is local and local means 'at one point or
>> location'?
>
>
>As far as I know local conservation is much stronger than global
>conservation, because local conservation implies global conservation.
And vice versa, in my opinion, since global conservation is ultimately
applied locally through a local interaction.
>Take for example the conservation of charge in a system:
>Global conservation means that the total charge of the system is
>constant in time; you can decrease the charge in a point on one side
>of the galaxy and increase at the same rate the charge in a point on
>the other side.
Correct. I am convinced that something similar is happening with
regard to gravity.
>Local conservation means that you can decrease charge in one point and
>increase it at the same rate in another (the same as global
>conservation), BUT the charge must flow from the first point to the
>second.
Yes. I have no problem with this.
>You can't just make an electron disappear in one point and make it
>reappear on the other side of the galaxy: the electron must travel all
>the way from here to there.
As long as a global symmetry is conserved, I don't see why not. But I
agree that the example you gave is not symmetrical and therefore would
violate a symmetry conservation principle.
>> >> How can things influence others at a distance? Simply because space
>> >> (distance) is both abstract and an illusion of the mind. Position,
>> >> like every other property, is the intrinsic property of a particle,
>> >> not that of an external entity.
>> >>
>> >> <snip>
>> >
>> >
>> >As far as I remember, classical physics got rid of action at distance
>> >when the concept of local action of a field was introduced.
>> >The main example is electrodynamics.
>>
>> What is the point here? What do I care that classical physics thinks
>> it got rid of action at a distance? The very concept of exclusive
>> relative motion is a form of action at a distance.
>
>
>What is this "exclusive relative motion"? (Especially "exclusive"
>puzzles me.)
This is what I call the relativist creed that I mentioned above,
according to which, everything is relative without exception.
>> >And since Coulmob's law for electrostatic interaction and Newton's law
>> >for gravitational interaction have the same form, there is nothing in
>> >the way of assuming that gravity is a local action of a field on a
>> >body (instead of an action at distance between two bodies).
>>
>> Well there is. Even Carlip mentions in his paper that, in order for
>> Newtonian gravity to work properly, changes in gravity would have to
>> be much greater than the speed of light, which is forbidden, thus
>> leaving only one alternative, non-local interactions.
>
>Coulomb's law, exact for static systems, can be extended to systems
>where changes in the electric field travel much faster that the
>objects involved.
>It is not hard to imagine that Newton's law for gravity can be
>extended in the same way, under the same conditions. (What's wrong
>with assuming that changes in gravitational field travel with the
>speed of light?)
>
>And all within classical mechanics.
In Newtonian gravity, source position is central to the forces in
action. The position of body A is assumed to instantaneously influence
the gravitation of body B. If body B were to respond to the retarded
position of body A, as received by propagating disturbance in the
gravitational field (the GR doctrine) then Newtonian gravity would be
completely wrong. This is agreed upon by all parties in this debate.
Steve Carlip and others tried to get around this problem in GR by
being clever. They claim that GR can reproduce the Newtonian result by
positing that body B uses velocity-dependent information that it
receives from body A via the speed of light disturbances, in such a
way that body B can react gravitationally to the actual (extrapolated
from the late-arriving velocity info) instantaneous position of A.
I explain elsewhere in this thread why Carlip's argument is nonsense.
Carlip is assuming the very thing he is trying to disprove, i.e., his
argument assumes (apparently without his knowledge but one can never
be sure with those guys) non-local interactions between distant bodies
within GR. In fact, using the same argument, I can easily show that
relativity as a theory, assumes action at a distance even though it
purports to disprove it.
----------------------------------------------
[begin soap box]
I have plenty of enemies on these NGs. They normally waste no time to
point out one my errors (actual or supposed) so as to discredit me and
make me look like a fool, since they all think that this is a
popularity contest. Yet, I have started this thread several days ago
and not one of them has ventured out to point out the error of my
argument regarding Carlip's paper.
All they have done so far, is have morons and cretins like Stephen
Speicher, Dirk Van de merde, Uncle Adolf and his racist band of ass
kissers, come out to heap ridicule on my person and dismiss my
argument as unworthy of discussion in the hope that other readers
would do the same. Again, the assholes think this is all about a
popularity contest.
The truth is that the assholes know that they don't have a coherent
rebuttal, and that, if they could gather up enough guts to address my
argument, they might say something stupid, in which case I would not
hesitate to tear them a new asshole and rub their noses in their own
shit. And they're right. In other words, the spineless ass kissers are
hunkering down in their holes like the jellyfish that they are. They
are scared. Still, I am hoping against all hope that one of them might
actually be stupid enough to address the issue I bring up vis-a-vis
Carlip's nonsense.
[end soap box]
This is beautiful! :D
Franz Heymann
> Franz Heymann wrote:
> >
> > "Richard Perry" <no_mail...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:3E1A3FF2...@yahoo.com...
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > All particles interact with their local field. This is the only
> > > consistent solution to action at a distance. Changes in that
field
> > > propagate at the speed of light, since they 'are' in fact light.
> >
> > Photons, W+, W-, Z0, gluons
> >
> > Franz Heymann
>
> These so-called particles are distributions of vector potentials in
> space wrt a real particle, and are distributed in the field (space)
> surrounding the real particle.
Thoae will of course be virtual vector bosons, akin to the virtual
photons of which an electric field is composed.
However, I am sure you will agree that real photons are abundantly
available as free particles.
See my continuation of this theme a little lower down.
> They consisting entirely of perterbations
> in the field. Your pseudo-particles don't interact with the field,
being
> actually a characteristic of that field, which is why, you crackpot,
> they don't interact with one another, but do interact with real
> particles.
You are of course wrong.
W+, W- and Z0 have all been produced inn great abundance as free
particles, initially at CERN, but now at other laboratories as well.
Their masses are known to two orders of magnitude of accuracy better
than you know your own mass.
Franz Heymann
Ken S. Tucker
> "Traveler" <eight...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:n2uh1v82uv6goi9sf...@4ax.com...
> > http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909087
> >
> > The fallacy is simply this. Take the simple case of two massive
> bodies
> > that are moving at the same speed and direction at a given
> distance
> > from each other. Their relative velocity is temporarily zero.
[snip agreed]
> If the following statements are true, dont they suggest
> self consistent interpretation of the observed data?
>
> 1)The GR curvature of space is tantamount to the premise that the
> gravitational force of a large object on a smaller object at a
> great distance (that causes the smaller object to orbit the
> larger) not only determines the centripetal acceleration of the
> object as in Newton's theory but also determines the rate of
> change of acceleration. And it is this premise that avoids any
> problems then with the speed of light delay in the radiating
> force field as both objects move.
> 2) That this premise may also only work in the context of
> orbital systems including perhaps galaxies that seem to be
> moving in a straight line but might might be moving around some
> center.
I read Dr. Carlip's paper that Traveller refers to, several times,
and I must confess I do not understand it, so can't critique it.
I think the problem of aberration of gravitation can be solved
from the Principle of Equivalence.
Briefly, the force of gravitation on Earth due to the Sun does
point to the *apparent* position of the Sun, and does produce
a tangential force vector in the direction of Earth's orbital
motion. However, the inertial component (centrifugal force)
is in exactly the opposite direction, of the force of gravity,
and produces an equal and opposite tangential force in the
direction opposite to Earth's motion.
A basic proof is presented on the post,
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: light, any objections to the accepted?
References: <9571fc65.02051...@posting.google.com>
And a few other clarifying posts on this problem exist,
if you want.
GR is frought with different ways of solving the same problem,
so it could be that Dr. Carlips treatment is more detailed.
I don't know if Traveller is more interested in debunking
Dr. Carlip, or understanding the phenomena, but as he
invited objective comment, I'm quite prepared to value
criticism, comments or questions.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
Traveler
<no_mail...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Traveler wrote:
>>
>> In article <3E1A3FF2...@yahoo.com>, Richard Perry
>> <no_mail...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Traveler wrote:
[cut]
Well, I agree. That is, if one is talking about changes in EM field
which is composed of radiating photons.
>As for the speed of gravity, I actually expect that to be c as well, or
>near c in our region of the universe simply because gravity is an
>electromagnetic effect. Moreover the perihelion advance of mercury
>corresponds to a propagational delay of c, that is, such a delay will
>perfectly account for mercury's orbit, and is in fact why GR predicted
>it. GR is just Newton plus a gravitational propagation of c. Again, note
>that the propagation is not really the propagation of field (field is
>exerted nonlocally), it is the propagation of a 'change' in field.
I have to disagree with you about changes in gravity being propagated
at c. For one, the GR argument is inconsistent because it assumes the
very thing is purports to eliminate: instantaneous (non-local) action
at a distance. I have posted my argument elsewhere in this thread but
suffice it to say that the GR argument hinges on source velocity
information being sent from one body to another. This supposes that
information about relative velocity between gravitating bodies is
instantly available to all bodies. This is clearly incompatible with
the relativist's stance vis-a-vis action at a distance. Besides, if
this information is already available non-locally, why send it again?
Why not apply the conservation laws non-locally?
In my opinion, there are only three possibilities:
1. If the GR argument is correct (i.e., there is no action at a
distance and velocity-dependent terms are being propagated at c from
one body to another), then the relativist's stance regarding the
non-existence of absolute position/motion is wrong. There is no other
way to obtain instantaneous velocity info without knowing the
instantaneous relative velocity between two bodies that can very well
be light years apart.
2. If there is no absolute motion, i.e. if all velocities and
positions in the universe are relative to one another (this is the
relativist's creed, which I can easily prove to be illogical), then
one has to concede that non-local information is already available to
the system, thereby disproving the hypothesis that forbids action at a
distance.
3. If non-local information is already available instantly to
gravitating bodies, then it is available to all particles in the
universe and changes in gravity are felt instantly everywhere, so as
to obey universal conservation laws.
I personally believe 3 is correct at this point (although I may change
my mind later if presented with new evidence). This means that certain
types of particles (electrostatic photons) that are radiating from
charged bodies are constantly altering their course and orientation to
obey non-local (global or universal) conservation principles. I
believe that gravity is a by-product of superposed electrostatic
fields which consist of photons emanating from bodies. In fact, as
Carlip mentions in his paper, charged bodies are known to behave as if
they are reacting to their instantaneous positions, not their retarded
positions. I doubt that this is the case for magnetic fields.
As far as the Newtonian discrepancy vis-a-vis the perihelion advance
of mercury, I think the reason most likely has to do with two things
that are missing in Newtonian physics: relativistic clock slowing (aka
time dilation) and gravitomagnetic effects. The latter, the so-called
frame-dragging effects, do indeed propagate at c but are very slight
and can probably be ignored.
Eric Gisse
wrote:
>In article <rhbm1vooni0g3v8am...@4ax.com>, Eric Gisse
><kseggR...@uas.alaska.edu> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 06 Jan 2003 17:12:30 -0800, Traveler <eight...@hotmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <dv7k1vcqgnsjgcdvh...@4ax.com>, Eric Gisse
>>><kseggR...@uas.alaska.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I like Uncle Al
>>>
>>>I know you like Uncle Adolf. You're a fucking racist geezer just like
>>>he is. With an army of ass kissers like you to defend him, he does not
>>>need to address the issues.
>>>
>>>So fuck you, Gisse, you ass kissing neanderthal! :D
>>>
>>>Louis Savain
>>
>>Way to not respond to the rest of the post. So basically, you had a
>>grudge against Al and hate anyone who doesn't hate him the way you do.
>>Nifty.
>
>Yeah, that's right. I hate the motherfucker because not only is he a
>fucking racist asshole, but he is a fucking ass-kissing politician to
>boot. So indeed, anybody who kisses Uncle Adolf's ass is even worse
>then he is.
So-ooo, you respond to like with like?
Traveler
<kseggR...@uas.alaska.edu> wrote:
>On Tue, 07 Jan 2003 12:23:01 -0800, Traveler <eight...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <rhbm1vooni0g3v8am...@4ax.com>, Eric Gisse
>><kseggR...@uas.alaska.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 06 Jan 2003 17:12:30 -0800, Traveler <eight...@hotmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <dv7k1vcqgnsjgcdvh...@4ax.com>, Eric Gisse
>>>><kseggR...@uas.alaska.edu> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I like Uncle Al
>>>>
>>>>I know you like Uncle Adolf. You're a fucking racist geezer just like
>>>>he is. With an army of ass kissers like you to defend him, he does not
>>>>need to address the issues.
>>>>
>>>>So fuck you, Gisse, you ass kissing neanderthal! :D
>>>>
>>>>Louis Savain
>>>
>>>Way to not respond to the rest of the post. So basically, you had a
>>>grudge against Al and hate anyone who doesn't hate him the way you do.
>>>Nifty.
>>
>>Yeah, that's right. I hate the motherfucker because not only is he a
>>fucking racist asshole, but he is a fucking ass-kissing politician to
>>boot. So indeed, anybody who kisses Uncle Adolf's ass is even worse
>>then he is.
>
>So-ooo, you respond to like with like?
Not at all, since I am neither a fucking racist, nor a fucking ass
kisser, nor a fucking politician.
Laurel Amberdine
<large snip>
> motion between itself and another body over great distances, why does
> it need to transmit it at c to the other body, especially since the
> other body is privy to the same information? This point alone destroys
> the Carlipian argument.
Disregarding the actual content of the thread, I think "Carlipian" has a
very nice ring to it. :)
-Laurel
OC
In classical mechanics there no such thing as "true positions" or
"true velocities".
Whenever a physicist speaks of position or velocity of a body, a frame
of reference has been explicitly or implicitly defined. Position,
velocity, acceleration are always relative to a frame of reference.
The only thing that can be called absolute in classical mechanics is
the distance between two points in space and the interval between two
instants in time. Both distance and time-interval are separately
invariant when one goes from one (arbitrary) frame of reference to
another.
(In special relativity the two quantities are not separately
invariant: the space-time interval is invariant.)
> >Newton may have thought that there is a preferential (inertial) frame
> >of reference, but there is no way we can determine it within classical
> >mechanics.
>
> The point that Newton made is that everything is absolute and the
> relative is abstract, not physical. The absolute has no use for a
> reference frame to be compared to, since it is absolute. Only the
> relative must be compared to reference frame. Newton was wrong about
> the need for an absolute space (or reference frame). In an absolute
> system, the position of a particle is not the property of an external
> space (how could it be, since it is the position OF the particle?),
> but an intrinsic variable property of the particle.
In classical mechanics you will not find any mention of an "absolute"
system nor that the position of a particle is a property of an
external space (whatever "external space" means). And space is not the
same as frame of reference.
The coordinates of the position of a particle (the numbers you use to
find the particle) depend on the frame of reference. A particle in
space has a position and we can identify the position by using a frame
of reference.
What do you mean with "intrinsic variable property"?
> >> >> But even then, as I demonstrated
> >> >> above, this information would be useless in a gravitating system such
> >> >> as a galaxy. There is clearly a need for a non-local (instantaneous)
> >> >> application of gravitational influences between distant bodies in
> >> >> orbit. This need is exacerbated by distance, not diminished.
> >> >>
> >> >> |This cancellation is dictated by conservation laws and the
> >> >> |quadrupole nature of gravitational radiation.
> >> >>
> >> >> All conservation laws are nonlocal, meaning that they can be applied
> >> >> over great distances, **if necessary**. If you want to use
> >> >> conservation laws to explain gravity (which is all that should be used
> >> >> as all processes are governed by conservation laws), that is fine by
> >> >> me. But don't tell me that conservation laws are strictly local.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >What about the equation of continuity in classical electrodynamics
> >> >(which expresses the local conservation of charge)?
> >> >And what makes you think that local conservation laws cannot be
> >> >applied over great distances?
> >>
> >> Uh, could it be because it is local and local means 'at one point or
> >> location'?
> >
> >
> >As far as I know local conservation is much stronger than global
> >conservation, because local conservation implies global conservation.
>
> And vice versa, in my opinion, since global conservation is ultimately
> applied locally through a local interaction.
If the viceversa were true, local conservation and global conservation
would be equivalent. But that's not the case.
To have global conservation of charge in the universe, you don't need
the charge to flow from one point to the other (it might just
disappear and reappear).
> >Take for example the conservation of charge in a system:
> >Global conservation means that the total charge of the system is
> >constant in time; you can decrease the charge in a point on one side
> >of the galaxy and increase at the same rate the charge in a point on
> >the other side.
>
> Correct. I am convinced that something similar is happening with
> regard to gravity.
And what would be the "charge" in this case?
> >Local conservation means that you can decrease charge in one point and
> >increase it at the same rate in another (the same as global
> >conservation), BUT the charge must flow from the first point to the
> >second.
>
> Yes. I have no problem with this.
>
> >You can't just make an electron disappear in one point and make it
> >reappear on the other side of the galaxy: the electron must travel all
> >the way from here to there.
>
> As long as a global symmetry is conserved, I don't see why not. But I
> agree that the example you gave is not symmetrical and therefore would
> violate a symmetry conservation principle.
What is this global symmetry? What is a symmetry conservation
principle?
> >> >> How can things influence others at a distance? Simply because space
> >> >> (distance) is both abstract and an illusion of the mind. Position,
> >> >> like every other property, is the intrinsic property of a particle,
> >> >> not that of an external entity.
> >> >>
> >> >> <snip>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >As far as I remember, classical physics got rid of action at distance
> >> >when the concept of local action of a field was introduced.
> >> >The main example is electrodynamics.
> >>
> >> What is the point here? What do I care that classical physics thinks
> >> it got rid of action at a distance? The very concept of exclusive
> >> relative motion is a form of action at a distance.
> >
> >
> >What is this "exclusive relative motion"? (Especially "exclusive"
> >puzzles me.)
>
> This is what I call the relativist creed that I mentioned above,
> according to which, everything is relative without exception.
Well, in special relativity space-time intervals are invariant.
> >> >And since Coulmob's law for electrostatic interaction and Newton's law
> >> >for gravitational interaction have the same form, there is nothing in
> >> >the way of assuming that gravity is a local action of a field on a
> >> >body (instead of an action at distance between two bodies).
> >>
> >> Well there is. Even Carlip mentions in his paper that, in order for
> >> Newtonian gravity to work properly, changes in gravity would have to
> >> be much greater than the speed of light, which is forbidden, thus
> >> leaving only one alternative, non-local interactions.
> >
> >Coulomb's law, exact for static systems, can be extended to systems
> >where changes in the electric field travel much faster that the
> >objects involved.
> >It is not hard to imagine that Newton's law for gravity can be
> >extended in the same way, under the same conditions. (What's wrong
> >with assuming that changes in gravitational field travel with the
> >speed of light?)
> >
> >And all within classical mechanics.
>
> In Newtonian gravity, source position is central to the forces in
> action. The position of body A is assumed to instantaneously influence
> the gravitation of body B. If body B were to respond to the retarded
> position of body A, as received by propagating disturbance in the
> gravitational field (the GR doctrine) then Newtonian gravity would be
> completely wrong. This is agreed upon by all parties in this debate.
What about a static situation?
I do not see why general relativity should not reduce to Newton's law
in the limit of a static system.
And I bet you cannot find a physicist that says that Newton's law is
completely wrong if general relativity is correct.
> <snip>
OC
Jan
> [I thought this deserved a whole new thread. Re-edited with
> additions.]
>
> http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909087
>
> This paper at the link above is the same nonsense that Carlip has been
> selling for years. The fallacy of the Carlipian argument can be seen
> in the very abstract of the paper, as follows:
Discuss the paper, not the abstract. Plus, you really should find a different hobby.
Jan Bielawski
Traveler
dev_n...@yahoo.com (Jan) wrote:
Eat shit, Bielawski. :D
Traveler
o.ch...@rhul.ac.uk (OC) wrote:
>Traveler <eight...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<9qfm1v81qdt3dnfom...@4ax.com>...
>> In article <aea4c614.03010...@posting.google.com>,
>> o.ch...@rhul.ac.uk (OC) wrote:
>>
>> >Traveler <eight...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<guhj1v041nv50cp4c...@4ax.com>...
>> >> In article <aea4c614.03010...@posting.google.com>,
>> >> o.ch...@rhul.ac.uk (OC) wrote:
>> >>
[cut]
>In classical mechanics there no such thing as "true positions" or
>"true velocities".
>Whenever a physicist speaks of position or velocity of a body, a frame
>of reference has been explicitly or implicitly defined. Position,
>velocity, acceleration are always relative to a frame of reference.
>The only thing that can be called absolute in classical mechanics is
>the distance between two points in space and the interval between two
>instants in time. Both distance and time-interval are separately
>invariant when one goes from one (arbitrary) frame of reference to
>another.
>(In special relativity the two quantities are not separately
>invariant: the space-time interval is invariant.)
Newton tried to explain that nature and particles could not care less
about our frames of reference. Yet things work flawlessly. Why? The
reason is that everything is absolute and does not need a frame of
reference. IOW, our indirect relative observations owe their
correctness and consistency to an absolute system, and this, whether
or not we can directly measure positions and velocities within the
system. This is a valid point that continually goes over the heads of
modern relativists.
>> >Newton may have thought that there is a preferential (inertial) frame
>> >of reference, but there is no way we can determine it within classical
>> >mechanics.
>>
>> The point that Newton made is that everything is absolute and the
>> relative is abstract, not physical. The absolute has no use for a
>> reference frame to be compared to, since it is absolute. Only the
>> relative must be compared to reference frame. Newton was wrong about
>> the need for an absolute space (or reference frame). In an absolute
>> system, the position of a particle is not the property of an external
>> space (how could it be, since it is the position OF the particle?),
>> but an intrinsic variable property of the particle.
>
>
>In classical mechanics you will not find any mention of an "absolute"
>system nor that the position of a particle is a property of an
>external space (whatever "external space" means).
Yes you do. External space simply means multi-dimensional manifold.
> And space is not the
>same as frame of reference.
Newton's absolute space is an FOR.
>The coordinates of the position of a particle (the numbers you use to
>find the particle) depend on the frame of reference. A particle in
>space has a position and we can identify the position by using a frame
>of reference.
IMO, you are trying to explain nature using the observer's point of
view. Nature could not care less about observers and FORs. In order to
truly understand nature we have to go beyond FORs and use nature's
point of view. Be the particle! Otherwise, we are stuck in a rut of
our own making.
>What do you mean with "intrinsic variable property"?
It can be logically shown that there is no space out there. There
exist only particles. Therefore all properties are intrinsic to
particles, including positional information. Thus the 4-position
(assuming a 4-dimensional universe) of a particle simply consists of
four variables. Not unlike the position property of an object in a
video game. Furthermore, all properties are absolute by virtue of
being intrinsic.
[cut]
>> >As far as I know local conservation is much stronger than global
>> >conservation, because local conservation implies global conservation.
>>
>> And vice versa, in my opinion, since global conservation is ultimately
>> applied locally through a local interaction.
>
>
>If the viceversa were true, local conservation and global conservation
>would be equivalent. But that's not the case.
>To have global conservation of charge in the universe, you don't need
>the charge to flow from one point to the other (it might just
>disappear and reappear).
Well, I agree. But I am quickly coming to the realization that all
conservation principles are global and that local interactions are
just a manifestation of this.
>> >Take for example the conservation of charge in a system:
>> >Global conservation means that the total charge of the system is
>> >constant in time; you can decrease the charge in a point on one side
>> >of the galaxy and increase at the same rate the charge in a point on
>> >the other side.
>>
>> Correct. I am convinced that something similar is happening with
>> regard to gravity.
>
>
>And what would be the "charge" in this case?
Just vector energy. I believe that energy is borrowed when there are a
lot of particles moving around in a given space. This energy must be
repaid, somehow, at the earliest opportunity to obey conservation
laws. I believe that gravity is nature's way of maintaining a balance.
[cut]
>> >You can't just make an electron disappear in one point and make it
>> >reappear on the other side of the galaxy: the electron must travel all
>> >the way from here to there.
>>
>> As long as a global symmetry is conserved, I don't see why not. But I
>> agree that the example you gave is not symmetrical and therefore would
>> violate a symmetry conservation principle.
>
>
>What is this global symmetry? What is a symmetry conservation
>principle?
It simply means that all vector quantities must sum up to zero. This
is derived from this observation: the only ontology of substance that
does not lead to an infinite regress is one that postulates that
everything is made of nothing. For this to be true, all quantities
must sum up to zero.
[cut]
>> >What is this "exclusive relative motion"? (Especially "exclusive"
>> >puzzles me.)
>>
>> This is what I call the relativist creed that I mentioned above,
>> according to which, everything is relative without exception.
>
>
>Well, in special relativity space-time intervals are invariant.
Right. By everything I was referring to position and velocity.
[cut]
>> In Newtonian gravity, source position is central to the forces in
>> action. The position of body A is assumed to instantaneously influence
>> the gravitation of body B. If body B were to respond to the retarded
>> position of body A, as received by propagating disturbance in the
>> gravitational field (the GR doctrine) then Newtonian gravity would be
>> completely wrong. This is agreed upon by all parties in this debate.
>
>
>What about a static situation?
>I do not see why general relativity should not reduce to Newton's law
>in the limit of a static system.
Certainly. In a weak field approximation, GR indeed reduces to
Newtonian gravity and both predict the same results within
experimental margins of error.
>And I bet you cannot find a physicist that says that Newton's law is
>completely wrong if general relativity is correct.
Most general relativists do since they believe that gravitational
changes propagate at the speed of light and Newtonian gravity assumes
instantaneous effects.
Hayek
Traveler wrote:
> Which, of course, you very conveniently fail to address. This is one
> of the first things they teach you at MAKS (Mutual Ass Kissing
> Society): If you have no clever rebuttal against your opponent's
> argument (especially if you know he may tear you a new asshole), just
> ignore it and come up with some nerdy ridicule instead. You are an ass
> kissing neanderthal just like the others, aren't you, Anderson?
It sapiens who invented ass kissing, Louis.
Why do you think neanderthal lost his job ? :-)
The earliest intelligence was social behaviour,
figuratively "ass kissing", to stay in the group and
survive. On the other end of the spectrum, is relativity
, one of the latest. You see clearly here which one came
first and still prevails. :-)
Hayek.
--
The small particles wave at
the big stars and get noticed.
:-)
Hayek
Traveler wrote:
> IOW, Speicher knows I could tear him a new asshole
Don't, you will only double his fun at the bathhouse in
the weekend.
if he dared to
> venture a rebuttal that actually addressed the issue. But being the
> spineless ass kisser that he is, he chooses the usual gutless
> political route.
That's Speicher allright.
Robert Kolker
Traveler wrote:
>
> Newton tried to explain that nature and particles could not care less
> about our frames of reference. Yet things work flawlessly. Why? The
> reason is that everything is absolute and does not need a frame of
> reference. IOW, our indirect relative observations owe their
> correctness and consistency to an absolute system, and this, whether
> or not we can directly measure positions and velocities within the
> system. This is a valid point that continually goes over the heads of
> modern relativists.
Humor me. Assume you know the absolute velocity of an unaccelerated
object. Now how would you communicate its position and velocity to me so
I could see and measure it also. What would you write down as a
procedure for me to observe what you observe.
The only way I could see that happening is for you to specify a
distinguished frame of reference in which all physical laws could be
experessed. If so, what is that frame of reference (call it an absolute
frame of reference, if it so pleases you).
Bob Kolker
Bob Kolker
Uncle Al
There is no such reference frame/coordinate system possible. Absolute
velocity does not exist, QED.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Traveler
<bobk...@attbi.com> wrote:
The problem with you, Kolker, is that you keep thinking that nature
gives a fuck about you and you frames of reference. One wonders how
nature can work so well without giving a fuck about relativists and
their fucking frames of reference.
I want to understand nature, not the observer. I want to place myself
in a particle's place and ask, how do I move in a straight line at a
given velocity? It is fucking time that physics moves away from a
strict observer-centric approach to understanding nature to a
particle-centric approach.
What is my point? My point is this, take your fucking reference frames
and pack'm up your asses. :D
Daniel Weston
When Louis Savain says, "...nature could not care less..." does he in
fact mean that "...nature could care less"? The NOT as used means that
nature cares. How so?
Traveler
<23259-3E1...@storefull-2175.public.lawson.webtv.net>,
dani...@webtv.net (Daniel Weston) wrote:
>When Louis Savain signs off with a _D_, What does that mean?
Not D but :D
It means (my own interpretation), "I'm happy as a clam."
>When Louis Savain says, "...nature could not care less..." does he in
>fact mean that "...nature could care less"? The NOT as used means that
>nature cares. How so?
OK. You got me there. Sometimes my typing fingers have a mind of their
own. It's good thing you volunteered your editing services. What would
I do without you, Weston? :-)
Traveler
<Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
[cut]
>There is no such reference frame/coordinate system possible.
Relativists use relative reference frames and coordinate systems all
the time even though they don't exist.
Unhappily, I find myself in agreement with Uncle Adolf (may a
lightning bolt strike his racist ass!) but not for the reasons he is
thinking. The fact is that the absolute does not require a reference
frame, by definition. "Reference" means "relative" and makes sense
only when speaking of the relative. Again, 'relative' means
'dependent' (as in a relationship) whereas 'absolute' means
'independent'.
> Absolute velocity does not exist, QED.
There's one thing we know for sure. Uncle Adolf's brain does not
exist. Why? Because it is relative to his ass hole.
OC
Physicists do not say that things happen because there is a frame of
reference.
But we need a frame of reference to describe what happens. You cannot
describe a physical system without using explicitly or implicitly a
frame of reference, even if we cannot measure directly all the
quantities.
> >> >Newton may have thought that there is a preferential (inertial) frame
> >> >of reference, but there is no way we can determine it within classical
> >> >mechanics.
> >>
> >> The point that Newton made is that everything is absolute and the
> >> relative is abstract, not physical. The absolute has no use for a
> >> reference frame to be compared to, since it is absolute. Only the
> >> relative must be compared to reference frame. Newton was wrong about
> >> the need for an absolute space (or reference frame). In an absolute
> >> system, the position of a particle is not the property of an external
> >> space (how could it be, since it is the position OF the particle?),
> >> but an intrinsic variable property of the particle.
> >
> >
> >In classical mechanics you will not find any mention of an "absolute"
> >system nor that the position of a particle is a property of an
> >external space (whatever "external space" means).
>
> Yes you do. External space simply means multi-dimensional manifold.
> > And space is not the
> >same as frame of reference.
>
> Newton's absolute space is an FOR.
From what you are saying, you seem to identify a vector space with a
base (just as an example).
A vector space does not need a base to be.
We need a base to describe the vector of this space, and usually we
choose the most convenient one.
You can say that Newton's absolute space is a 3-dimensional euclidean
space, but to describe its vectors (positions, velocities,
accelerations) we need to define a base, a frame of reference.
> >The coordinates of the position of a particle (the numbers you use to
> >find the particle) depend on the frame of reference. A particle in
> >space has a position and we can identify the position by using a frame
> >of reference.
>
> IMO, you are trying to explain nature using the observer's point of
> view. Nature could not care less about observers and FORs. In order to
> truly understand nature we have to go beyond FORs and use nature's
> point of view. Be the particle! Otherwise, we are stuck in a rut of
> our own making.
We are observers. If we want to describe what happens in nature, we
need to use frames of reference, otherwise we cannot express what we
observe (or what we expect to observe).
Whenever a physicist wants to describe a system, experimentally or
theoretically, a frame of reference is used explicitly or implicitly.
If we take a particle, a "natural" frame of reference is the one where
the particle is at rest. In this frame of reference, we can describe
what happens as it is "observed" by the particle. But it is not the
only possible choice.
> >What do you mean with "intrinsic variable property"?
>
> It can be logically shown that there is no space out there. There
> exist only particles. Therefore all properties are intrinsic to
> particles, including positional information. Thus the 4-position
> (assuming a 4-dimensional universe) of a particle simply consists of
> four variables. Not unlike the position property of an object in a
> video game. Furthermore, all properties are absolute by virtue of
> being intrinsic.
You better explain more in detail what you mean.
> [cut]
> >> >As far as I know local conservation is much stronger than global
> >> >conservation, because local conservation implies global conservation.
> >>
> >> And vice versa, in my opinion, since global conservation is ultimately
> >> applied locally through a local interaction.
> >
> >
> >If the viceversa were true, local conservation and global conservation
> >would be equivalent. But that's not the case.
> >To have global conservation of charge in the universe, you don't need
> >the charge to flow from one point to the other (it might just
> >disappear and reappear).
>
> Well, I agree. But I am quickly coming to the realization that all
> conservation principles are global and that local interactions are
> just a manifestation of this.
Explain how global conservation principles manifest themselves as
local interaction.
> >> >Take for example the conservation of charge in a system:
> >> >Global conservation means that the total charge of the system is
> >> >constant in time; you can decrease the charge in a point on one side
> >> >of the galaxy and increase at the same rate the charge in a point on
> >> >the other side.
> >>
> >> Correct. I am convinced that something similar is happening with
> >> regard to gravity.
> >
> >
> >And what would be the "charge" in this case?
>
> Just vector energy. I believe that energy is borrowed when there are a
> lot of particles moving around in a given space. This energy must be
> repaid, somehow, at the earliest opportunity to obey conservation
> laws. I believe that gravity is nature's way of maintaining a balance.
Please define "vector energy". Where is this energy borrowed from?
> [cut]
> >> >You can't just make an electron disappear in one point and make it
> >> >reappear on the other side of the galaxy: the electron must travel all
> >> >the way from here to there.
> >>
> >> As long as a global symmetry is conserved, I don't see why not. But I
> >> agree that the example you gave is not symmetrical and therefore would
> >> violate a symmetry conservation principle.
> >
> >
> >What is this global symmetry? What is a symmetry conservation
> >principle?
>
> It simply means that all vector quantities must sum up to zero. This
> is derived from this observation: the only ontology of substance that
> does not lead to an infinite regress is one that postulates that
> everything is made of nothing. For this to be true, all quantities
> must sum up to zero.
What happens with non-vectorial quantities?
You cannot accept Newton's law as a limit of general relativity and at
the same time think that it is completely wrong.
OC
Robert Kolker
Uncle Al wrote:
>
> There is no such reference frame/coordinate system possible. Absolute
> velocity does not exist, QED.
>
My point exactly.
Bob Kolker
Jeff Krimmel
"Daniel Weston" <dani...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:23259-3E1...@storefull-2175.public.lawson.webtv.net...
Why I am responding to this I know not, but....it something "could not care
less", this means that it cares as little as possible. If something _could_
care less, then it does express some care at the moment, and this care could
be minimized even further. So, to say something "could not care less" means
it cares as little as is possible, IMHO.
Regards,
Jeff
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Daniel Weston
is not the universe itself a FOR? The BB theory holds that it began
from a singularity or something exceedingly small. (which?) And it
started expanding. The universe is held not to be infinite, therefore
the universe has an edge, however jagged it might be. The BB did not
expand into infinity. Therefore the universe is finite. This universe
is finite and full of matter and energy. The gravity of matter
interacts with all the other matter. It is a unity, It is a frame of
reference in a very physical way with all its components interacting.
It is a true FOR even though it cannot as yet be used as such in
experiments. Movement within this FOR does cause things to change by
virtue of such movement. The universe is a unity and it is of finite
dimension.
I cannot accept as refutation to what I have said above, that the
universe is "unbounded" as John Anderson likes to argue. Unbounded is a
mathematical term and does not refute the fact that the universe has an
edge somewhere. In the same sense that the "curvature of spacetime"
does not _cause_ galaxies to collide. And in the same sense that
Kepler's laws do not _cause_ the planets to orbit. "Unboundedness" does
not cause the universe'a edge to disappear and become infinite.
Therefore the finite universe itself is an
actual FOR. It is real, it is nature, it is in the here and now.
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"Daniel Weston" <dani...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:23884-3E1...@storefull-2174.public.lawson.webtv.net...
> I suggest the following with some humility. (I feel humble
today) Why
> is not the universe itself a FOR?
Probably for the same reason GR does not map well onto quantum
phenomenon. The Universe is flat on the whole, but there are
areas where it is not. And it is difficult from our miniscule
FOR to determine what the FOR of the Universe might be, when we
can only measure what is on our light cone.
> The BB theory holds that it began
> from a singularity or something exceedingly small. (which?)
And it
> started expanding.
If c were infinite at the time of the BB, then no point we can
see now would be more than one meter from where we are now.
Nothing would have to move.
> The universe is held not to be infinite, therefore
> the universe has an edge, however jagged it might be.
The surface of a balloon and a torus are finite, yet they have no
edge.
> The BB did not
> expand into infinity. Therefore the universe is finite. This
universe
> is finite and full of matter and energy.
"Full" being pretty loosely defined, don't you think. I see a
lot of "empty"... or perhaps just energy not directed at me.
> The gravity of matter
> interacts with all the other matter. It is a unity, It is a
frame of
> reference in a very physical way with all its components
interacting.
You would like Mach them...
> It is a true FOR even though it cannot as yet be used as such
in
> experiments. Movement within this FOR does cause things to
change by
> virtue of such movement. The universe is a unity and it is of
finite
> dimension.
>
> I cannot accept as refutation to what I have said above, that
the
> universe is "unbounded" as John Anderson likes to argue.
Unbounded is a
> mathematical term and does not refute the fact that the
universe has an
> edge somewhere.
Flatlanders cannot concieve of a third dimension either, yet
their universe could be wrapped around a ball couldn't it?
Finite and without an edge.
OK flatlander, imagine yet another space dimension beyond
x,y,z...
> In the same sense that the "curvature of spacetime"
> does not _cause_ galaxies to collide.
There are instances on our light cone where galaxies are doing
this very thing. The "curvature of spacetime" is host to
whatever the activities of the galaxies feel they have to do.
> And in the same sense that
> Kepler's laws do not _cause_ the planets to orbit.
"Unboundedness" does
> not cause the universe'a edge to disappear and become infinite.
Right. Unboundedness causes the Universe not to have an edge to
begin with.
> Therefore the finite universe itself is an
> actual FOR. It is real, it is nature, it is in the here and
now.
A FOR is there and then as well. And we do not know what the
rest of the Universe is doing *now*. So what shall we choose for
its FOR?
David A. Smith
Daniel Weston
You are using the word "unbounded" as if it effects something physical,
IT DOES NOT. Sorry you missed my point.
Daniel Weston
stick a pin, when you want it to pop. The statement that "a balloon has
no edge" is math talk and limited in its vitality to an hypothetical
situation. It has NO reality in fact. Failing to separate metaphor
from reality, causes much UNNEEDED misunderstanding. All balloons
existing in nature, have an edge. PERIOD By "all" I mean every single
one and without exception.
Traveler
<23884-3E1...@storefull-2174.public.lawson.webtv.net>,
dani...@webtv.net (Daniel Weston) wrote:
>I suggest the following with some humility. (I feel humble today) Why
>is not the universe itself a FOR?
[cut]
First off, tell me this, "humble" Weston. Put yourself in the place of
a moving particle. How does the particle "know" of the existence of
this universal FOR so as to move relative to it? Is it psychic?
Second, when two things are relative, does that not mean that the two
are variables? IOW, if A is relative to B, it means that a change in A
will correspond to a change in B, right? Consider a particle A which
is at rest relative to particle B. Their relative velocity is zero.
Where are the variables in this relative system? And relative to what
do they vary?
Third, consider a universe where everything is relative to everything
else. Does this not lead to a self-referential system whereby
everything is relative to itself?
Fourth, what is the physical composition of an FOR and how do
particles interact with it? Is an FOR a ghost, a phantom, a spirit, a
magic spell, voodoo? Are we not inching a little too close to
superstition here?
My point? My point is that there is no such thing as an FOR and
neither is there a need for one. An FOR is an abstract non-existent,
non-physical mental construct. Everything is absolute.
Finally, Weston, please spare me with the fake humility. The truly
humble does not announce it over the rooftops. You either have
something to say or you don't.
Stephen Speicher
>
> I cannot accept as refutation to what I have said above, that the
> universe is "unbounded" as John Anderson likes to argue. Unbounded is a
> mathematical term and does not refute the fact that the universe has an
> edge somewhere.
An edge delineates a separation of one thing from another. If the
universe has an edge, what is it being separated from? Afterall,
the universe is, all that there is, so anything on the other side
of the edge would really just be a part of the universe. Hence,
the universe cannot have an edge.
--
Stephen
s...@speicher.com
Ignorance is just a placeholder for knowledge.
Printed using 100% recycled electrons.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Traveler
<Pine.LNX.4.33.030109...@localhost.localdomain>,
Stephen Speicher <s...@speicher.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 9 Jan 2003, Daniel Weston wrote:
>>
>> I cannot accept as refutation to what I have said above, that the
>> universe is "unbounded" as John Anderson likes to argue. Unbounded is a
>> mathematical term and does not refute the fact that the universe has an
>> edge somewhere.
>
>An edge delineates a separation of one thing from another. If the
>universe has an edge, what is it being separated from? Afterall,
>the universe is, all that there is, so anything on the other side
>of the edge would really just be a part of the universe. Hence,
>the universe cannot have an edge.
The universe has neither size, nor boundaries. Particles do not exist
IN the universe. Particles ARE the universe. They just exist, There is
no space for them to exist in and there is no space between particles.
Space is an illusion of the mind, just like time. The position of a
particle is an intrinsic part of the particle, not of some abstract
and non-existent space or spacetime invented by humans.
In nature, there exist only particles, their properties and their
interactions. Everything else (space, time, FORs, etc...) is either
abstract or just superstition.
Last but not least, if, according to popular belief, everything must
exist in space, in what meta-space does this space exist? This can go
on ad infinitum.
Bilge
Re: The Fallacy of Steve Carlip's Speed of Gravity Argument to usenet:
>Dear David Smith: A balloon DOES have an edge. The edge is where you
>stick a pin, when you want it to pop.
>The statement that "a balloon has
>no edge" is math talk and limited in its vitality to an hypothetical
>situation. It has NO reality in fact. Failing to separate metaphor
>from reality, causes much UNNEEDED misunderstanding. All balloons
>existing in nature, have an edge. PERIOD By "all" I mean every single
>one and without exception.
It's not merely a metaphor. For example the platonic solids, which
are the _only_ convex, regular polyhdra in 3 dimensions, all satisfy
euler's relation vertices - edges + faces = 2.
Daniel Weston
is nothing and this nothingness is part of the universe. This raises
the age old question of whether something can be nothing. "Nothing" is
a human concept. Is a shadow something or nothing? But enough of
semantics. Let then the universe be thought of as matter and its
properties and their interactions. Beyond this is absolute nothingness
into which the universe is now expanding. Where matter ends is the
operational edge. The _material_ universe has an edge. "nothingness" is
not part of the material universe. By definition it has no material in
it. There is no "thing" in it. Nothingness is a construct of the mind.
Let then the _material_ universe be the FOR. (hypothetical FOR since
the material universe has not been yet discovered in its entirety) In
principle it could be used as a FOR. _Assume_ that all there was in the
universe was our solar system or our galaxy, Could not that be used as
a FOR? I think the principle is the same.
Daniel Weston
can be calculated with great accuracy by assuming gravity is
instantaneous. What is the calculated difference in the predicted orbit
of Pluto using the 2 different speeds of gravity of instantaneous v. c?
Is the difference enough to detect. If it can be detected, why has not
the speed of gravity been determined earlier. If the difference cannot
be detected, how meaningful is the observation that using instantaneous
gravity speed gives correct results? Or have I slipped a stitch
somewhere?
Stephen Speicher
> To Stephen: In general you said that when the universe "ends" then there
> is nothing and this nothingness is part of the universe.
No, Daniel, you have misunderstood. What I tried to demonstrate
to you is that the very concept of an "end" -- an edge or a
boundary -- cannot even apply to the notion of the universe.
> This raises
> the age old question of whether something can be nothing.
Which, philosophically, is a silly question. "Nothing" is just
the absence of something, not some thing in and of itself. When
you say: "I have nothing in my pocket," you do not mean that you
have some thing called nothing, but rather that you do not have
any something in your pocket.
Stephen Speicher
Leaving aside the fact the Louis Savain is a psychotic imbecile,
there is a somewhat complicated formula -- which I will not
reproduce here -- which is parameterized using what is known as
the Eddington parameters, and which is meant to apply to a group
of gravitational theories for equations of the general N-body
solar system. JPL sets these parameters to those which correspond
to general relativity and that becomes the equation of motion
which JPL's computer ephemeris uses to integrate and produce the
default orbits of the planets and satellites in the solar system.
See: "An Overview of Solar System Gravitational Physics," K.
Nordtvedt, in "Gyros, Clocks, Interferometers ...: Testing
Relativistic Gravity in Space," Edited by C. Laemmerzahl et al.,
_Springer_, 2001.
Newtonian theory does an excellent job within the solar system,
but not sufficient for today's high-precision work. But, most
important, you should understand what it means to say that in
Newtonian theory gravity is "instantaneous." In order for the
theory to work, when calculations are made it is assumed that
gravitational interactions occur immediately from their current
computed positions. This does not mean that, in reality, gravity
does act instantaneously. Rather, in order for this particular
Newtonian model to give relatively correct results, one must
assume instantaneous action for it to work. Newtonian "theory"
is just a mathematical model, not a description of causal
processes. Afterall, Newton himself made perfectly clear that the
notion of instantaneous action, in reality, was so absurd that
"no man who is in philosophical matters any competent faculty of
thinking can ever fall into it."
So the answer to your question, as to why the "speed of gravity"
was not measured before, is that it was only with general
relativity that the actual phenomena could be isolated so as to
be capable of being measured, and that had to wait for the
mathematical formalism to describe the propagation of finite
changes in the gravitational field, and for the technology
capable of experimentally discerning such an effect.
Traveler
<Pine.LNX.4.33.030110...@localhost.localdomain>,
Stephen Speicher <s...@speicher.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 10 Jan 2003, Daniel Weston wrote:
>
>> Louis Savain and numerous others have stated that the orbits of planets
>> can be calculated with great accuracy by assuming gravity is
>> instantaneous. What is the calculated difference in the predicted orbit
>> of Pluto using the 2 different speeds of gravity of instantaneous v. c?
>> Is the difference enough to detect. If it can be detected, why has not
>> the speed of gravity been determined earlier. If the difference cannot
>> be detected, how meaningful is the observation that using instantaneous
>> gravity speed gives correct results? Or have I slipped a stitch
>> somewhere?
>>
>
>Leaving aside the fact the Louis Savain is a psychotic imbecile,
And your momma honks the rigid cock of Satan. :D
>there is a somewhat complicated formula
Why am I not surprised? It's so fucking complicated that you cannot
explain it to the average intelligent person. Sure sign of a con job.
[crap deleted]
>Newtonian theory does an excellent job within the solar system,
>but not sufficient for today's high-precision work.
All one needs to add to Newtonian gravity to make as accurate as
anything out there is gravitational clock slowing, aka "time
dilation." Gravito-magnetic effects are too slight to have any
significant effects on normal predictions.
>But, most
>important, you should understand what it means to say that in
>Newtonian theory gravity is "instantaneous." In order for the
>theory to work, when calculations are made it is assumed that
>gravitational interactions occur immediately from their current
>computed positions. This does not mean that, in reality, gravity
>does act instantaneously. Rather, in order for this particular
>Newtonian model to give relatively correct results, one must
>assume instantaneous action for it to work. Newtonian "theory"
>is just a mathematical model, not a description of causal
>processes. Afterall, Newton himself made perfectly clear that the
>notion of instantaneous action, in reality, was so absurd that
>"no man who is in philosophical matters any competent faculty of
>thinking can ever fall into it."
So what? Einstein believed the same thing (EPR paradox) and he was
proven wrong. What is your stupid point?
>So the answer to your question, as to why the "speed of gravity"
>was not measured before, is that it was only with general
>relativity that the actual phenomena could be isolated so as to
>be capable of being measured, and that had to wait for the
>mathematical formalism to describe the propagation of finite
>changes in the gravitational field, and for the technology
>capable of experimentally discerning such an effect.
What bullshit! Carlip, Kopeikin, et al, claim that information about
the source velocity is transmitted in the propagating field
disturbances. The receiving body is able to compute the probable
instantaneous position of the source from the field. Carlip claims
that the phenomenon is similar to the electric field: two relatively
moving charges act as if they are reacting to each others
instantaneous positions even though they are not.
And the reason for this miraculous behavior? the magic of Lorentz
invariance for which they have no physical explanation. The problem
with Lorentz invariance is that the very concept already assumes
action at a distance since a Lorentz invariant system knows the
relative velocity of two bodies that may be light-years apart.
Lorentz invariance defeats one of the sacrosanct tenets of relativity
which forbids action at a distance. Using the unexplainable magic of
Lorentz invariance, relativists can claim that the system (of the two
charged bodies) is able to impart 4-velocity information to the EM
field locally without knowing about the instantaneous position of the
other body. It's a beautiful but devious con game that is so buried in
complexity and specialized jargon of deception, that very few people
have noticed the mental slight of hand.
The truth is that, short of accepting action at a distance, Lorentz
invariance is impossible without assuming absolute positions and
velocity. The assholes are willing to stand on their heads buck-naked
and do a neutron dance before they'll agree to the necessity of the
absolute. It's pathological.
The point is that, if as Carlip claims, EM fields behave similarly to
gravitational fields, why is it that when one looks at the sun, it is
not at the position it appears to be? If velocity and positional
information are coded in the EM field, what doesn't this apply to
light which is also composed of photons? Why doesn't a correction
happens instantly when the light hits the lens of the eye, or even the
atmosphere for that matter? Answer: they have no fucking clue.
The truth is that both electric fields and gravitational fields are
non-local in the sense that changes in the source position of a body
are instantaneous felt everywhere in the field. This is due to
non-local conservation principles and the fact that gravity is a
by-product of superposed electric fields. This is not true of changes
in a magnetic field as evidence by the *local* behavior of EM
radiation.
Traveler
<Pine.LNX.4.33.030110...@localhost.localdomain>,
Stephen Speicher <s...@speicher.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 9 Jan 2003, Daniel Weston wrote:
>
>> To Stephen: In general you said that when the universe "ends" then there
>> is nothing and this nothingness is part of the universe.
>
>No, Daniel, you have misunderstood. What I tried to demonstrate
>to you is that the very concept of an "end" -- an edge or a
>boundary -- cannot even apply to the notion of the universe.
>
>> This raises
>> the age old question of whether something can be nothing.
>
>Which, philosophically, is a silly question. "Nothing" is just
>the absence of something, not some thing in and of itself. When
>you say: "I have nothing in my pocket," you do not mean that you
>have some thing called nothing, but rather that you do not have
>any something in your pocket.
As always, Speicher's stupidity comes to surface when he opens his
mouth. The truth is that the only ontology of substance that does not
lead to an infinite regress is one that postulates that everything is
made of nothing. The conservation of nothing (everything must sum up
to zero) is not only the mother of all conservation principles but is
responsible for all interactions and phenomena, as nature strives to
maintain a yin-yang balance between opposites.
Bilge
Re: The Fallacy of Steve Carlip's Speed of Gravity Argument to usenet:
><Pine.LNX.4.33.030110...@localhost.localdomain>,
>Stephen Speicher <s...@speicher.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 9 Jan 2003, Daniel Weston wrote:
>>
>>> To Stephen: In general you said that when the universe "ends" then there
>>> is nothing and this nothingness is part of the universe.
>>
>>No, Daniel, you have misunderstood. What I tried to demonstrate
>>to you is that the very concept of an "end" -- an edge or a
>>boundary -- cannot even apply to the notion of the universe.
>>
>>> This raises
>>> the age old question of whether something can be nothing.
>>
>>Which, philosophically, is a silly question. "Nothing" is just
>>the absence of something, not some thing in and of itself. When
>>you say: "I have nothing in my pocket," you do not mean that you
>>have some thing called nothing, but rather that you do not have
>>any something in your pocket.
>
>As always, Speicher's stupidity comes to surface when he opens his
>mouth. The truth is that the only ontology of substance that does not
>lead to an infinite regress is one that postulates that everything is
>made of nothing. The conservation of nothing (everything must sum up
>to zero) is not only the mother of all conservation principles but is
>responsible for all interactions and phenomena, as nature strives to
>maintain a yin-yang balance between opposites.
That really clears things up, but I have a question. How do you apply
your "conservation of nothingness" theory, to explain the neutral kaons,
which violate some conservation laws, that in principle, your "conservation
of nothingness" must balance?
Robert Kolker
Traveler wrote:
> The truth is that, short of accepting action at a distance, Lorentz
> invariance is impossible without assuming absolute positions and
> velocity.
How would one go about measuring absolute positions and velocities. How
would one communicate the absolute position and velocity of a body to
someone who was not observing that body?
Describe a finite set of operations and procedures for doing this.
Can you do this wonderful thing without specifying a special or
preferred frame of reference?
Bob Kolker
Traveler
<bobk...@attbi.com> wrote:
Why don't you kiss my ass, Kolker? When are you going to fucking wake
up? I will repeat it here one more time even though I know it will go
over your head just as it did previously.
Nature does not give a rat's ass about what YOU can
or cannot measure. The point of trying to understand
nature is to deduce how NATURE does ITS thing, not
how YOU do YOUR thing.
Stop being so fucking anthropocentric in your approach to understand
nature. You cannot sit there like an idiot and claim that there is
such a thing as Lorentz invariance (which I don't deny, BTW) and deny
both action at a distance and absolute motion, and still think you are
making sense. It is a stupid denial, one which is based on selfish
reasons (we have to be right at all costs) and one which is extremely
injurious to humanity's progress in its understanding of nature.
Robert Kolker
Traveler wrote:
> Why don't you kiss my ass, Kolker? When are you going to fucking wake
> up? I will repeat it here one more time even though I know it will go
> over your head just as it did previously.
Nature does not care a fig abour your arbitrary and absurd assertions
either. You are blowing brain burps from your orifices fore and aft.
Even if it were true in a Platonic sense that absolute velocities and
postions existed how would we know that it is true, independent of
observation. The only way we know things (ultimately) is to sense them.
That which we cannot sense directly or indirectly cannot be said to be
either true or false.
Bob Kolker
Traveler
<bobk...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
>
>Traveler wrote:
>> Why don't you kiss my ass, Kolker? When are you going to fucking wake
>> up? I will repeat it here one more time even though I know it will go
>> over your head just as it did previously.
>
>Nature does not care a fig abour your arbitrary and absurd assertions
>either. You are blowing brain burps from your orifices fore and aft.
>Even if it were true in a Platonic sense that absolute velocities and
>postions existed how would we know that it is true, independent of
>observation.
Do the words logic and deduction mean anything to you?
> The only way we know things (ultimately) is to sense them.
Bullshit! We don't sense relative motion either. We deduce it from our
observations.
>That which we cannot sense directly or indirectly cannot be said to be
>either true or false.
And Kolker is a fucking moron. Just as I suspected. Indirectly means
deductively. Goodby Kolker.
Traveler
ro...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) wrote:
Fist off, I am not privy to the experimental and theoretical context
of these supposed violations. I can say confidently that there is no
such thing as disobeying a conservation principle without a subsequent
corrective action.
Second, the existence of conservation principles does not mean that
they are not violated. They mean that nature tries its best to correct
any violation at the earliest opportunity. In fact, if there were no
violations, there would be no interactions or change at all. It is a
probabilistic process and sometimes a correction make take a
relatively long time as evidenced by the probabilistic half-life of
composite subatomic particles. It depends on the severity of the
violation.
Robert Kolker
Traveler wrote:
>
> And Kolker is a fucking moron. Just as I suspected. Indirectly means
> deductively. Goodby Kolker.
An inference based on an inductive hypothesis is also indirect. Goodbye
Traveler.
Ulitimately all things we believe true must be reduced to one of two
bases.
a. A thing must be true if its denial leads to a contradiction.
b. A thing may be true if supported by empirical evidence and not
contradictied by other empirical evidence.
You assertions of absolutel position and velocity do not follow from an
instance of a (above) nor do they follow from an instance of b (above)
therefore we may safely conclude you are uttering insanities or inanities.
Bob Kolker
Daniel Weston
all. Ordinarily I consider your posts quite clear.
You have now positioned yourself on the horns of a dilemma. The
PHYSICAL universe either has an edge, or it is infinite. There is no
other possibility. The physical universe is composed of particles,
their properties and their interactions. In math, with its tricks and
fudgings, sometimes you can have no edge and not be infinite, but NOT
when we are dealing with material particles. Sometimes mathematicians
are so deeply engrossed in their math, that math takes on a reality of
its own, causing an over stepping of reality. I have had 2 math PHDs
tell me this personally. Math is metaphor, it is not the thing itself.
Writers dealing with the very early history of the evolution of the big
bang, speak of things happening when the universe's diameter was 1 foot,
1 mile, 1 lightyear, and so forth. At what point do you think the
universe stopped having a diameter?
And why?
You must accept the dilemma that the universe has an edge, or that it is
infinite.
The logical base of that dilemma is perfect.
Math metaphors cannot side step that dilemma. "Boundlessness" is a math
concept totally and useful for making some calculations. It does not
not apply to my physical question.
Question---Which horn of the dilemma do you prefer, an infinite
universe, or a not infinite universe with an edge?
Stephen Speicher
It's hopeless. He won't have a clue about anything you said. You
have to use small four-letter words, and nothing related to
actual physics.
Traveler
And your momma honks the rigid cock of Satan!
Jeff Krimmel
"Daniel Weston" <dani...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:21096-3E...@storefull-2172.public.lawson.webtv.net...
> I am sorry Stephen, I don't follow your last post in response to me, at
> all. Ordinarily I consider your posts quite clear.
>
> You have now positioned yourself on the horns of a dilemma. The
> PHYSICAL universe either has an edge, or it is infinite. There is no
> other possibility...
Wrong. This is where the discussion between you and all of those who have
attempted to answer your question diverges. If you cannot resolve this, then
further proceeding with this discussion is of no use to anyone.
Stephen Speicher
>
> Question---Which horn of the dilemma do you prefer, an infinite
> universe, or a not infinite universe with an edge?
>
Neither, Daniel. There is a third alternative that you have not
considered, namely that the concept of size does not apply to the
universe. The universe can be finite and unbounded, yet "asizal."
Traveler
<Pine.LNX.4.33.030110...@localhost.localdomain>,
Stephen Speicher <s...@speicher.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 10 Jan 2003, Daniel Weston wrote:
>>
>> Question---Which horn of the dilemma do you prefer, an infinite
>> universe, or a not infinite universe with an edge?
>>
>
>Neither, Daniel. There is a third alternative that you have not
>considered, namely that the concept of size does not apply to the
>universe.
Wow! Is Speicher suddenly plagiarizing my ideas? This is certainly not
Kosher establishment physics. Let's see if he can explain what he
writes. BTW, this is the same Speicher who believes in the crap of
balloon spacetime expansion theory and that both space and time were
created at the Big Bang.
> The universe can be finite and unbounded, yet "asizal."
Somehow I doubt that Speicher understands what he writes because his
use of "yet" above is nonsensical. The universe is unbounded precisely
*because* there is no such thing as size (i.e., space).
Daniel Weston
forthcoming. One of the things I am expert in is logic. Show me where
my logic is wrong. Bad logic does not need math to squelch.
Bilge
Re: The Fallacy of Steve Carlip's Speed of Gravity Argument to usenet:
>>
>>your "conservation of nothingness" theory, to explain the neutral kaons,
>>which violate some conservation laws, that in principle, your "conservation
>>of nothingness" must balance?
>
>Fist off, I am not privy to the experimental and theoretical context
>of these supposed violations. I can say confidently that there is no
>such thing as disobeying a conservation principle without a subsequent
>corrective action.
That's the point. To clear them up. Since you have a principle that
you know is correct, how about using it to clear things up?
>Second, the existence of conservation principles does not mean that
>they are not violated. They mean that nature tries its best to correct
>any violation at the earliest opportunity. In fact, if there were no
>violations, there would be no interactions or change at all. It is a
>probabilistic process and sometimes a correction make take a
>relatively long time as evidenced by the probabilistic half-life of
>composite subatomic particles. It depends on the severity of the
>violation.
I didn't say how you should explain neutral kaons. Just that you should.
Traveler
<bobk...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
>
[cut]
>
>Ulitimately all things we believe true must be reduced to one of two
>bases.
>
>a. A thing must be true if its denial leads to a contradiction.
Which is true of the relativist doctrine. The denial of absolute
motion/position leads to a self-referential system: everything is
relative to itself.
>b. A thing may be true if supported by empirical evidence and not
>contradictied by other empirical evidence.
No empirical evidence contradicts absolute motion and position. In
fact, the very evidence of Lorentz invariance is irrefutable evidence
for the absolute.
>You assertions of absolutel position and velocity do not follow from an
>instance of a (above) nor do they follow from an instance of b (above)
>therefore we may safely conclude you are uttering insanities or inanities.
Don't blame others for your feeble minded arguments, Kolker. Look in
the mirror. You are weak.
Daniel Weston
What is its definition? I can't find it in my dictionary.
2) The universe was at one time a foot across, a mile across, then 1
light year, then 2 light years. When did it become asizal?
Honest to God, I am getting a strange feeling in the pit of my stomach,
just like I did as a youth listening to a theology lecture.
Jeff Krimmel
> To Jeff; You are wrong Jeff. No unambiguous explanation has been
> forthcoming. One of the things I am expert in is logic. Show me where
> my logic is wrong. Bad logic does not need math to squelch.
Daniel,
The example that comes to mind of a universe that has no edge, yet is not
infinite, is the example of the 2-dimensional surface of a sphere. Within
these two dimensions, this "universe" has no edge yet is certainly not
infinite. If you make the extrapolation to spaces of larger dimensions, you
draw the same analogy. So, in this sense, the universe could be finite yet
have no "edge".
Regards,
Jeff
P.S. Please don't tell me the "edge" of the universe in my example is the
surface itself (i.e., that paradox seemingly exists because the
2-dimensional sphere surface is embedded in 3-dimensional space; if the
2-dimensional surface was the space itself, then it is finite with no edge).
David Evens
You have made the (trivially wrong) assumption that GR is completely
wrong and that the universe does not have its observed properties.
Spacetime is required to have the property of being bounded or being
infinite ONLY if it is not closed, as it may well be. Perhaops the
logic you pretend to have learned about should have been suplemented
by some GEOMETRY.
David Evens
wrote:
>In article
><Pine.LNX.4.33.030110...@localhost.localdomain>,
>Stephen Speicher <s...@speicher.com> wrote:
>>On Fri, 10 Jan 2003, Daniel Weston wrote:
>>>
>>> Question---Which horn of the dilemma do you prefer, an infinite
>>> universe, or a not infinite universe with an edge?
>>>
>>
>>Neither, Daniel. There is a third alternative that you have not
>>considered, namely that the concept of size does not apply to the
>>universe.
>
>Wow! Is Speicher suddenly plagiarizing my ideas?
No, fraud of the sewers, he is NOT assuming that there is no universe,
as you always do.
>This is certainly not
>Kosher establishment physics. Let's see if he can explain what he
>writes. BTW, this is the same Speicher who believes in the crap of
>balloon spacetime expansion theory and that both space and time were
>created at the Big Bang.
You mean, assuming that the universe has the properties it is
observered to have?
>> The universe can be finite and unbounded, yet "asizal."
>
>Somehow I doubt that Speicher understands what he writes because his
>use of "yet" above is nonsensical. The universe is unbounded precisely
>*because* there is no such thing as size (i.e., space).
No, something that does not exist (such as the way you assume the
universe to be) cannot be unbounded, since non-existent things can
have no properties.
>Louis Savain
>
>-------------------------------------------------
>
>Temporal Fraud:
>http://pages.sbcglobal.net/louis.savain/AI/Temporal_Intelligence.htm
>
>The Fraudulent Bullet:
>http://pages.sbcglobal.net/louis.savain/AI/Reliability.htm
>
>Nasty Little Criminal Rant About Spacetime Physics:
>http://pages.sbcglobal.net/louis.savain/Crackpots/notorious.htm
Stephen Speicher
> To Stephen: 1) What does "asizal" mean?
> What is its definition? I can't find it in my dictionary.
>
I put the word in quotes because it is nonstandard, but I thought
from the context it would be clear. "asizal" means without size.
> 2) The universe was at one time a foot across, a mile across, then 1
> light year, then 2 light years. When did it become asizal?
>
Again, the point that I make is that the very concept of size
does not apply to the notion of the universe. Size only has
meaning for something which is bounded.
> Honest to God, I am getting a strange feeling in the pit of my stomach,
> just like I did as a youth listening to a theology lecture.
>
Say two Hail Marys, take two aspirins, and call me in the
morning.
Traveler
dev...@technologist.com (David Evens) wrote:
[delete public masturbation]
Evens, did I ever tell you that your momma honks the rigid cock of
Satan? Oh well, now you've been told, you ass-kissing maggot! :D
Louis Savain
-------------------------------------------------
Temporal Intelligence:
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/louis.savain/AI/Temporal_Intelligence.htm
The Silver Bullet:
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/louis.savain/AI/Reliability.htm
Nasty Little Truth About Spacetime Physics:
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/louis.savain/Crackpots/notorious.htm
Daniel Weston
Analogy. Your balloon analogy proves nothing and explains nothing.
EVERY freaking balloon in the universe has an edge. In math talk you
can arbitrarily say that it has no edge for math purposes, but that is
math talk. Every balloon you or I have ever seen exists in 4 dimensions
and has an edge. If it did not have an edge and was unbounded you could
not penetrate it with a pin. Furthermore the universe is not 2
dimensional like a math balloon. Math is metaphor. How about
explaining your point in plain science talk, rather than giving me
analogies. Can you?, or are you hiding behind obfuscation?
Daniel Weston
Principle Theory that works to make certain (correct) predictions in
relativity. Spacetime _explains_ nothing. It is an honorable math
device use for making predictions.
It has no "physical content". The universe has physical content. You
are mixing apples and oranges (to put it mildly). Spacetime is a free
invention of the human mind and is not uniquely determined by the
outside universe.
Daniel Weston
concept and is a free invention of the human mind and is not, however it
may seem, uniquely determined by the external world. The Earth, a
balloon, is bounded. The solar system is like a balloon, and is
bounded.
The local galactic cluster is bounded. Super galactic clusters are
bounded. You have yet to tell me, despite repeated requests, when does
this growing amalgamation become unbounded. Why have you not addressed
this issue?
Are you saying that all the scientists that refer to the early
dimensions of the universe, after the Big Bang, are talking nonsense?
Are you saying that astronomers that give the dimension of the universe
as approximately 12 billion light years, are talking nonsense? Please
take a stand.
I thank you for the advice to take 2 aspirin.
I shall do so forthwith.
I really do appreciate your patience.
Daniel Weston
modular nil op
> I put the word in quotes because it is nonstandard, but I thought
> from the context it would be clear. "asizal" means without size.
If my understanding is correct... it would have a finite number of
particles, but no "size" only because position is relative rather
than absolute. You can only measure relative sizes using rulers
that are already embedded in the universe. Is this what you had
in mind, or did you mean asizal in some more fundamental way?
--
Domino Plural <kidrock @ gehennom.net>
"No no. No no-no no. No no-no no; no-no there's no limit!" - 2 Unlimited