What is wrong with Tom Roberts?

[Vilas Tamhane]

Tom Roberts is a scientist and just see how he explains length
contraction. (Words are mine).
There is no such thing as actual change in length. Consider a ladder
that is higher in height of a door. So it cannot pass through the
door. But if it is inclined then it can pass through the door. Its
projection on the door is reduced not length of the actual ladder.
Thus length contraction is a geometrical projection.
Is he serious or he is just fooling the people?
What he forgets is that length of the ladder is same in both the
frames; that of a ladder and that of a door.
In the coordinate system of the door, y coordinate (height wise) is
reduced but the x-coordinate increases. Ladder remains same but the
components change. In SR, this is not the case. There is physical
contraction in length (always in the other frame). This is of course
before the idiotic idea of space-time continuum emerged.
In space time diagram, moving ladder has two components. One is
spatial and the other is in the direction of time. Since there is no
direct proof of space turning into time and time turning into space,
the whole idea lies in the realm of fantasy. Space-time is not a
coordinate system, it is a graph. Graph of wrong equations of Lorentz.

[YBM]

Le 06.08.2012 16:48, Vilas Tamhane a écrit :
> Tom Roberts is a scientist and just see how he explains length
> contraction. (Words are mine).
> There is no such thing as actual change in length. Consider a ladder
> that is higher in height of a door. So it cannot pass through the
> door. But if it is inclined then it can pass through the door. Its
> projection on the door is reduced not length of the actual ladder.
> Thus length contraction is a geometrical projection.
> Is he serious or he is just fooling the people?
> What he forgets is that length of the ladder is same in both the
> frames; that of a ladder and that of a door.

He is doing something that a psychopathological crank like you
cannot grasp : he is making a metaphor.

In a metaphor a lot of things are in common between the considered
cases, but not ALL of them or this is no more a metaphor but an
identity.

You don't get it? It's normal: you're mentally ill.

[Androcles]

"Vilas Tamhane" wrote in message
news:8e2ee065-b896-464a...@nc9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

Tom Roberts is a scientist

===========================
like Batman is a caped crusader. Pow! Thud! Bam!

[Poutnik]

Vilas Tamhane from vilast...@gmail.com
posted Mon, 6 Aug 2012 07:48:06 -0700 (PDT)

>
> Tom Roberts is a scientist and just see how he explains length
> contraction. (Words are mine).

> There is no such thing as actual change in length. Consider a ladder
> that is higher in height of a door. So it cannot pass through the
> door. But if it is inclined then it can pass through the door. Its
> projection on the door is reduced not length of the actual ladder.
> Thus length contraction is a geometrical projection.
> Is he serious or he is just fooling the people?

Imagine you measure a length of the distant ladder.

You are able to measure distance and the angle size.
But for the same ladder various observers will report different length,
depending on how the ladder is oriented to them.

And the same is for the length,
SR, and object moving wrt to measuring tool. I

If they are mutually in the rest,
it is like if the ladder is perpendicular to observer.
If they are moving,
it is like tilted ladder, that seems to be shorter.

And remember, we do not know real length,
we know measured length, that depends on mutual speed.
We define as real length the length we measure being
in rest to measured.


For curiosity, read Feynman physics lectures,
volume 2, chapter 13-6, related to electromagnetism.

You can track how length contraction affects
even objects with usual speeds.

--
Poutnik

[Big Dog]

He is not trying to fool you. You are obviously confused by his
explanation. This is not the result of a deliberate attempt to confuse
you. It has a lot to do with the fact that you are lacking a lot of
background information and you steadfastly refuse to do practice work to
instill new insights.

It is a geometric projection effect. But, like all analogies, there are
common areas and differences. Let's consider the ladder an analogy to
lightning flashes.

In the ladder case, what is observed to be the same is a quantity called
the 3D length of the ladder, which stays the same regardless of the
spatial *orientation* of the observers relative to the ladder. The
spatial orientation of the observers with respect to the ladder has real
measurable effects, such as the x-span of the ladder and the y-span of
the ladder. In this case, when the x-span of the ladder increases, the
y-span of the ladder decreases.

In the lightning flashes case, what is observed to be the same is a
quantity called the 4D interval between flashes, which stays the same
regardless of the spacetime *orientiation* (the velocity) of the
observers relative to the lightning flashes. The spacetime orientation
of the observers with respect to the lightning flashes has real
measurable effects, such as the spatial span between the lightning
flashes and the time span between the lightning flashes. In this case,
when the spatial span between the lightning flashes increases, the time
span between the lightning flashes increases.

Now, looking back on the last two paragraphs and comparing line by line,
I think you can see where the common ground is.

But you should also be able to see where the DIFFERENCES between the
analogous cases are, and this is the part to work to understand in order
to get what relativity is saying:

- Relativity points out that what is invariant is not 3D length but 4D
interval. This is experimentally confirmed.

- A change in orientation in spacetime corresponds to change in relative
speed. This can be figured out using a spacetime diagram.

- Spatial length and temporal duration play the SAME role as x-span and
y-span in Euclidean (or actually Cartesian) geometry. It does not
surprise anyone that x-span and y-span change when you change spatial
orientation. Even if you had a 3D case, where you tilted up something
from where it lay in the x-y plane so that it now points up partially in
the z-direction, we would have no problem saying that the x-y-span (or
the 2D length in the x-y plane) and the z-span changes when you change
spatial orientation. What is true in relativity is that the x-y-z span
(the 3D length in x-y-z space) and the t-span changes when you change
spacetime orientation.

- In spatial orientation changes, when the x-span increases, the y-span
decreases. This is because of the PLUS sign that appears in the
expression for the orientation invariant:
[the invariant]^2 = [x-span]^2 + [y-span]^2
and this plus sign persists even in the 3D case I just mentioned above:
[the invariant]^2 = [x-y-span]^2 + [z-span]^2
Because of the plus sign, when one goes up the other must go down.
But for spacetime orientation changes, there is a MINUS sign that appears:
[the invariant]^2 = [x-y-z-span]^2 - [t-span]^2
So in this case, when x-y-z-span decreases then the t-span also must
decrease. This is purely because of the minus sign.

Now, if this does not help, and you are still confused, then what you
should consider is that it is not possible to make sense of this for you
in a few simple paragraphs appropriate for Usenet, and that perhaps you
need a slower, more gradual, more verbose and deliberate development of
the ideas with lots of examples along the way so that you can see how
things work at each step. In that case, there are a number of really
good books that would serve that purpose. If books are not doing it for
you, then it would be good of you to enroll in a class on the subject
where you can have back-and-forth questions combined with at-length
treatment that you will not find on Usenet.

[Dirk Van de moortel]

"Big Dog" <big.fi...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:jvonre$qh7$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

[snip for brevity]

> Now, if this does not help, and you are still confused, then what you
> should consider is that it is not possible to make sense of this for you
> in a few simple paragraphs appropriate for Usenet, and that perhaps you
> need a slower, more gradual, more verbose and deliberate development of
> the ideas with lots of examples along the way so that you can see how
> things work at each step. In that case, there are a number of really
> good books that would serve that purpose. If books are not doing it for
> you, then it would be good of you to enroll in a class on the subject
> where you can have back-and-forth questions combined with at-length
> treatment that you will not find on Usenet.

You assume that Tamhame's comments are made in good faith.
Assuming good faith --or at least pretending to do so-- is a fundamental
principle of Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AGF ),
and apparently it works like a charm.
Assuming good faith on un-moderated Usenet forums apparently never
worked.
Let's see how it goes ;-)

Dirk Vdm

[Katsumoto Imaizumi]

her is how it is, is about aristocracy stating
the right thing, then draw a wrong conclusion

obviously, once LC occurs, all relations in
that system are instantaneously length shortened,
atomic, chemic, biologic and so on

remark, the nature is changed temporarily and
not permanent !!!

however, even "temporal" in such a system seems to
make not much sense

good bye

[Poutnik]

YBM from ybm...@nooos.fr.invalid
posted Mon, 06 Aug 2012 17:14:10 +0200

Well, most objections against SR are emotional as yours.

Other ones are related to inferior SR knowledge, leading
to misunderstanding or misinterpretation of what SR claims.

And the rest is due mechanical extrapolation of common sense,
what is dangerous even in common life.

--
Poutnik

[Big Dog]

On 8/6/2012 11:07 AM, Poutnik wrote:
>
> And the rest is due mechanical extrapolation of common sense,
> what is dangerous even in common life.
>

While this is true, I wonder WHY it is true that so many people rely on
extrapolation of their common sense and insist that science ought to
respect that or, worse, that nature needs to respect that.

Part of it is insecurity and fear, I think. That's the part that says,
"If nature is not consistent with common sense, then it is HOPELESS to
do science and we understand NOTHING." That's an irrational, extreme,
and unfounded response, but I've heard it.

But the other big part of it is sheer laziness. It is the stance that
science ought to be feasibly accomplished from an armchair, equipped
only with a sharp wit and the facts as presently familiar. This is the
position of so-self-proclaimed "natural philosophers", who falsely
believe that philosophers (let alone natural philosophers) operate that
way. This is the group that steadfastly refuses to do any background
reading or to learn ancillary skills, and it is the group that refuses
to acknowledge any experimental result that would represent a surprise
and a serious conflict with their long-held preconceptions. They want to
be able to discuss things deeply without learning or using jargon. They
want equations to be explained simply and in a way understandable by lay
people without demanding any precursor work. They want all previous
research (experimental and theoretical) digested and summarized for them
so that they can be brought up to speed with minimal effort. There is
much posturing and demanding that comes with this whining, simpering,
laziness.

Bottom line is that if the only place you're willing to invest effort on
physics is in sci.physics.*, then you do not have the commitment to
learn it at anything more than the superficial and error-prone level. If
you feel intimidated by what you have to consume to become better
acquainted with relativity, then you'll have to get the fuck over it or
walk away. If the only place you go to eat is the candy and popcorn
counter at the movie theater, then it should not come as a surprise
later that you are malnourished.

[Koobee Wublee]

On Aug 6, 8:28 am, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:

> [Tom Roberts] is not trying to fool you. You are obviously

You be the judge. Here are just three examples.

** There are infinite sets of mathematical models that explain the
null results of the MMX, and all of them must reference all
observations to the absolute frame of reference which means THE AETHER
MUST EXIST. The Lorentz transform was fudged out of one of them. It
is basically man-made with no support to the MMX. All
experimentations so far satisfy these infinite sets of mathematical
models that say the Aether must exist. So, singling out the Lorentz
transform as the sole valid model is fraudulent, don’t you think?
<shrug>

** The geometry must be invariant. Yet, there is no way to describe
this geometry without first deciding on a set of coordinate system.
However, the coordinate system alone is not enough. You need a
connection connecting this coordinate system to the geometry itself,
and this connection is the metric. So, to describe and characterize
this geometry, you must need both the coordinate system and the
metric. In the past 100 years, self-styled physicists like Tom have
been peddling the metric as invariance in which the metric alone
completely describes the geometry --- not to mention that you also
need a coordinate system to describe what the metric is. Tom even has
admitted that each element of the metric can be different, but
presented in a matrix/tensor format, all metric from any coordinate
system become invariant. That is just total bullshit on Tom’s part,
don’t you think? <shrug>

** The speed of light has been measured to be the same at any
altitudes. Tom as a professional experimental physicist should have
torn down the experimental apparatus and setups. He should have
analyzed these experimentations and find out where the limiting
factors are, and yet he did not. He just blindly accepted the results
as gospel. In these experiments, local atomic clocks are used as the
reference of calibration to measure the speed of light. If the speed
of light is a function of altitude, the frequency of resonance of
these atomic clocks will vary with it. Thus, every time the measured
speed of light is independent of altitude. Tom is hiding the fact in
order to support the religion he is defending. He is very misleading,
don’t you think? <shrug>

> - Relativity points out that what is invariant is not 3D length but 4D
> interval. This is experimentally confirmed.

All these infinite sets of mathematical models that satisfy the null
results of the MMX can also be written into a concise equation
describing a segment of spacetime. Since they say the Aether must
exist, it is no brainer to find the segment of spacetime invariant,
but this does not mean anything other than a mathematical property to
any mathematical models that dictate an invariant speed of light.
<shrug>

> - A change in orientation in spacetime corresponds to change in relative
> speed. This can be figured out using a spacetime diagram.

You can draw any lines you want. At the end of the day, there is no
physical connection and evidence of the abstract quantity known as
spacetime to any physical substances. Projected or not. It is all
taken as gospel and scripture. <shrug>

> - Spatial length and temporal duration play the SAME role as x-span and
> y-span in Euclidean (or actually Cartesian) geometry. It does not
> surprise anyone that x-span and y-span change when you change spatial
> orientation. Even if you had a 3D case, where you tilted up something
> from where it lay in the x-y plane so that it now points up partially in
> the z-direction, we would have no problem saying that the x-y-span (or
> the 2D length in the x-y plane) and the z-span changes when you change
> spatial orientation. What is true in relativity is that the x-y-z span
> (the 3D length in x-y-z space) and the t-span changes when you change
> spacetime orientation.

Keep preaching, preacher. The spacetime model is not exactly 4D in
the sense of the classical 3D Euclidean geometry. Thus, the classical
Euclidean geometry does no longer apply. <shrug>

> - In spatial orientation changes...
> [further nonsense snipped]

The worship of spacetime is a religion at best. It is more like
lunacy, nuts, and whacko --- none of the stuff you would find in
science. The whole episode of SR and GR can be summarized as the
following Orwellian traits.

** FAITH IS LOGIC
** LYING IS TEACHING
** DECEIT IS VALIDATION
** NITWIT IS GENIUS
** OCCULT IS SCIENCE
** FICTION IS THEORY
** FUDGING IS DERIVATION
** PARADOX IS KOSHER
** WORSHIP IS STUDY
** BULLSHIT IS TRUTH
** ARROGANCE IS SAGE
** BELIEVING IS LEARNING
** IGNORANCE IS KNOWLEDGE
** MYSTICISM IS WISDOM
** SCRIPTURE IS AXIOM
** CONJECTURE IS REALITY
** HANDWAVING IS REASONING
** PLAGIARISM IS CREATIVITY
** PRIESTHOOD IS TENURE
** FRAUDULENCE IS FACT
** MATHEMAGICS IS MATHEMATICS
** INCONSISTENCY IS CONSISTENCY
** INTERPRETATION IS VERIFICATION

<shrug>

Ps. The list is growing. All thanks to these lunatic who is trying
to peddle the religion of SR and GR as science. Religion and science
just do not mix. <shrug>

[Vilas Tamhane]

On Aug 6, 8:28 am, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:

> treatment that you will not find on Usenet.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Ladder is a metric in 3D Cartesian coordinates. Metric is always a
constant quantity and for simplicity if we take orthogonal coordinate
system, then what is peculiar is that constancy of the metric is
maintained by interchangeability of components. This you have stated.
If x component is reduced y component is increased. If we talk about
components only what it means is that x component can change into y
component. Since both x and y can be measured by a meter stick, there
is no contradiction.
What meaning do you assign to space-time metric? And x^2-(ct)^2 should
be zero. Why it is non zero constant?

[Vilas Tamhane]

On Aug 6, 8:48 am, "Dirk Van de moortel"
<dirkvandemoor...@hotspam.not> wrote:
> "Big Dog" <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:jvonre$qh7$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

> Dirk Vdm- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

The word faith is anathema to science or at least it should be.

[Big Dog]

On 8/6/2012 11:28 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> On Aug 6, 8:28 am, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> - Spatial length and temporal duration play the SAME role as x-span and
>> y-span in Euclidean (or actually Cartesian) geometry. It does not
>> surprise anyone that x-span and y-span change when you change spatial
>> orientation. Even if you had a 3D case, where you tilted up something
>> from where it lay in the x-y plane so that it now points up partially in
>> the z-direction, we would have no problem saying that the x-y-span (or
>> the 2D length in the x-y plane) and the z-span changes when you change
>> spatial orientation. What is true in relativity is that the x-y-z span
>> (the 3D length in x-y-z space) and the t-span changes when you change
>> spacetime orientation.
>
> Keep preaching, preacher. The spacetime model is not exactly 4D in
> the sense of the classical 3D Euclidean geometry. Thus, the classical
> Euclidean geometry does no longer apply. <shrug>
>

I see you have problems with analogies like Tamhane does too.

But then again, this does not come as a surprise.

[Big Dog]

On 8/6/2012 11:37 AM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:

> Ladder is a metric in 3D Cartesian coordinates.

Please do not use jargon words if you do not know what they mean. This
is an example of what I talked about elsewhere in this thread.

> Metric is always a
> constant quantity and for simplicity if we take orthogonal coordinate
> system, then what is peculiar is that constancy of the metric is
> maintained by interchangeability of components.

No, that is not what is meant by invariance. I understand that this is
what YOU'D LIKE IT to mean, but it does not. In this case, the 3D length
is invariant under spatial coordinate ROTATIONS and TRANSLATIONS. This
is NOT the same thing as coordinate swapping, and they are not logically
or mathematically equivalent.

A metric does not mean what you think it means. It might be good to back
up and learn where that jargon term comes from, and learn the
surrounding material so that you start using that term more accurately.
Nothing can come from using that term using a meaning that you have
INFERRED from limited conversations on Usenet -- that is virtually
guaranteed to be wrong.

> This you have stated.
> If x component is reduced y component is increased. If we talk about
> components only what it means is that x component can change into y
> component. Since both x and y can be measured by a meter stick, there
> is no contradiction.


> What meaning do you assign to space-time metric? And x^2-(ct)^2 should
> be zero. Why it is non zero constant?

Why would you think that x^2-(ct)^2 should be zero? It is ONLY true for
two events that can be spanned by a light ray. But for example, simply
calculate (x^2)-(ct)^2 for the following two events: a) a potato chip
falls on the top step of the staircase on the fifth floor of this
building at 2:58:14 pm, and b) a bug gets stepped on the bottom step of
the same staircase on the second floor of this building at 2:58:19 pm.
If you actually plug in numbers, you will see that this quantity is
nowhere near zero. What will be true however is that this nonzero number
will be the SAME regardless of the speed of observers with respect to
these two events.

This ALSO refers to the what I said elsewhere in this thread. In books
and classes, you are expected to actually DO NUMERICAL EXAMPLES so that
you can see what values certain quantities have and how they behave
under different circumstances. That way, you do not get led down
dead-end paths like the silly comment you just made.

[Big Dog]

On 8/6/2012 11:37 AM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:

> Ladder is a metric in 3D Cartesian coordinates. Metric is always a
> constant quantity and for simplicity if we take orthogonal coordinate
> system, then what is peculiar is that constancy of the metric is
> maintained by interchangeability of components. This you have stated.
> If x component is reduced y component is increased. If we talk about
> components only what it means is that x component can change into y
> component. Since both x and y can be measured by a meter stick, there
> is no contradiction.
> What meaning do you assign to space-time metric? And x^2-(ct)^2 should
> be zero. Why it is non zero constant?
>

Tamhane, I will repeat two things I have already said in this thread,
but now in specific response to the paragraphs above.
=================================================================

Now, if this does not help, and you are still confused, then what you
should consider is that it is not possible to make sense of this for you
in a few simple paragraphs appropriate for Usenet, and that perhaps you
need a slower, more gradual, more verbose and deliberate development of
the ideas with lots of examples along the way so that you can see how
things work at each step. In that case, there are a number of really
good books that would serve that purpose. If books are not doing it for
you, then it would be good of you to enroll in a class on the subject
where you can have back-and-forth questions combined with at-length
treatment that you will not find on Usenet.

=================================================================

But the other big part of it is sheer laziness. It is the stance that
science ought to be feasibly accomplished from an armchair, equipped
only with a sharp wit and the facts as presently familiar. This is the
position of so-self-proclaimed "natural philosophers", who falsely
believe that philosophers (let alone natural philosophers) operate that
way. This is the group that steadfastly refuses to do any background
reading or to learn ancillary skills, and it is the group that refuses
to acknowledge any experimental result that would represent a surprise
and a serious conflict with their long-held preconceptions. They want to
be able to discuss things deeply without learning or using jargon. They
want equations to be explained simply and in a way understandable by lay
people without demanding any precursor work. They want all previous
research (experimental and theoretical) digested and summarized for them
so that they can be brought up to speed with minimal effort. There is
much posturing and demanding that comes with this whining, simpering,
laziness.
Bottom line is that if the only place you're willing to invest effort on
physics is in sci.physics.*, then you do not have the commitment to
learn it at anything more than the superficial and error-prone level. If
you feel intimidated by what you have to consume to become better
acquainted with relativity, then you'll have to get the fuck over it or
walk away. If the only place you go to eat is the candy and popcorn
counter at the movie theater, then it should not come as a surprise
later that you are malnourished.

==================================================================

[rotchm]

> There is no such thing as actual change in length.

Depends on what those words mean.

>Consider a ladder
> that is higher in height of a door. So it cannot pass through the
> door. But if it is inclined then it can pass through the door.

*Understanding* your intended meaning, that is correct.

> Its projection on the door is reduced not length of
> the actual ladder.

*Understanding* your intended meaning, that is correct.

> Thus length contraction is a geometrical projection.

Bad choice of words but, *Understanding* the intended meaning, that is correct.

> Is he serious or he is just fooling the people?

Those who do not understand the intended meaning of those words are fooled.

> What he forgets is that length of the ladder is same in both the
> frames;

Ahhh... But here "length" has a different meaning than that of SR's meaning. Those who do not understand the intended meaning of the words are fooled. You are fooled. SR has a specific vocabulary that ,unfortunately, uses common words but with different meanings. Learn what "length" means in SR.

> There is physical contraction in length

Very bad choice of words, that dont have much meaning; it confuses fools like you moreso.

[Vilas Tamhane]

But you take too much interest, so much that it amounts to perversion,
in the malnourished people. May I know why?

[Big Dog]

On 8/6/2012 12:04 PM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:

>
> But you take too much interest, so much that it amounts to perversion,
> in the malnourished people. May I know why?
>

Because those people deserve to treat themselves better. And it does no
good to stand at the movie theater candy counter and tell people that
they can get all the nourishment they need here. So I don't. I give them
candy because that's what's available here, and I tell them that if they
are looking for a real meal to go get it somewhere else. If they tell me
they don't know where to go for a real meal, I'm more than happy to give
recommendations. If they tell me it's too much work to go get a real
meal at those places, then I tell them that's being fucking lazy and
they have a problem.

Got a problem with that?

[paparios]

El lunes, 6 de agosto de 2012 10:48:06 UTC-4, Vilas Tamhane escribió:
> Tom Roberts is a scientist and just see how he explains length
>
> contraction. (Words are mine).

Here we are already expecting the worst, your words of course...

>
> There is no such thing as actual change in length. Consider a ladder
>
> that is higher in height of a door. So it cannot pass through the
>
> door. But if it is inclined then it can pass through the door. Its
>
> projection on the door is reduced not length of the actual ladder.
>
> Thus length contraction is a geometrical projection.
>
> Is he serious or he is just fooling the people?

Are you serious or just an ignorant? Wait..we know the answer!!! You are a moron!!

>
> What he forgets is that length of the ladder is same in both the
>
> frames; that of a ladder and that of a door.
>
> In the coordinate system of the door, y coordinate (height wise) is
>
> reduced but the x-coordinate increases. Ladder remains same but the
>
> components change. In SR, this is not the case. There is physical
>
> contraction in length (always in the other frame). This is of course
>
> before the idiotic idea of space-time continuum emerged.

There you go. You have no idea of what SR says. You have not read anything about it and you are making things up from your deluded mind.

It is only basic logic that the selection of a systems of coordinates can't, in any way, affect any object in Nature.

>
> In space time diagram, moving ladder has two components. One is
>
> spatial and the other is in the direction of time. Since there is no
>
> direct proof of space turning into time and time turning into space,
>
> the whole idea lies in the realm of fantasy. Space-time is not a
>
> coordinate system, it is a graph. Graph of wrong equations of Lorentz.

For a theory to be correct, it should not depend on a system of coordinates. For that reason there are some quantities in physics that are frame independent quantities. One of those frame independent quantities is the interval:

ds^2=dx^2+dy^2+dz^2-c^2dt^2

[YBM]

Le 06.08.2012 18:37, Vilas Tamhane a �crit :

> And x^2-(ct)^2 should be zero.

Really? What makes you think so?

[Vilas Tamhane]

What you say is true. By calling space-time as a continuum they wish
to create world that cannot be visualized. I read somewhere, if we
cannot visualize space with more than 3 dimensions (spatial) that
doesn’t mean that there cannot be space with more than 3 dimensions.
This is exactly a problem with mathematicians. They create entities to
suit mathematical models. Shouldn’t we demand a proof for space having
more than 3-D?
Picture gets even weirder when time is attached as an appendix to
space coordinates. Well, the space-time diagram explains Lorentz
equations, but it is after all a diagram and not some occult real
world. Tom often says, SR is space time geometry. This is another way
to fool people. Any mathematical equation or geometrical
representation does not stand alone, hanging without foundation. It
always represents some physical fact. So why he sticks to geometry and
not to equations? Simply because, equations give results which are
meaningless, being reciprocal. Space-time diagram always presents one
point of view.

[Vilas Tamhane]

> good bye- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

When proper length is not changed, other measurements do not make any
sense.

[Vilas Tamhane]

Of course I have a problem with that. You won’t do this unless you
have some motivation to do this.

[Big Dog]

On 8/6/2012 12:35 PM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:

> What you say is true. By calling space-time as a continuum they wish
> to create world that cannot be visualized.

No world is being created. It is OUR world that is being *described*.
The accurate statement is that there are some aspects of our world that
cannot be easily visualized. So what? Our mental concepts come from a
visual domain that is optimized for survival and is only a tiny,
nonrepresentative slice of the world as a whole.

Your belief is that nature OUGHT TO BE visualizable in just the same way
that everyday experience is visualizable. But consider the possibility
that this is a futile wish.

Also consider the possibility that Understandable does not equate with
Visualizable. There are many things that are completely Understandable
even without a Visualization.

> I read somewhere, if we
> cannot visualize space with more than 3 dimensions (spatial) that

> doesn�t mean that there cannot be space with more than 3 dimensions.

> This is exactly a problem with mathematicians. They create entities to

> suit mathematical models. Shouldn�t we demand a proof for space having

[Big Dog]

I don't understand why you have a problem with that.

I do not like to see malnourished people. I do not like to see them
coming up to a candy counter looking for a full and proper meal.

My motivation is to motivate them to find a proper and full meal where
that can be found. It will do you good to do that.

[guskz]

Nothing wrong with Tom other than he's a fundamentalist:

Meaning he won't stray from accepted principles, thus he will never comment on anything that may suggest the opposite.

So you'll never get nothing out of him other than already known scientific facts.

[Vilas Tamhane]

On Aug 6, 10:54 am, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/6/2012 12:35 PM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
>
> > What you say is true. By calling space-time as a continuum they wish
> > to create world that cannot be visualized.
>
> No world is being created. It is OUR world that is being *described*.
> The accurate statement is that there are some aspects of our world that
> cannot be easily visualized. So what? Our mental concepts come from a
> visual domain that is optimized for survival and is only a tiny,
> nonrepresentative slice of the world as a whole.
>
> Your belief is that nature OUGHT TO BE visualizable in just the same way
> that everyday experience is visualizable. But consider the possibility
> that this is a futile wish.
>
> Also consider the possibility that Understandable does not equate with
> Visualizable. There are many things that are completely Understandable
> even without a Visualization.
>
>
>
> > I read somewhere, if we
> > cannot visualize space with more than 3 dimensions (spatial) that

> > doesn t mean that there cannot be space with more than 3 dimensions.

> > This is exactly a problem with mathematicians. They create entities to

> > suit mathematical models. Shouldn t we demand a proof for space having

> > more than 3-D?
> > Picture gets even weirder when time is attached as an appendix to
> > space coordinates. Well, the space-time diagram explains Lorentz
> > equations, but it is after all a diagram and not some occult real
> > world. Tom often says, SR is space time geometry. This is another way
> > to fool people. Any mathematical equation or geometrical
> > representation does not stand alone, hanging without foundation. It
> > always represents some physical fact. So why he sticks to geometry and
> > not to equations? Simply because, equations give results which are
> > meaningless, being reciprocal. Space-time diagram always presents one

> > point of view.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

I don’t agree. It should be possible to visualize geometry, if not
other physical entities.
What you say about understanding is only partly correct. A person may
not understand truth for two reasons. One is that, it is beyond his
capacity. Another is that what is presented as truth is in fact not
truth.
I cannot understand or comprehend God the way I cannot comprehend
imaginary time in the metric of the space-time geometry you have
explained in your post. (For –t^2 to exists, square root of –t^2 must
exist).

[Vilas Tamhane]

> that can be found. It will do you good to do that.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Are you sure? Where is the guarantee that food would be nutritious?
What is wrong if I explore foundation before jumping on the ivory
tower of mathematics?

[Vilas Tamhane]

> So you'll never get nothing out of him other than already known scientific facts.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Isn’t it frightening that all these people present physics theories as
gospel? I never saw them discussing among themselves anything with
critical mind.

[Big Dog]

On 8/6/2012 1:18 PM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:

> Are you sure? Where is the guarantee that food would be nutritious?
> What is wrong if I explore foundation before jumping on the ivory
> tower of mathematics?
>

You are not being asked to jump on ivory tower of mathematics. You are
being asked to jump on *physics*, and in order to pursue that you will
have to learn some jargon (which you're not good at) and you will have
to learn some math skills (which you seem to be afraid of). You will
also have to learn what certain physical concepts MEAN by practicing
with them in various examples. Resisting doing that is fucking lazy.

You are not exploring anything, any more than poking around in the dirt
with a deadwood stick is exploring for gold or oil. You label this
pseudophilosophical diddling "exploring foundation" to make it seem less
foolish, but it is still foolish.

You want a guarantee that investing in the effort will pay off for you?
You want some kind of reassurance that doing more than the penny-ante
piddling is worth the trouble? It's what people do in ANY field, not
just physics, and for good reason. All I can tell you is that you are
OBVIOUSLY malnourished, and I am fully aware of where there are full and
nutritious meals, and I can FULLY assure you that continuing to dine at
the candy and popcorn counter will not help your malnourishment but will
only worsen it.

If you continue to look for excuses to NOT do what you seem to be afraid
to do, then of course you will die of starvation. That would be a
fucking shame and a waste of your time and mind.

[Big Dog]

On 8/6/2012 1:13 PM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
-
>
> I don�t agree. It should be possible to visualize geometry, if not
> other physical entities.

Sorry, but what you think SHOULD BE does not equate to what really is.

> What you say about understanding is only partly correct. A person may
> not understand truth for two reasons. One is that, it is beyond his
> capacity. Another is that what is presented as truth is in fact not
> truth.

Oh, there are LOTS of reasons why somebody doesn't understand, other
than the two you've listed. It's not beyond your capacity. But it DOES
depend on you developing skills and language that YOU DO NOT PRESENTLY
HAVE. Correcting that is not a matter of capacity, it is a matter of
CHOICE and INVESTMENT. Now, if you want to AVOID that choice by saying
it is either one of the two above and you cannot fathom the first, that
is a choice in itself.

> I cannot understand or comprehend God the way I cannot comprehend
> imaginary time in the metric of the space-time geometry you have

> explained in your post. (For �t^2 to exists, square root of �t^2 must
> exist).

Why do you think so? This is an example of what I'm talking about. There
is no imaginary time required here.

The invariant is not -t^2. It is [x-y-z-span]^2 - t^2. And that is for
spacelike intervals -- ones that lie outside the light cone (which is a
*physical* concept not a mathematical one). For timelike intervals --
again these are jargon terms that you have to learn -- the invariant is
t^2 - [x-y-z-span]^2. There is no pathology anywhere and it is not hard
to understand -- with some time and background.

[Vilas Tamhane]

Yes! I am afraid of mathematics because I try to find meaning in the
equations. I can’t understand meaning of imaginary time. I don’t think
food would be nutritious if I can’t understand meaning of imaginary
time. I am afraid; I am not a robot to use it without understanding it.

[Big Dog]

On 8/6/2012 1:47 PM, Big Dog wrote:
> On 8/6/2012 1:13 PM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
> -
>>

>> I don’t agree. It should be possible to visualize geometry, if not

>> other physical entities.
>
> Sorry, but what you think SHOULD BE does not equate to what really is.
>

I'll give you an example of this. There are lots of people for whom
visualization requires that the visualized thing have a volume and a
boundary and shape. If it does not have a boundary, then they declare it
unvisualizable.

But a cloud in the sky does not have a boundary. Sure, you can say,
"See? That is a cloud. And over there, there is another cloud." And you
can argue with yourself that if there are two distinct clouds you can
point and separate them in your mind, then there must be at least one
boundary between them.

But if you actually LOOK at a cloud in detail and in particular explore
the regions where you think the boundary of the cloud is by -- say --
passing through it, you find that there IS no clear boundary. There is
only a gradual transition from the place where you can clearly say there
is cloud and a different place where you might say there is no cloud.
But there is no place where you can point to and say, "To the right is
cloud and to the left is no cloud." And in fact you find that trying to
decide where there is cloud and where there is no cloud becomes a matter
of arbitrary convention.

For *some* people, then, this becomes an impossible concept to
visualize, because then there is no definable SHAPE to the cloud, and
anything without a shape is unvisualizable, and therefore is an abstract
concept. And in fact, the concept of what a cloud *is* loses focus in
their mind because it now seems abstract. How can I describe what the
cloud is if I no longer know where the cloud begins and ends?

But the cloud has not changed. The only thing that has changed is your
level of inspection of it, and your discovery that certain things you
thought were true of the cloud just are not true. It's not like the
cloud is suddenly an abstract thing because it lacks a property
necessary for visualization. It is still very real, but you have to
describe it now in a way that is more careful and relies less on
visualization or the assumptions that come with a visualization.

I gave you this very ordinary example, because I want to challenge your
assumption that things should be clearly visualizable. Once you accept
that this premise doesn't even hold for ORDINARY things, then it becomes
easier to relax about letting go of that premise for things outside of
common experience.

[Big Dog]

On 8/6/2012 1:29 PM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:

> Isn�t it frightening that all these people present physics theories as

> gospel? I never saw them discussing among themselves anything with
> critical mind.

What you have to recognize is why certain physics theories are accepted
at all. Have you asked yourself that question? Why do some theories
appear to be better received than others?

Now, if you LIE to yourself that it's all about politics or how
respected the proponents are or how compelling the logical argument of
the theory is, then you have wholly missed the point as well as the
critical ingredient.

What is that critical ingredient, Tamhane? I believe you know it, even
if you don't want to say it.

[Big Dog]

On 8/6/2012 1:49 PM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:

>
> Yes! I am afraid of mathematics because I try to find meaning in the
> equations.

Well, that's good. Unfortunately, though, if you just look at equations
without understanding any of the words that led up to that (because you
took a short-cut), then you are shooting yourself in the foot.

I'll give you an example. Let's take a classical one, so that you are
not confused into thinking this is restricted to modern physics.
Newtonian gravity says
F = GMm/r^2.
What is that G? What is the *physical meaning* of G?
If you tell me it's a constant, I'll ask you why it's needed at all. Why
is it not one or pi or 4?
THAT is the problem with staring at equations and trying to GUESS
meaning. If you had learned the material leading up to F=GMm/r^2, then
the meaning of G would be readily apparent and you would understand
immediately why it is not 1 or pi or 4.

> I can�t understand meaning of imaginary time.

There isn't imaginary time, and I really don't know why you think there
must be.

There is a mental connection that you are making that is incorrect.

If I tell you that an invariant observationally is [A^2 + B^2 + C^2 +
D^2] you have no problem. If I tell you that an invariant
observationally is [A^2 + B^2 + C^2 - D^2] you suddenly think that D
must be imaginary. WHY???
Is it because you think that these terms MUST NECESSARILY ALWAYS combine
with sums so that [A^2 + B^2 + C^2 - D^2] really stands for [A^2 + B^2 +
C^2 + (-D^2)]??
WHY do you think that these terms MUST NECESSARILY ALWAYS combine with sums?

> I don�t think
> food would be nutritious if I can�t understand meaning of imaginary

> time. I am afraid; I am not a robot to use it without understanding it.

That's good news. I don't expect you to understand imaginary time. What
I expect you to learn is what is the physical meaning of that minus
sign. But YOU WILL NOT LEARN IT by staring at equations and GUESSING the
meaning.

[guskz]

On Monday, 6 August 2012 10:48:06 UTC-4, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
> Tom Roberts is a scientist and just see how he explains length
>
> contraction. (Words are mine).
>
> There is no such thing as actual change in length. Consider a ladder
>
> that is higher in height of a door. So it cannot pass through the
>
> door. But if it is inclined then it can pass through the door. Its
>
> projection on the door is reduced not length of the actual ladder.
>
> Thus length contraction is a geometrical projection.
>
> Is he serious or he is just fooling the people?
>
> What he forgets is that length of the ladder is same in both the
>
> frames; that of a ladder and that of a door.
>
> In the coordinate system of the door, y coordinate (height wise) is
>
> reduced but the x-coordinate increases. Ladder remains same but the
>
> components change. In SR, this is not the case. There is physical
>
> contraction in length (always in the other frame). This is of course
>
> before the idiotic idea of space-time continuum emerged.
>
> In space time diagram, moving ladder has two components. One is
>
> spatial and the other is in the direction of time. Since there is no
>
> direct proof of space turning into time and time turning into space,
>
> the whole idea lies in the realm of fantasy. Space-time is not a
>
> coordinate system, it is a graph. Graph of wrong equations of Lorentz.

I said it once, I'll say it a millions times again because I am right:

Forget contraction, dilation but instead focus on permittivity, the permittivity of space in NO WAY differs from the permittivity ( & buoyancy & terminal velocity) of any other medium including air or water or metal.

In metal, the medium melts or breaks down. And likewise the object in the medium melts or breaks down.


2012: Guskz never before or there after.

[Big Dog]

I just want to follow up on this by asking you in what venue you came to
the impression that time is to be thought of as imaginary here.

- If you came to it as a result of something you saw on Usenet or *gasp*
on sci.physics.relativity -- say from Dennis/Sue -- then I would say
this is a good example of a stomach-ache and tooth rot that comes from
eating nothing but candy.

- If you came to it by just looking at the equation somewhere and
arriving at that conclusion ON YOUR OWN, then I would say this is why
you would benefit from a classroom situation where you could ASK a
competent instructor, "Doesn't that mean that time is imaginary?," to
which the instructor could stop and explain why it does not.

[Big Dog]

On 8/6/2012 1:49 PM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:

>

> Yes! I am afraid of mathematics because I try to find meaning in the

> equations. I can�t understand meaning of imaginary time. I don�t think
> food would be nutritious if I can�t understand meaning of imaginary

> time. I am afraid; I am not a robot to use it without understanding it.
>

To me, this is a little like standing at the candy and popcorn counter
and saying that you don't want to eat a full and proper meal because of
all the ground glass it contains, and that you don't want to just
blindly swallow ground glass without looking at the dangers of eating
ground glass. At which point I would say, I'm not inviting you to eat a
full and proper meal with ground glass in it; why would you ever think a
full and proper meal contains ground glass? It doesn't matter that
you're terrified of ground glass. You still need to eat full and proper
meals, and you can always ask someone who has prepared it, "Does this
contain ground glass?"

In the same way, if you are terrified of equations you do not understand
because they seem to contain imaginary time, then you need to ASK
whether there really is imaginary time in there, rather than shying away
from mathematics just because of a fear of imaginary time or other such
contaminants.

[Dirk Van de moortel]

"Big Dog" <big.fi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jvpefc$joi$1...@speranza.aioe.org

Good one :-)
But to no avail, surely :-|

Dirk Vdm

[Big Dog]

On 8/6/2012 4:57 PM, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

>
> Good one :-)
> But to no avail, surely :-|

There are a thousand excuses for laziness.

The honest response might be, "I just don't want to spend that level of
effort on it." That's fine. Then there won't be anything other than a
superficial and error-prone understanding of it. It's just poking around
on the ground with a deadwood stick.

It's when poking around on the ground with a deadwood stick is PRETENDED
to be "exploring foundations" that it gets to be a little silly. And
that's when motivations need to be questioned.

If people were more honest with themselves about their fears and
motivations, then things would be a lot less cluttered here.

[xxein]

xxein: So you can't use anybody else's experimental results in the
same way the experimenter does?

You have to use the same jargon with a completely different
interpretation of the same results?

Etc.

The bottom line is that you will only accept what YOU believe.
"Relativity is a concept - not the physic. Same as a made up math to
describe it - not physical.

Like TJR, if I don't believe the same as you, I must be the moron. I
don't care how intensely you may have studied what you believe. I
have too, but it doesn't mean anyone is 1:1 to the physic. We still
don't really understand how the physic works. We play with ideas and
call them models or theories.

Some are more comprehensive than others, meaning more completely in
tune with the grander universal scale.

Don't mock others for not believing as you do. There is only one
physic in any universe. Its operating procedure does not change.
Local conditions, yes. Learning the local conditions does not grant
you any other conditions and the basic understanding of the universe's
operating rules.

Is math a good 'tool'? Yes. But it works with anyone's
comprehension. So it is is not necessarily a description of anything
other than a mere belief.

Relativity theory is a belief concept. A jargon of concept with a
math. I don't think I need that jargon to understand the physic that
underlies it. I don't mock it. I just think I have surpassed that
theory. Seen through it.

I've spent almost 30 yrs of fun sparked from the logical (illogical)
inconsistencies of such a theory. You can't even guess what I know.
Einstein was so wrong. I don't even care about it that much anymore.

I had an excellent logic teacher a long time ago. Unfortunately (or
maybe fortunately), he did not get into this stuff. He could have
probably annihilated Einstein if he went there. So I do instead.

Wouldn't you like to learn how to get underneath the concept of
relativity and to the physic?

[Vilas Tamhane]

> relativity and to the physic?- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Then possibly you can tell me how imaginary time can be used in real
calculations. In the coordinate system x, y,z are the basic spatial
measurements. To arrive at particular equation we use squared terms.
In normal algebra there is nothing wrong with m^2-n^2. This is because
it is a simple subtraction of the square of two numbers. When the same
numbers are square of the coordinates then each component should be
reducible to its single basic power.
This is because in geometry when we find a constant term that
represents something real and constant, then it has to be sum of
square of components. That is why x^2-t^2 has to be in the form x^2+(-
it)^2, where i=(-1)^1/2.
This makes it clear that space time is not geometry. It is a graph
that represents Lorentz equations.

[Big Dog]

On 8/6/2012 10:13 PM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:

> Then possibly you can tell me how imaginary time can be used in real
> calculations. In the coordinate system x, y,z are the basic spatial
> measurements. To arrive at particular equation we use squared terms.

So the fundamental question is WHY do you use squared terms and add
them? There is power in understanding the answer to this question.

> In normal algebra there is nothing wrong with m^2-n^2. This is because
> it is a simple subtraction of the square of two numbers. When the same
> numbers are square of the coordinates then each component should be
> reducible to its single basic power.
> This is because in geometry when we find a constant term that
> represents something real and constant, then it has to be sum of
> square of components.

Don't be so sure. WHY does this rule work for at least some cases?

[paparios]

El lunes, 6 de agosto de 2012 23:13:32 UTC-4, Vilas Tamhane escribió:

>
> Then possibly you can tell me how imaginary time can be used in real
>
> calculations. In the coordinate system x, y,z are the basic spatial
>
> measurements. To arrive at particular equation we use squared terms.
>
> In normal algebra there is nothing wrong with m^2-n^2. This is because
>
> it is a simple subtraction of the square of two numbers. When the same
>
> numbers are square of the coordinates then each component should be
>
> reducible to its single basic power.
>
> This is because in geometry when we find a constant term that
>
> represents something real and constant, then it has to be sum of
>
> square of components. That is why x^2-t^2 has to be in the form x^2+(-
>
> it)^2, where i=(-1)^1/2.
>
> This makes it clear that space time is not geometry. It is a graph
>
> that represents Lorentz equations.

Not that you will understand any of the following, but here is the demonstration of the interval invariance.

Consider two objects K and K' moving relative to each other with constant speed. The coordinate axes X and X' coincide, while the Y and Z axes are parallel to Y' and Z'.
Designate the time in the systems K and K' by t and t'.
Consider one event A, which consists of sending out a signal, propagating with the speed of light, from a point having coordinates (xl, yl, zl, t1) in the K system. We observe the propagation of this signal in the K system. Let the second event B consist of the arrival of the signal at point (x2, y2, z2, t2). Since the signal propagates with speed c; the distance covered by it is therefore c(tl-t2). On the other hand, this same distance equals [(x2-xl)^2+(y2-yl)^2+(z2-zl)^2]^1/2. Thus we can write the following relation between the coordinates of the two events in the K system:

(x2-xl)^2+(y2-yl)^2+(z2-zl)^2-c^2(t2-tl)^2=0 (1)

The same two events, A and B, can be observed from the K' system:
Let the coordinates of the first event A in the K' system be (x’1, y’1, z’1, t’1) and of the second event B be (x’2, y’2, z’2, t’2). Since the speed of light is the same in the K and K' systems, we have, similarly to (1):

(x’2–x’l)^2+(y’2–y’l)^2+(z’2–z’l)^2-c^2(t’2–t’l)^2=0 (2)

Now consider (xl, yl, zl, t1) and (x2, y2, z2, t2) are the coordinates of ANY two events, A and B, then the quantity

sl2=[c^2(t2-tl)^2-(x2-xl)^2-(y2-yl)^2-(z2-zl)^2]^1/2 (3)

is called the interval between these two events.

Thus it follows, from the principle of invariance of the speed of light, that if the interval between two events is zero in one coordinate system, then it must be equal to zero in all other coordinate systems.

If these two events are infinitely close to each other, then the interval ds between them is

ds^2=c^2dt^2-dx^2-dy^2-dz^2. (4)

The form of expressions (3) and (4) permits us to regard the interval ds, from the formal point of view, as the distance between two points in a four-dimensional space (whose axes are labelled by x, y, z, and the product ct). But there is a basic difference between the rule for forming this quantity and the rule in ordinary geometry: in forming the square of the interval, the squares of the coordinate differences along the different axes are summed, not with the same sign, but rather with varying signs.
As already shown, if ds = 0 in one inertial system, then ds' = 0 in any other system.

[Vilas Tamhane]

> > that represents Lorentz equations.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

I don’t say math is wrong (it can seldom be), I am saying with this
rule, we are not talking about some mysterious world of space-time. We
are talking about a space-time graph. It is just a graphical
representation of Lorentz equations.

[Big Dog]

That's not my question.

You said that in geometry we square terms and then add them. I agree
that's what we do. I'm asking you WHY this should be done. There IS a
reason, and there is insight that reason provides that helps explains
what spacetime is.

As it is, it appears your level of understanding of things is "Because
we just do, that's why." And then it's no wonder you find spacetime a
mystery, when it is not mysterious at all -- just because it has a minus
where you're used to seeing a plus.

The question is WHY should it be a plus in geometry, and what happens if
it is NOT a plus but a minus?

>

[Vilas Tamhane]

On Aug 6, 1:31 pm, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/6/2012 2:12 PM, Big Dog wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 8/6/2012 1:49 PM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
>

> >> I can’t understand meaning of imaginary time.

>
> > There isn't imaginary time, and I really don't know why you think there
> > must be.
>
> > There is a mental connection that you are making that is incorrect.
>
> > If I tell you that an invariant observationally is [A^2 + B^2 + C^2 +
> > D^2] you have no problem. If I tell you that an invariant
> > observationally is [A^2 + B^2 + C^2 - D^2] you suddenly think that D
> > must be imaginary. WHY???
> > Is it because you think that these terms MUST NECESSARILY ALWAYS combine
> > with sums so that [A^2 + B^2 + C^2 - D^2] really stands for [A^2 + B^2 +
> > C^2 + (-D^2)]??
> > WHY do you think that these terms MUST NECESSARILY ALWAYS combine with
> > sums?
>

> >> I don’t think
> >> food would be nutritious if I can’t understand meaning of imaginary

> >> time. I am afraid; I am not a robot to use it without understanding it.
>
> > That's good news. I don't expect you to understand imaginary time. What
> > I expect you to learn is what is the physical meaning of that minus
> > sign. But YOU WILL NOT LEARN IT by staring at equations and GUESSING the
> > meaning.
>
> I just want to follow up on this by asking you in what venue you came to
> the impression that time is to be thought of as imaginary here.
>
> - If you came to it as a result of something you saw on Usenet or *gasp*
> on sci.physics.relativity -- say from Dennis/Sue -- then I would say
> this is a good example of a stomach-ache and tooth rot that comes from
> eating nothing but candy.
>
> - If you came to it by just looking at the equation somewhere and
> arriving at that conclusion ON YOUR OWN, then I would say this is why
> you would benefit from a classroom situation where you could ASK a
> competent instructor, "Doesn't that mean that time is imaginary?," to

> which the instructor could stop and explain why it does not.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Imaginary time is not my conclusion. Somebody mentioned it on the net.
Now you have given me a clue that other posters, more knowledgeable
than me, also raised it. I will search those blogs which I have no
doubt must be interesting. On your part, how many and how long are you
going to brush off the objections?

[Big Dog]

On 8/7/2012 9:19 AM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:

>
> Imaginary time is not my conclusion. Somebody mentioned it on the net.

This is an example of tooth-rot that comes from dining at the candy
counter. That someone might well be Sue/Dennis, as he was rather famous
for getting very confused about this point as well. So you see, you have
gotten overly worked up over a boondoggle introduced by a babbler.

> Now you have given me a clue that other posters, more knowledgeable
> than me, also raised it. I will search those blogs which I have no
> doubt must be interesting. On your part, how many and how long are you
> going to brush off the objections?
>

WHAT OBJECTIONS? There is no imaginary time in relativity.

Also, your assumption that axis-swapping defines the invariant is
completely off the mark, and the invariance is defined completely
differently, as I've already pointed out.

What other objections did you have?

[Vilas Tamhane]

My objection is simple and straightforward. Time cannot be a fourth
coordinate. There are three and only three spatial coordinates by
which we can completely define space. Attaching time as a coordinate
makes it a graph and not geometry.
Moreover, space-time diagram represents Lorentz equations and not
Einstein’s relativity.

[Poutnik]

Vilas Tamhane from vilast...@gmail.com
posted Tue, 7 Aug 2012 19:21:35 -0700 (PDT)

> On Aug 7, 7:57 am, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:

> >
> > What other objections did you have?
>
> My objection is simple and straightforward. Time cannot be a fourth
> coordinate.

Is it in contrary to laws of physics or math ?

> There are three and only three spatial coordinates by which we can
> completely define space.

Nobody says time coordinate is spatial coordinate.
Time is time coordinate as well as spatial is spatial.

> Attaching time as a coordinate makes it a graph and not geometry.

The saame could be said about Y and Z axis.

> Moreover, space-time diagram represents Lorentz equations and not

> Einstein?s relativity.

Lorencz equations of SR.

--
Poutnik

[Big Dog]

On 8/7/2012 9:21 PM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:

>
> My objection is simple and straightforward. Time cannot be a fourth
> coordinate.

It is not intended to be a fourth SPATIAL coordinate.
There is no such test as "swapping coordinates" as you imagine.

> There are three and only three spatial coordinates by
> which we can completely define space. Attaching time as a coordinate
> makes it a graph and not geometry.

You seem to have this bonehead idea that geometry is a description of
SPACE ALONE, and so that adding time somehow implies that time is
spacelike. Nothing could be further from the truth. Basic misapprehension.

You are being held back by SIMPLE things, where a good classroom
instructor would have been able to address them in a heartbeat.

> Moreover, space-time diagram represents Lorentz equations and not

> Einstein�s relativity.
>

[kenseto]

On Monday, 6 August 2012 10:48:06 UTC-4, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
> Tom Roberts is a scientist and just see how he explains length
>
> contraction. (Words are mine).
>
> There is no such thing as actual change in length. Consider a ladder
>
> that is higher in height of a door. So it cannot pass through the
>
> door. But if it is inclined then it can pass through the door. Its
>
> projection on the door is reduced not length of the actual ladder.
>
> Thus length contraction is a geometrical projection.
>
> Is he serious or he is just fooling the people?
>
> What he forgets is that length of the ladder is same in both the
>
> frames; that of a ladder and that of a door.
>
> In the coordinate system of the door, y coordinate (height wise) is
>
> reduced but the x-coordinate increases. Ladder remains same but the
>
> components change. In SR, this is not the case. There is physical
>
> contraction in length (always in the other frame). This is of course
>
> before the idiotic idea of space-time continuum emerged.
>
> In space time diagram, moving ladder has two components. One is
>
> spatial and the other is in the direction of time. Since there is no
>
> direct proof of space turning into time and time turning into space,
>
> the whole idea lies in the realm of fantasy. Space-time is not a
>
> coordinate system, it is a graph. Graph of wrong equations of Lorentz.

The following sequence of events will amaze you:
1. The original SR as formulated by Einstein includes physical (material) length contraction.
2. Physicist found that physical (material) length contraction will give rise to paradoxes such as the barn and the pole paradox. In this paradox: the barm frame observer claims that an 80 ft pole will be able to fit into a 40 ft barn with both doors close simultaneously for a very brief period. OTOH the pole observer claims that the pole cannot fit into the barn with both doors close simultaneously.
3. In order to explain this paradox physicists invented the bogus concept of relativity of simultaneity (RoS) and the idea that length contraction is now a geometric projection effect....this means that while inside the barn the pole is tilted so its projected length is 1/gamma. This allows the barn observer to claim that the longer length pole can fit into the barn.
4. RoS allows the pole observer to conclude that the front door close and open just before the lead end of the pole reaches it. At the same time the rear door does not close until the front door is opened. This allows the pole pass through the barn without hitting the doors.
5. ROTFLOL...If you think that physicists just inventing stuffs to explain their religion ....you are correct.

There is no need for the above contorted explanation. A new theory of relativity called IRT explains this paradox naturally as follows:
1. The pole will have the same physical length (material length) in all frames.
2. Both the barn observer and the pole observer will predict that the pole cannot fit into the barn with both doors close simultaneously.
3. The barn observer claims that the light-path length of the 80 ft pole at rest in his frame is its physical (material) length and he will predict that the light-path length of an 80 ft moving pole to be 80/gamma.
4. The pole observer claims the the light-path length of his pole is 80 ft long. He predicts that the light-path length of an 80 ft long material pole at rest with the barn observer is gamma.

As you can see IRT eliminates all the contorted ex-planations of SRT. A paper on IRT is available in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011irt.dtg.pdf

[Big Dog]

On 8/8/2012 9:44 AM, kenseto wrote:

>
> The following sequence of events will amaze you:
> 1. The original SR as formulated by Einstein includes physical (material) length contraction.
> 2. Physicist found that physical (material) length contraction will give rise to paradoxes such
> as the barn and the pole paradox. In this paradox: the barm frame observer claims that an 80 ft
> pole will be able to fit into a 40 ft barn with both doors close
simultaneously for a very brief
> period. OTOH the pole observer claims that the pole cannot fit into the barn with both doors close
> simultaneously.
> 3. In order to explain this paradox physicists invented the bogus concept of relativity of
> simultaneity (RoS) and the idea that length contraction is now a geometric projection effect....
> this means that while inside the barn the pole is tilted so its projected length is 1/gamma. This
> allows the barn observer to claim that the longer length pole can fit into the barn.
> 4. RoS allows the pole observer to conclude that the front door close and open just before the lead
> end of the pole reaches it. At the same time the rear door does not close until the front door is
> opened. This allows the pole pass through the barn without hitting the doors.
> 5. ROTFLOL...If you think that physicists just inventing stuffs to explain their religion ....you are correct.

That sequence of events is fictional. You made it up. You did it because
you are completely fucking uneducated on the real sequence of events. No
amount of *arguing* with you will correct your complete uneducation. No
amount of *arguing* with you will prevent you from making shit up as you
please.

You are a fucking waste of time.

[kenseto]

On Wednesday, 8 August 2012 11:15:28 UTC-4, Big Dog wrote:
> On 8/8/2012 9:44 AM, kenseto wrote:
>
>
>
> >
>
> > The following sequence of events will amaze you:
>
> > 1. The original SR as formulated by Einstein includes physical (material) length contraction.
>
> > 2. Physicist found that physical (material) length contraction will give rise to paradoxes such
>
> > as the barn and the pole paradox. In this paradox: the barm frame observer claims that an 80 ft
>
> > pole will be able to fit into a 40 ft barn with both doors close
>
> simultaneously for a very brief
>
> > period. OTOH the pole observer claims that the pole cannot fit into the barn with both doors close
>
> > simultaneously.
>
> > 3. In order to explain this paradox physicists invented the bogus concept of relativity of
>
> > simultaneity (RoS) and the idea that length contraction is now a geometric projection effect....
>
> > this means that while inside the barn the pole is tilted so its projected length is 1/gamma. This
>
> > allows the barn observer to claim that the longer length pole can fit into the barn.
>
> > 4. RoS allows the pole observer to conclude that the front door close and open just before the lead
>
> > end of the pole reaches it. At the same time the rear door does not close until the front door is
>
> > opened. This allows the pole pass through the barn without hitting the doors.
>
> > 5. ROTFLOL...If you think that physicists just inventing stuffs to explain their religion ....you are correct.
>
>
>
> That sequence of events is fictional. You made it up. You did it because
>
> you are completely fucking uneducated on the real sequence of events.

Hey Dog turk...Can't handle the truth eh?

>No
>
> amount of *arguing* with you will correct your complete uneducation. No
>
> amount of *arguing* with you will prevent you from making shit up as you
>
> please.

I didn't mkae anythiong up....SR uses RoS and gelmetric projection to explain the barn and the pole paradox.

>
>
>
> You are a fucking waste of time.

Pot kettle black.
You are a Dog-turk.

[kenseto]

Correction:
The barn observer predicts that the light-path length of the moving 80 ft pole is 80/gamma....this means that the light-path length of a 80 ft moving pole can fit into the 40 ft barn nicely. This prediction is based on the assumption that the light-path length of the barn observer's meter stick is its physical(material) length (1 meter long).

>
> 4. The pole observer claims the the light-path length of his pole is 80 ft long. He predicts that the light-path length of an 80 ft long material pole at rest with the barn observer is gamma.

Correction:
The pole observer predicts the light-path length of the moving barn is 40*gamma ft long....this means that the 80 ft long pole can fit into the 40*gamma ft long light-path length of the barn.
Notice that both the barn observer's prediction and the pole observer's prediction agree with each other.

>
>
>
> As you can see IRT eliminates all the contorted ex-planations of SRT. A paper on IRT is available in the following link:
>
> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011irt.dtg.pdf

[Big Dog]

On 8/8/2012 12:37 PM, kenseto wrote:

>>
>> That sequence of events is fictional. You made it up. You did it because
>> you are completely fucking uneducated on the real sequence of events.
>
> Hey Dog turk...Can't handle the truth eh?

You don't have a fucking clue about the truth. You just make shit up to
get attention so you won't be so fucking lonely all the time.

>
>> No amount of *arguing* with you will correct your complete uneducation. No
>> amount of *arguing* with you will prevent you from making shit up as you
>> please.
>
> I didn't mkae anythiong up....SR uses RoS and gelmetric projection to explain the barn and the pole paradox.

Relativity of simultaneity was established BEFORE length contraction was
derived and BEFORE the barn and pole paradox was ever dreamed up.

You don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about. But you make

shit up as you please.

[rotchm]

> I didn't mkae anythiong up....

Yup... a new week, an increasing degradation of seto's mental health. Note the many mistakes he made in a 4 word sentence.

>SR uses RoS and gelmetric projection

Gelmetric? Another one of your made up words in that failing mind of yours?

[kenseto]

On Wednesday, 8 August 2012 14:16:00 UTC-4, Big Dog wrote:
> On 8/8/2012 12:37 PM, kenseto wrote:
>
>
>
> >>
>
> >> That sequence of events is fictional. You made it up. You did it because
>
> >> you are completely fucking uneducated on the real sequence of events.
>
> >
>
> > Hey Dog turk...Can't handle the truth eh?
>
>
>
> You don't have a fucking clue about the truth. You just make shit up to
>
> get attention so you won't be so fucking lonely all the time.
>
>
>
> >
>
> >> No amount of *arguing* with you will correct your complete uneducation. No
>
> >> amount of *arguing* with you will prevent you from making shit up as you
>
> >> please.
>
> >
>
> > I didn't mkae anythiong up....SR uses RoS and gelmetric projection to explain the barn and the pole paradox.
>
>
>
> Relativity of simultaneity was established BEFORE length contraction was
>
> derived and BEFORE the barn and pole paradox was ever dreamed up.

No RoS never been established....in faCT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DO SO. Why because it violates the isotropy of the speed of light in all frames. Gee you are stupid.

[Poutnik]

kenseto from set...@att.net
posted Wed, 8 Aug 2012 16:52:05 -0700 (PDT)

> No RoS never been established....in faCT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DO SO.
> Why because it violates the isotropy of the speed of light in all
> frames. Gee you are stupid.

Exactly the opposite, RoS is a direct consequence of

isotropy of the speed of light in all frames.

You can easily derive it yourself.

It is not anything to be made up by weird mind.
It is rather unwanted sideproduct
of the existing measured phenomena of light speed.

Gee you are stupid.


--
Poutnik

[Big Dog]

On 8/8/2012 6:52 PM, kenseto wrote:

>
> No RoS never been established....in faCT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DO SO. Why because it violates
> the isotropy of the speed of light in all frames. Gee you are stupid.
>

RoS is *derived from* the constancy of the speed of light, and its isotropy.

You don't get that. That's ok. You're profoundly stupid and a waste of
time and you make shit up.

[kenseto]

Sigh....you can't have isotropy of the speed of light in the train and at the same time the train observer is moving wrt the light fronts from the ends of the train to get RoS. Gee you are fucking stupid.

[kenseto]

Sigh....you can't have isotropy of the speed of light in the train and at the same time the train observer is moving wrt the light fronts from the ends of the train to get RoS. Gee you are fucking stupid.



>
>
>

[Big Dog]

That's not how RoS comes about. The fact that you don't understand a
teaching illustration involving a train, and the fact that you don't
understand the difference between closing speed, and the fact that you
don't have a FUCKING CLUE how RoS is *derived from* the constancy of the
speed of light -- all those facts are YOUR problem, not anyone else's.

No more wasting time on you, even though you are pathologically lonely.

>

[Alfonso]

On 06/08/12 15:48, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
> Tom Roberts is a scientist

??

and just see how he explains length
> contraction. (Words are mine).
> There is no such thing as actual change in length. Consider a ladder
> that is higher in height of a door. So it cannot pass through the
> door. But if it is inclined then it can pass through the door. Its
> projection on the door is reduced not length of the actual ladder.
> Thus length contraction is a geometrical projection.
> Is he serious or he is just fooling the people?
> What he forgets is that length of the ladder is same in both the
> frames; that of a ladder and that of a door.
> In the coordinate system of the door, y coordinate (height wise) is
> reduced but the x-coordinate increases. Ladder remains same but the
> components change. In SR, this is not the case. There is physical
> contraction in length (always in the other frame). This is of course
> before the idiotic idea of space-time continuum emerged.
> In space time diagram, moving ladder has two components. One is
> spatial and the other is in the direction of time. Since there is no
> direct proof of space turning into time and time turning into space,
> the whole idea lies in the realm of fantasy. Space-time is not a
> coordinate system, it is a graph. Graph of wrong equations of Lorentz.

What you and many others fail to understand is the philosophical basis
of modern physics. Prior to 1920 all science was based on classical
philosophy. At its core was the philosophical assumption of causality.
that if something changes it is because something has caused it to
change. Cause must precede effect and the two linked by a physical
process. The role of science was (and for most other science still is)
to try and understand the physical process involved.

Around 1920 a group of physicists introduced a new philosophy. This
states that reality is beyond the human mind. The aim of physics changed
from understanding nature to predicting outcome.

"... the most that human beings can aspire to is to make models of the
world -- we can never actually "know" what Nature herself is really
doing. We can only make models and test them." Quoted by TR (origin
unknown) but an accurate description of the new philosophy

Thus provided a mathematical formulation gives correct predictions, or
at least does not make any testable incorrect predictions it is deemed
to be a valid theory (note the word 'theory' has changed its meaning).
What the maths is describing in physical terms is no longer a valid
question in physics. Put simply physics is maths but to describe his
work the physicist has to use language and so pseudo physical
descriptions are used. Words which appear to be describing something
physical but which are really describing the maths. Take "curved space"
for example. No one seriously thinks that there is some physical
substance out there which is "curved" it is simply a description of the
maths. No one asks what light *is*, physics is only concerned with what
it does.

"What is in principle unobservable should not at all be contained in our
conceptual scheme" Schr�dinger.

Interpretation - if you cannot observe whether a cat is alive or dead it
must be both. If you cannot observe the position of a particle it hasn't
got one. If you cannot determine the direction of a particle it hasn't
got one - it travels in all possible directions simultaionusly.

Or - Copenhagen interpretation - it does not exist as a particle until
you detect it.

Or - may worlds interpretation -it travels in every possible direction
in different parallel universes and happens to end up where it does in ours.

Essentially the maths is considered the only valid description and the
maths must not be confined by man's concepts of "reality" e.g. about
what a cat is or the nature of life and death.

It was this philosophical shift which rid physics of the aether. Aether
is an attempt to explain cause and effect in terms of a physical process
which under the new philosophy is considered a pointless attempt to
understand reality. SR was unacceptable as a theory under classical
philosophy as it lacked an alternative physical explanation to that of
Lorentz.

TR's problem is that he desperately wants to establish his credentials
and so vehemently supports orthodoxy - usually by finding a suitable
quote. Fundamentally he doesn't understand the underlying philosophy and
doesn't understand that he is using pseudo-physical descriptions of
mathematical processes. Concepts such as whether a ladder actually
changes its length is not the sort of question which is considered now
proper in physics.

"...we can never actually "know" what Nature herself is really doing".

Essentially the answer to such questions is what the maths predicts and
the maths is accepted as it gives accurate predictions. Many assume the
validity of some concepts of classical philosophy so ask such questions
through an ignorance of the philosophy and others such as TR, again
through ignorance of the philosophy attempt to answer them in terms of
pseudo-physical descriptions in the incorrect belief that the terms
relate to something real rather than just the maths.

Alfonso

[kenseto]

On Thursday, 9 August 2012 10:48:17 UTC-4, Big Dog wrote:
> On 8/9/2012 9:00 AM, kenseto wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, 9 August 2012 06:12:44 UTC-4, Big Dog wrote:
>
> >> On 8/8/2012 6:52 PM, kenseto wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> No RoS never been established....in faCT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DO SO. Why because it violates
>
> >>
>
> >>> the isotropy of the speed of light in all frames. Gee you are stupid.
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> RoS is *derived from* the constancy of the speed of light, and its isotropy.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> You don't get that. That's ok. You're profoundly stupid and a waste of
>
> >>
>
> >> time and you make shit up.
>
> >
>
> > Sigh....you can't have isotropy of the speed of light in the train and at the same
>
> > time the train observer is moving wrt the light fronts from the ends of the train to get\
>
> > RoS. Gee you are fucking stupid.
>
>
>
> That's not how RoS comes about.

Einstein said that M' is rush toward the light front from the front and M' is receding from the light fronts from the rear. Sounds like that how he got RoS. Gee you are stupid.

>The fact that you don't understand a
>
> teaching illustration involving a train, and the fact that you don't
>
> understand the difference between closing speed, and the fact that you
>
> don't have a FUCKING CLUE how RoS is *derived from* the constancy of the
>
> speed of light -- all those facts are YOUR problem, not anyone else's.

Fucking idiot....M' measures the speed of light to be isotropic.....you can't arbituary assert that M' is moving wrt the light front with different closing speeds. ee you are stupid.

[Big Dog]

On 8/10/2012 8:56 AM, kenseto wrote:
> On Thursday, 9 August 2012 10:48:17 UTC-4, Big Dog wrote:

>> That's not how RoS comes about.
>
> Einstein said that M' is rush toward the light front from the front and M' is receding from
> the light fronts from the rear. Sounds like that how he got RoS. Gee you are stupid.

And IN WHAT YEAR did he write the book that used the teaching
illustration of the train on the track?

And IN WHAT YEAR did he derive the relativity of simultaneity from the
constancy of the speed of light?

Baboon.

[Vilas Tamhane]

> conceptual scheme"  Schrödinger.

> Alfonso- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

What you say is right but then why so many are touchy about it? It is
true that they have stopped searching meaning in the equations after
1920. In that case Einstein’s theory is classical one as he imparted
theoretical platform to the Lorentz equations. Without his theory,
what we have are only Lorentz equations and in fact all the
experiments reveal results that are one sided. This can be seen even
in space-time diagram.
Post 1920 philosophy you have written about is not only wrong but a
harmful one, as any attempt to find how nature works will be
contemptuously looked at. Moreover, mathematical equations will give
rise to wrong and fantastic ideas. It can hardly be called physics.
There are two aspects of physics. One is to reveal how nature works
and second is mathematical analysis that describes observations and
may predict hitherto unknown experimental results.
On account of the philosophy that you have described, only those who
are proficient in mathematics can take up physics or rather physics is
usurped by mathematicians. Days of Faraday are over or rather such
souls will be nipped in the bud. Inventing equations to explain
experimental results is one thing and indulging in mathematical
acrobatics is quite another. In order to get respectability and
validity to their new world of chimera they fight criticism. This has
reduced physics to religion.

[jem]

> conceptual scheme" Schrödinger.

Here are the /facts/, Kennaugh.

The ONLY observable aspects of Nature are the sensory effects known as
natural phenomena. Therefore, the ONLY knowledge that humans can have
about Nature is what those sensory effects are, and Science is the
premiere activity directed toward objectively acquiring that
knowledge. The knowledge is acquired by constructing precise sensory
instrumentation for measuring natural phenomena, and by learning to
accurately predict the measurements.

All the other stuff that's contained in scientific models of Nature
(e.g., mathematics, causes, effects, space, time, particles, waves,
atoms, molecules, houses, trees, ...) is there merely to facilitate
thinking about and talking about the measurement predictions.

For emphasis, the ONLY requirement on the "other stuff" is that it
facilitates thinking about and talking about the measurement predictions.

[YBM]

Le 10.08.2012 15:56, Vilas Tamhane a �crit :

> What you say is right but then why so many are touchy about it? It is
> true that they have stopped searching meaning in the equations after

> 1920. In that case Einstein�s theory is classical one as he imparted

> theoretical platform to the Lorentz equations. Without his theory,
> what we have are only Lorentz equations and in fact all the
> experiments reveal results that are one sided. This can be seen even
> in space-time diagram.
> Post 1920 philosophy you have written about is not only wrong but a
> harmful one, as any attempt to find how nature works will be
> contemptuously looked at. Moreover, mathematical equations will give
> rise to wrong and fantastic ideas. It can hardly be called physics.
> There are two aspects of physics. One is to reveal how nature works
> and second is mathematical analysis that describes observations and
> may predict hitherto unknown experimental results.
> On account of the philosophy that you have described, only those who
> are proficient in mathematics can take up physics or rather physics is
> usurped by mathematicians. Days of Faraday are over or rather such
> souls will be nipped in the bud. Inventing equations to explain
> experimental results is one thing and indulging in mathematical
> acrobatics is quite another. In order to get respectability and
> validity to their new world of chimera they fight criticism. This has
> reduced physics to religion.

Vilas, I can assure you that, every year, thousands of student are being
taught Relativity across the world, and that most of them perfectly
understand the physical meaning of it.

Your personal failure to do so is irrelevant to the story of science.

[rotchm]

> The ONLY observable aspects of Nature are the sensory effects known as
> natural phenomena.

True.

> Therefore, the ONLY knowledge that humans can have
> about Nature is what those sensory effects are,

1+1=2 is not a sensory effect. Yet it gives us knowledge of our nature: Nowhere in Nature has 1+1=2 been violated, thus this suggest that our Nature follows the 'usual' algebra and Boolean Logic (contrary to Fuzyy or non-standard Logics)

Modern Physics has the philosophy of finding eqs that make correct predictions, regardless of the "causes" of the observed events (Positivisms). The 'causes' and interpretations are irrelevant in modern physics since these do not change the predictions of the eqs. But this philosophy is not forced onto scientist. Some scientists can still adhere to the 'old way' and and use 'cause' and interpretations...The outcropping models and eqs from this approach are just as valid (and identical) to the modern eqs; both philosophies give the same observational predictions. I say 2+5 and you say 5+2 and another says 14/2.

> All the other stuff that's contained in scientific models of Nature
>(e.g., mathematics, causes, effects, space, time, particles, waves,
> atoms, molecules, houses, trees, ...) is there merely to facilitate
> thinking about and talking about the measurement predictions.

Correct.

> For emphasis, the ONLY requirement on the "other stuff" is that it
> facilitates thinking about and talking about the measurement predictions.

Yup. And this 'facilitation' can (and does) help to calculate/predict faster.
If it ( the other stuff) facilitates, then use it. But in the end, when the answer is found, there is no longer need of it (the other stuff).

[Big Dog]

On 8/10/2012 8:56 AM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:

> On account of the philosophy that you have described, only those who
> are proficient in mathematics can take up physics or rather physics is
> usurped by mathematicians.

The first part of your sentence is right. Mathematics is a necessary
skill for doing physics. Being able to write computer code is also a
necessary requirement for many sub-areas of physics, including
experimental particle physics. Often, familiarity with electronics and
top-shelf instrumentation is also.
The second part of your statement is ridiculous.
Doctors are required to study and be competent with organic chemistry,
but this doesn't mean that medicine is being usurped by organic chemists.

> Days of Faraday are over or rather such
> souls will be nipped in the bud. Inventing equations to explain
> experimental results is one thing and indulging in mathematical
> acrobatics is quite another. In order to get respectability and
> validity to their new world of chimera they fight criticism. This has
> reduced physics to religion.

Your complaint is that it is harder for an untrained amateur to become a
major contributor to physics, because of all the skills competency that
is expected. It is no harder than it has ever been. There were no "days
of Faraday". Faraday was an anomaly even in his day. Faradays are few
and far between. There is no culture that promotes Faradayism as you
imagine, nor has there ever been. People like Faraday rise up through
the culture regardless of it, because they are singularly and very
unusually GIFTED. Those who are not so gifted have to do what everyone
in Faraday's day did -- get competent in requisite skills. You have this
idle FANTASY that there once was a day when LOTS of amateurs without
competency in ancillary skills ruled the field, and that that era is
gone. Not so.

It would do you good to exercise some humility and to stop blaming your
inability to penetrate physics on a culture or on other people. You are
not a Faraday. You are also unskilled in ancillary and requisite skills.
You can't fix the former, but you can fix the latter.

[Big Dog]

On 8/7/2012 9:22 AM, Big Dog wrote:
> On 8/7/2012 9:06 AM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
>> On Aug 6, 8:34 pm, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 8/6/2012 10:13 PM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
>
>>
>> I don�t say math is wrong (it can seldom be), I am saying with this
>> rule, we are not talking about some mysterious world of space-time. We
>> are talking about a space-time graph. It is just a graphical
>> representation of Lorentz equations.
>
> That's not my question.
>
> You said that in geometry we square terms and then add them. I agree
> that's what we do. I'm asking you WHY this should be done. There IS a
> reason, and there is insight that reason provides that helps explains
> what spacetime is.
>
> As it is, it appears your level of understanding of things is "Because
> we just do, that's why." And then it's no wonder you find spacetime a
> mystery, when it is not mysterious at all -- just because it has a minus
> where you're used to seeing a plus.
>
> The question is WHY should it be a plus in geometry, and what happens if
> it is NOT a plus but a minus?
>

Tamhane, please observe that I've asked you two questions to see what
your *physical* understanding of simple things is:
1. What is the physical meaning of the G in Newton's law of gravitation:
F = GMm/r^2
2. Why is it that we square distances along each dimension and then SUM
them in spatial geometry? Why does that rule work?

These are both interesting and deep questions, though they are about
ordinary things.

You seem to not be interested in them and want to dabble in relativity.

WHY? If there are interesting and deep questions about ordinary things,
especially if the answers give you insight into relativity, why would
you not want to plunge into them?

[kenseto]

On Friday, 10 August 2012 09:59:29 UTC-4, Big Dog wrote:
> On 8/10/2012 8:56 AM, kenseto wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, 9 August 2012 10:48:17 UTC-4, Big Dog wrote:
>
>
>
> >> That's not how RoS comes about.
>
> >
>
> > Einstein said that M' is rush toward the light front from the front and M' is receding from
>
> > the light fronts from the rear. Sounds like that how he got RoS. Gee you are stupid.


>
>
>
> And IN WHAT YEAR did he write the book that used the teaching
>
> illustration of the train on the track?

I don't give a shit. Closing speeds to get RoS violate the isotropy of the speed of light in all frames. Also different closing speed between light fronts and any observer is not measurable...gee you are so fucking stupid.

[Alfonso]

Philosophy is to a large extent a matter of choice. There is not a right
or a wrong philosophy. One may judge it by the type of science it
produces. One has to say however that the post 1920 philosophy was
introduced without debate. A group of physicists simply started using it
to interpret what they were doing. What they were doing and the maths
was beyond most other physicists so they were not in a position to
argue. Apart from which they failed to understand the nature of the
change because classic philosophy had been around for so long that it
seemed a fundamental part of physics so no one realised it was there.

Moreover, mathematical equations will give
> rise to wrong and fantastic ideas. It can hardly be called physics.

What the new philosophy does is to constrain physics only by the laws of
mathematics, not by man's concepts of reality so there is no constraints
as regard time going backwards, negative mass, extra dimensions,
parallel universes, dark energy, pink fairies or whatever to explain any
phenomena or to patch up a theory which needs patching up. The only
constraint is that in hypothesising some new entity, it is only
acceptable if it gives rise to a testable prediction. That is not to say
that if it fails that test one must abandon it as one can fix that
theory with a new entity provided that in turn has a testable
prediction...... Now one might say "suppose physics has got it wrong in
some instance and increasingly weird and fantastic ideas are used to
patch it up how would you ever correct the wrong assumption". The answer
is that physics can no longer "get it wrong" in the classical sense as
physics in no longer trying to understand reality so is not tring to
bring its ideas in line with reality. "Is this how nature works or have
we got it wrong" is no longer a valid question. The only criteria is
"can we accurately predict outcome".

> There are two aspects of physics. One is to reveal how nature works
> and second is mathematical analysis that describes observations and
> may predict hitherto unknown experimental results.
> On account of the philosophy that you have described, only those who
> are proficient in mathematics can take up physics or rather physics is
> usurped by mathematicians.

As someone said (can't remember who) today the 3 most important
things a physicist need is maths, maths and maths.

Days of Faraday are over or rather such
> souls will be nipped in the bud.

Faraday never got the credit he deserved. Academia believes that
progress is the result of the academic environment - and Faraday had no
formal qualification. Maxwell - a mathematician - gets far more credit.

Inventing equations to explain
> experimental results is one thing and indulging in mathematical
> acrobatics is quite another. In order to get respectability and
> validity to their new world of chimera they fight criticism. This has
> reduced physics to religion.

You say earlier:

> but then why so many are touchy about it?

The answer to this is that the change in philosophy is not covered in
physics text books. I have spent a decade or more trying to piece
together the history of how physics got to where it is. I found that
text books are a lesson in the art of spin. To sell a text book you have
to get is selected as a course book by someone teaching the subject.
Text books are therefore such as to give the lecturer an easy time. To
avoid awkward questions. To avoid putting students off the subject.

For example "where did Einstein's second postulate come from." The
answer is actually very simple. Maxwell dominated thinking. According to
Maxwell light was a wave propagated in the aether and according to
Maxwell the MMX should be able to detect motion w.r.t the aether. The
null result shows there is no motion w.r.t the aether. The second
postulate describes what an observer stationary w.r.t the aether would
experience. It wasn't original to Einstein. It was a statement of what
was widely accepted, that the MMX showed that for some unknown reason an
observer always finds himself stationary w.r.t the aether. Text books
can't put that in as they have to tell students that the aether was a
silly idea and that Einstein was a genius. Some go so far as to say that
Einstein came up with a theory which showed that the aether wasn't
necessary. It was the introduction of the new philosophy which does not
require/allow physical explanations which rid physics of the aether. For
years I realised that a change had taken place around 1920 but the exact
nature of that change was not clear to me. I formally described it as an
arbitrary decision that a physics theory did not need a physical
explanation. It was only when I listened to this lecture

http://arc-tv.com/the-crisis-in-physics-and-its-cause/

that I realised the nature and extent of the change. A change of the
philosophical basis of physics. Text books make no mention of this and
state things like "it was found that an electron does not have an exact
position" while it is the application of the new philosophy which
dictates that an electron does not have an exact position. The problem
possibly is that because there was no debate the new philosophy was
never officially adopted other than by default and as such its adoption
cannot be reported in the text book.

People graduate, get on with their career and at no point are the
impressions gained as students corrected. Put simply they do not know
the underlying philosophy. People like Tom Roberts are confused.
Essentially he is a believer trying to establish a reputation as someone
who accepts modern physics and defends it but at the bottom of his
problems is a belief that it does "make sense" in a classical philosophy
sense. It doesn't and if he really knew what he was talking about he
would know that under the post 1920 philosophy it is not expected to do
so. Most of the heated discussions in this NG can be traced to the same
problem and it all comes back to the fact that the philosophy is not
directly addressed when physics is taught. It is not taught as it is
somewhat extreme and with it is the implication the physics is not for
you unless you are fascinated by mathematics.

Alfonso

[shuba]

Extreme crank Alfonso wrote:

> Philosophy is to a large extent a matter of choice. There is not
> a right or a wrong philosophy. One may judge it by the type of
> science it produces.

The lifelong hatred of physicists exhibited by people like you
has yet to produce *any* science. So rather than trying to judge
you on philosophy of science, which you clearly haven't studied in
any detail, I'll allow your hatred of successful human beings to
inform my opinions about your obvious personal inadequacies.


---Tim Shuba---

[Alfonso]

No what follows are not "facts" but a defence of the philosophy
underpinning modern physics.

>
> The ONLY observable aspects of Nature are the sensory effects known as
> natural phenomena.

OK We gain data about nature through our senses and our extended sense -
i.e instruments.

Therefore, the ONLY knowledge that humans can have
> about Nature is what those sensory effects are,

OK

and Science is the
> premiere activity directed toward objectively acquiring that knowledge.

> The knowledge is acquired by constructing precise sensory
> instrumentation for measuring natural phenomena,

Ok

and by learning to
> accurately predict the measurements.

> All the other stuff that's contained in scientific models of Nature
> (e.g., mathematics, causes, effects, space, time, particles, waves,
> atoms, molecules, houses, trees, ...) is there merely to facilitate
> thinking about and talking about the measurement predictions.

That is reasonable in terms of the post 1920 philosophy as adopted by
physics. What it attempts to do is to produce a mathematical model which
accurately predicts the data. What is missing is the use of the human
intellect to interpret what the maths is describing. The maths has
become an end in itself rather than a means to an end. If you believe
that human intellect is so unreliable in its judgement that you should
ignore it entirely - despite the fact that that same intellect invented
the maths on which you depend, and conceived of the instruments you use
to measure, then that is fair enough.

Not all of that data can be expressed in mathematical terms. I observe
that life is the antithesis of death. One excludes the other so in the
case of Schrodinger's cat - before the box is open the cat is either
dead or alive and the only thing which changes when the box is opened is
our knowledge. Reason says that if the cat is alive then it was before
the box is opened. If it is dead then by retrospective analysis
(autopsy) one can to some extent determine how long it has been dead. If
autopsy shows it has been dead at least half an hour then I would accept
that as proof that it was dead before the box was opened. This may be
inconvenient to mathematicians as it means that there is more than one
way of interpreting the maths and the right way to interpret the maths
depends on reason and intellect not on mathematics or measurement. The
mathematicians do not wish to be restrained in that way so have adopted
a philosophy which states that reality is beyond the human mind and must
be ignored. They have renamed reason "common sense" and sneer at it.
Such concepts of reality must be ignored in favour of a unique
interpretation of the maths i.e. that before the box is opened the cat
is both alive and dead to suit the mathematician which is why the post
1920 philosophy was adopted.

I would say that as there is no evidence that the cat is both alive and
dead and as that state of affairs has never been observed in any other
circumstance in the history of mankind that it cannot be so and a
philosophy which demands that it is is wrong. Prediction is not the be
all and end all. There is also the question of getting it right. It is
not the only aim of science generally. The theory of evolution is
accepted because it explains the data and would be accepted on that
basis even if it was not possible to predict what will happen in future.
Plate tectonics does not predict, and is unlikely to predict in the
future, when there will be an earthquake or an eruption. Its aim is to
understand the processes involved. Sometimes physical models are used to
give scientists an insight.

Alfonso

[John Gogo]

You should write a book. I agree a lot of what you have to say.
Enjoyable reading.

[jem]

They're incontrovertible /facts/, Kennaugh. You agreed with all but
the last of them, and that one is a necessary consequence of the others.

Furthermore, those facts apply to ALL of Science - Physics doesn't
have any special epistemological status.

>
>>
>> The ONLY observable aspects of Nature are the sensory effects known as
>> natural phenomena.
>
> OK We gain data about nature through our senses and our extended sense -
> i.e instruments.
>
> Therefore, the ONLY knowledge that humans can have
>> about Nature is what those sensory effects are,
>
> OK
>
> and Science is the
>> premiere activity directed toward objectively acquiring that knowledge.
>
>> The knowledge is acquired by constructing precise sensory
>> instrumentation for measuring natural phenomena,
>
> Ok
>
> and by learning to
>> accurately predict the measurements.
>
>> All the other stuff that's contained in scientific models of Nature
>> (e.g., mathematics, causes, effects, space, time, particles, waves,
>> atoms, molecules, houses, trees, ...) is there merely to facilitate
>> thinking about and talking about the measurement predictions.
>
> That is reasonable in terms of the post 1920 philosophy as adopted by
> physics.

Actually, it's a necessary consequence of the /fact/ that all we can
know about Nature are the measurements we make of its phenomena.

What it attempts to do is to produce a mathematical model which
> accurately predicts the data.

What Science attempts to do is produce collections of accurate
measurement predictions - the use of mathematics (for concisely
organizing the predictions) isn't essential.

What is missing is the use of the human
> intellect to interpret what the maths is describing.

Interpretations aren't missing - ALL scientific theories to-date have
at least one ontological interpretation (i.e., a defined environment
containing defined entities with defined properties which collectively
give rise to the theory's predictions).

But what do you think those ontological interpretations tell us about
Nature?

The matter-of-fact answer is that they tell us nothing more than the
measurement predictions themselves do. That's because Nature won't
confirm any aspect of the interpretation other than the measurement
predictions, and because ontological interpretations aren't unique.

The maths has
> become an end in itself rather than a means to an end. If you believe
> that human intellect is so unreliable in its judgement that you should
> ignore it entirely - despite the fact that that same intellect invented
> the maths on which you depend, and conceived of the instruments you use
> to measure, then that is fair enough.
>

Recognizing the limits of what can be known about Nature has nothing
whatsoever to do with any limitations of human intellect. Regardless
how cleverly any scientific theory is interpreted, there's simply no
way to confirm the correctness of any aspect of the interpretation
other than the measurement predictions.

> Not all of that data can be expressed in mathematical terms. I observe
> that life is the antithesis of death. One excludes the other so in the
> case of Schrodinger's cat - before the box is open the cat is either
> dead or alive and the only thing which changes when the box is opened is
> our knowledge.

Do you really think that the QM founders would have bypassed that
interpretation if it were consistent with the measurements they were
obtaining? It wasn't, so they developed an interpretation (the
Copenhagen Interpretation) which was consistent with their measurements.

As humans learn more about what Nature does, humans have to be willing
adjust their notions of what's sensible, because, ultimately, what's
sensible is nothing more than what Nature does.

Reason says that if the cat is alive then it was before
> the box is opened. If it is dead then by retrospective analysis
> (autopsy) one can to some extent determine how long it has been dead. If
> autopsy shows it has been dead at least half an hour then I would accept
> that as proof that it was dead before the box was opened.

The "reasoning" that leads /you/ to those conclusions is based on the
things /you/ know about the behavior of Nature, and the problem with
your "reasoning" is that you haven't incorporated the observed
behavior of Nature that's led (actually forced) others to reason
differently.

This may be
> inconvenient to mathematicians as it means that there is more than one
> way of interpreting the maths and the right way to interpret the maths
> depends on reason and intellect not on mathematics or measurement.

No, Kennaugh, and this is the main point you're missing. There is
always an /unlimited/ number of ways to interpret "the maths" (i.e.,
the measurement predictions), but there's simply /no/ way to decide
which of them is "right way".

The
> mathematicians do not wish to be restrained in that way so have adopted
> a philosophy which states that reality is beyond the human mind and must
> be ignored.

Where do you get this stuff?

Mathematicians don't determine how Science is done, and Science has no
"philosophy" that "states that reality is beyond the human mind".
Furthermore, since Science is about nothing other than reality, so it
certainly doesn't get ignored.

They have renamed reason "common sense" and sneer at it.
> Such concepts of reality must be ignored in favour of a unique
> interpretation of the maths i.e. that before the box is opened the cat
> is both alive and dead to suit the mathematician which is why the post
> 1920 philosophy was adopted.
>

You're still talking through your hat, Kennaugh (or is it Scott
Murray's hat).

There does happen to be a "unique" interpretation of "the maths",
namely the measurement prediction themselves. IOW, there is a unique
/phenomenological/ interpretation, however, there's no limit to the
number of /ontological/ interpretations of "the maths" that can be
created, and the correctness of each of them is entirely decided by
the correctness of the phenomenological interpretation (i.e.,
determined by the correctness of the measurement predictions).

> I would say that as there is no evidence that the cat is both alive and
> dead and as that state of affairs has never been observed in any other
> circumstance in the history of mankind

You can say that all you want, but it's not accurate. Observations
have been made that are consistent with the alive-dead superposition
interpretation and inconsistent with the one-or-the-other interpretation*.

* Other interpretations of QM have been developed where the cat is
either alive or dead (e.g., Many Worlds), but those still call for
radical alteration of pre-QM conceptions.

that it cannot be so and a
> philosophy which demands that it is is wrong. Prediction is not the be
> all and end all. There is also the question of getting it right. It is
> not the only aim of science generally. The theory of evolution is
> accepted because it explains the data and would be accepted on that
> basis even if it was not possible to predict what will happen in future.

"Explains the data" is exactly equivalent to "predicts the data",
where "the data" are measurable observations. Prediction in the
context of scientific modeling isn't limited to things that haven't
happened.

> Plate tectonics does not predict,

Of course it does. ALL scientific theories predict.

and is unlikely to predict in the
> future, when there will be an earthquake or an eruption.

The worth of scientific theories is determined by the accuracy of what
they do predict, not by what they don't predict.

Its aim is to
> understand the processes involved.

Where "understand" means /nothing/ more than "become able to
accurately predict".

[Big Dog]

On 8/11/2012 8:50 AM, kenseto wrote:
> On Friday, 10 August 2012 09:59:29 UTC-4, Big Dog wrote:

>>
>> And IN WHAT YEAR did he write the book that used the teaching
>> illustration of the train on the track?
>
> I don't give a shit.

I know you don't. You NEVER give a shit about facts that are easily
found where they are documented. Instead you just make up shit like what
you write below.

[kenseto]

On Monday, 13 August 2012 09:02:06 UTC-4, Big Dog wrote:
> On 8/11/2012 8:50 AM, kenseto wrote:
>
> > On Friday, 10 August 2012 09:59:29 UTC-4, Big Dog wrote:
>
>
>
> >>
>
> >> And IN WHAT YEAR did he write the book that used the teaching
>
> >> illustration of the train on the track?
>
> >
>
> > I don't give a shit.
>
>
>
> I know you don't. You NEVER give a shit about facts that are easily
>
> found where they are documented. Instead you just make up shit like what
>
> you write below.

The point is: There is no facts about any SR assertions. For example SR asserts that there are different closing speeds between an observer M' and light fronts from the ends of the train. This clearly violats the isotropy of the speed of light in the M' frame. Gee you are stupid.

[Big Dog]

On 8/13/2012 9:18 AM, kenseto wrote:
> On Monday, 13 August 2012 09:02:06 UTC-4, Big Dog wrote:
>> On 8/11/2012 8:50 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>> On Friday, 10 August 2012 09:59:29 UTC-4, Big Dog wrote:
>>
>>>> And IN WHAT YEAR did he write the book that used the teaching
>>>> illustration of the train on the track?
>>
>>> I don't give a shit.
>>
>> I know you don't. You NEVER give a shit about facts that are easily
>> found where they are documented. Instead you just make up shit like what
>> you write below.
>
> The point is: There is no facts about any SR assertions.

I know you don't give a shit about the facts. You don't give a shit
about the documented measurements surrounding relativity. You don't give
a shit about the documented dates of publications of various derivations
and presentations of relativity. So you just make shit up.

[Dirk Van de moortel]

Big Dog <big.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/13/2012 9:18 AM, kenseto wrote:
>> On Monday, 13 August 2012 09:02:06 UTC-4, Big Dog wrote:
>>> On 8/11/2012 8:50 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>>> On Friday, 10 August 2012 09:59:29 UTC-4, Big Dog wrote:
>>>
>>>>> And IN WHAT YEAR did he write the book that used the teaching
>>>>> illustration of the train on the track?
>>>
>>>> I don't give a shit.
>>>
>>> I know you don't. You NEVER give a shit about facts that are easily
>>> found where they are documented. Instead you just make up shit like
>>> what you write below.
>>
>> The point is: There is no facts about any SR assertions.
>
> I know you don't give a shit about the facts. You don't give a shit
> about the documented measurements surrounding relativity. You don't
> give a shit about the documented dates of publications of various
> derivations and presentations of relativity. So you just make shit up.

He doesn't even seem to give a shit about his toilet.

Dirk Vdm

[rotchm]

> The point is: There is no facts about any SR assertions.

Yes, there are many facts about SR's assertions. G you are stupid.

>For example SR asserts that there are different closing speeds
> between an observer M' and light fronts from the ends of the train.

(1) Correct. ***Relative to M***, there is a difference in closing speeds between M' and lightfronts. Lets call these closing speeds v1 and v2 both <>c. These closing speeds are NOT speeds of objects, nor speeds of observers NOR the SoL. v1 represents a *difference* of two values (the SoL = c and the speed of M' wrt M). Same idea for v2. The lightfronts sill have speed c wrt M. This paragraph is all WRT M, NOT M'.

>This clearly violats the isotropy of the speed of light in the M' frame.

(2) No. **In M'**, the SoL is still c. My above paragraph was relative to M. Get it???

A closing speed requires TWO objects and a specified reference frame.
In paragraph (1) the two objects is one of the lightfront and the M'. The ref.frame is M. The closing speed is the difference of the speed of the lightfront and M: c - v. In paragraph 2, the 2 objects are the lightfront and M'. The ref.frame is M'. The closing speed is the difference of the speed of the lightfront and M': c - 0 = c.

Read all this 50x and try to comprehend it.

[Big Dog]

On 8/13/2012 9:45 AM, rotchm wrote:
>
>> The point is: There is no facts about any SR assertions.
>
> Yes, there are many facts about SR's assertions. G you are stupid.
>

In Seto's shriveling mind, there is no room for facts, because facts
would require him to look them up and read them, neither of which he can
do. What he wants is an argument on Usenet and ONLY an argument on
Usenet. He challenges you to convince him BY ARGUMENT on Usenet,
something that he has already decided he will not accept, and so it is a
pointless challenge to pick up. If you refer him to facts, he will deny
that they exist. Instead, he will make up stuff from his own head,
including historical sequences of events, claims about the results of
observations, and the meanings of words -- because he thinks he has the
right to do so. Because it all makes sense to his wee little mind, he
thinks that all these things he has made up must be right, otherwise it
would not make sense to him. He really is lost in his own senility and
psychosis, and the only thing worth saying to him is that is a waste of
time talking with someone who is senile and psychotic.

[Vilas Tamhane]

> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -...

After reading your extraordinary description in a beautiful diction,
it should be clear to everybody that the institution of physics has
acquired undesirable traits.
This happens with almost every institution initiated by great minds.
Why institutions degenerate? It is because only 10 or 20 percent among
us are capable and are driven by ideology. In the initial stage,
governing people being themselves honest, entry to the dishonest is
forbidden. As time passes, some not so capable, somehow manage to
enter the field. Since they are incapable, they cannot ascend the
ladder of rank purely based on merit. So they employ devious means,
such as politics to promote themselves. These are the people who are
selfish and they put their own interest above institution, above the
nation and above people.
That is why every institution needs outside corrective mechanism. Once
the institution is usurped, it is not expected that the people at the
helm for whom it works will ever try to make amendments. They and
their followers will defend the way religious bigots do.

It is noteworthy that spoiled institutions can be demolished or
redeemed only by revolutions. In that sense, all those who fight on
net are doing yeoman service to science; simply because criticism of
established theories is banned, either by tacit understanding or by
hidden authoritarian censorship.
It will be a very long time before beauty of physics will be restored.

[rotchm]

> In Seto's shriveling mind, ...
> Because it all makes sense to his wee little mind, he ...
> thinks that all these things he has made up must be right,...

> He really is lost in his own senility and
> psychosis, and the only thing worth saying to him is that is a waste of
> time talking with someone who is senile and psychotic.

The experience I gained by conversing with him the past few years permitted me to get my Master's degree in psychology w/o effort! ;)

[Big Dog]

On 8/13/2012 10:36 AM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:

> After reading your extraordinary description in a beautiful diction,
> it should be clear to everybody that the institution of physics has
> acquired undesirable traits.
> This happens with almost every institution initiated by great minds.
> Why institutions degenerate? It is because only 10 or 20 percent among
> us are capable and are driven by ideology. In the initial stage,
> governing people being themselves honest, entry to the dishonest is
> forbidden. As time passes, some not so capable, somehow manage to
> enter the field. Since they are incapable, they cannot ascend the
> ladder of rank purely based on merit. So they employ devious means,
> such as politics to promote themselves. These are the people who are
> selfish and they put their own interest above institution, above the
> nation and above people.
> That is why every institution needs outside corrective mechanism. Once
> the institution is usurped, it is not expected that the people at the
> helm for whom it works will ever try to make amendments. They and
> their followers will defend the way religious bigots do.
>
> It is noteworthy that spoiled institutions can be demolished or
> redeemed only by revolutions. In that sense, all those who fight on
> net are doing yeoman service to science; simply because criticism of
> established theories is banned, either by tacit understanding or by
> hidden authoritarian censorship.
> It will be a very long time before beauty of physics will be restored.
>

Tamhane, you follow up your sniveling misconceptions about relativity
with follow-up whines that science isn't what it used to be when
amateurs without training in auxiliary skills could still make a
significant contribution, and that science has become a corrupt and
hide-bound institution that conspires to suppress people by politics and
power rather than by merit. You ignore the observation that you don't
understand at the conceptual level even things from ordinary and rather
elementary *classical* mechanics, possibly because think that working to
understand *ordinary* things isn't as fun or as interesting as working
on more advanced topics.

It does not seem to occur to you to stop searching for reasons to blame
OTHER PEOPLE for your inability to penetrate this science, and to focus
on what YOU could be doing differently to correct that.

No sympathy.

[Poutnik]

Dne pondělí, 13. srpna 2012 16:18:00 UTC+2 kenseto napsal(a):

> The point is: There is no facts about any SR assertions. For example
> SR asserts that there are different closing speeds
> between an observer M' and light fronts from the ends of the train.
> This clearly violats the isotropy of the speed of light in the M' frame.
> Gee you are stupid.

You really do need to call others stupid to feel yourself clever.

For any observer the closing speed of 2 objects can be even close to 2c,
e.g. if there are 2 opposite beams of accelerated particles.

Or even exactly 2c, if there are 2 light beams.

If one of them is replaced by anything slower than light,
than closing speed is >c and <2c.

Yet for that object, that replaced one of the light beams,
is the speed of the remaining one toward him c.

[Androcles]

"Poutnik" wrote in message
news:acb444cd-e2d8-4d54...@googlegroups.com...

================================================
You seem to have slipped off my killfile, Poutknickers.
There is no such animal as closing or opening speed, the
cretin Dork Van de Belgian faggot put you up to that. All
speeds are relative speeds.
Back on it you go.
*plonk*

[shuba]

Vilas Tamhane wrote:

> After reading your extraordinary description in a beautiful diction,
> it should be clear to everybody that the institution of physics has
> acquired undesirable traits.

Actually, it's as simple as studying a fair sampling of physics,
mathematics, philosophy, and history to see the blatant sophistry
of lifelong haters and incompetents like you and Alfonso.


---Tim Shuba---

[Androcles]

"shuba" wrote in message news:k0bhsg$qk5$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

===================================
Poor shit-faced shuba, his nose is out of joint when his religion
won't stand the test of logic.

-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

[Alfonso]

That I am afraid is where you have it totally wrong. The QM founders
adopted the philosophy years before any of the experiments claimed to
require that change of philosophy took place.

so they developed an interpretation (the
> Copenhagen Interpretation) which was consistent with their measurements.

It was consistent with the philosophy they had adopted. They interpreted
their measurements in accordance with their maths orientated philosophy.

>
> As humans learn more about what Nature does, humans have to be willing
> adjust their notions of what's sensible, because, ultimately, what's
> sensible is nothing more than what Nature does.
>
> Reason says that if the cat is alive then it was before
>> the box is opened. If it is dead then by retrospective analysis
>> (autopsy) one can to some extent determine how long it has been dead. If
>> autopsy shows it has been dead at least half an hour then I would accept
>> that as proof that it was dead before the box was opened.
>
> The "reasoning" that leads /you/ to those conclusions is based on the
> things /you/ know about the behavior of Nature, and the problem with
> your "reasoning" is that you haven't incorporated the observed behavior
> of Nature that's led (actually forced) others to reason differently.

No one is forced to choose another philosophy. The philosophy says that
reality is beyond the human mind. I accept that while the box is closed
one cannot observe the state of the cat but that works both ways. I
cannot say for certain that the cat is either alive OR dead neither can
anyone for certain say it is alive AND dead but as there is no reported
instance of this state being observed in the history of mankind it would
appear to be a unique property of the box or of a discredited philosophy
which demands it.

>
> This may be
>> inconvenient to mathematicians as it means that there is more than one
>> way of interpreting the maths and the right way to interpret the maths
>> depends on reason and intellect not on mathematics or measurement.
>
> No, Kennaugh, and this is the main point you're missing. There is always
> an /unlimited/ number of ways to interpret "the maths" (i.e., the
> measurement predictions), but there's simply /no/ way to decide which of
> them is "right way".

The problem with the philosophy is that there is no requirement to
interpret the maths as reality is beyond the human mind and
interpretation implies a grasp of reality. i.e. if one is to choose
between interpretations one needs criteria by which one may reject an
interpretation. The mathematicians who introduced this philosophy have
it so that there is no criteria by which what they do can be rejected
provided it gives accurate predictions. You are free to accept that
philosophy I am free to reject it.

I reject a philosophy which requires that a cat is both alive AND dead
simultaneously inside a box when such a state is never observed outside
the box. The Copenhagen interpretation is that you can only observe a
cat to be either dead or alive because it is the act of observation itself
"Before the measurement, the particle is ubiquitous in the cloud (it is
not a particle at all) You have not found a particle at K', you have
produced one there!". Schrodinger.

>
> The
>> mathematicians do not wish to be restrained in that way so have adopted
>> a philosophy which states that reality is beyond the human mind and must
>> be ignored.
>
> Where do you get this stuff?
>
> Mathematicians don't determine how Science is done, and Science has no
> "philosophy" that "states that reality is beyond the human mind".
> Furthermore, since Science is about nothing other than reality, so it
> certainly doesn't get ignored.

Oh dear. You need to study the key role that philosophy has in defining
what science is, what is acceptable science and what isn't. This was
where the problem lay. Having had the same philosophy for 200 years
physicists absorbed the philosophy from the ambience of the subject and
thought it was fundamental to science. When Schrodinger Heisenberg et al
started interpreting their work in terms of an entirely different
philosophy they objected to the interpretation rather than to the new
philosophy. They failed to identify the nature of the change being
foisted upon them.

Alfonso

[Androcles]

"Alfonso" wrote in message news:Gvqdnc64S_rs-rTN...@bt.com...

[snip Kennaugh crap]
=======================================================
Yesterday I asked you nicely to please not refer to sci-fi as "physics",
together with an explanation of why that is wrong. You've chosen to
ignore it in your usual pompous ungentlemanly manner.
Today I'm a little more vehement.
STOP CALLING SCI-FI "PHYSICS", YOU STUPID CORNISH CUNT!

[Ron-boy]

On Aug 13, 5:57 pm, "Androcles" <aug...@2012.org> wrote:
> "Alfonso"  wrote in messagenews:Gvqdnc64S_rs-rTN...@bt.com...

````````````STOP CHANGING THE SUBJECT LINE````````````

Lord Ron-boy, Negative-4th Earl of Duke

[Androcles]

"Ron-boy" wrote in message
news:454b21a3-ea8f-4101...@7g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...

=========================================

I changed the subject line because Gentleman Kennaugh
changed the subject from Humpty Roberts to Kennaugh's
philosophy, and dropped any reference to the idiot Roberts.
What's wrong with that?

````````````STOP ARGUING WITH SIMPLE LOGIC````````````

or I'll have to call you Ron Aikas aka Ron Aikas as Dork does,
Lord Ron-boy.

[jem]

>>>>> conceptual scheme" Schr�dinger.

Because you're one of the very few anti-establishment SPR regulars who
can produce a coherent post, Kennaugh, I'm every now and then tempted
to try persuading you that those fringe-heroes of yours are feeding
you a bunch of malarkey, but, at this point, it's looking like you've
acquired a taste for malarkey.

[kenseto]

On Monday, 13 August 2012 12:30:52 UTC-4, Poutnik wrote:
> Dne pondělí, 13. srpna 2012 16:18:00 UTC+2 kenseto napsal(a):
>
> > The point is: There is no facts about any SR assertions. For example
>
> > SR asserts that there are different closing speeds
>
> > between an observer M' and light fronts from the ends of the train.
>
> > This clearly violats the isotropy of the speed of light in the M' frame.
>
> > Gee you are stupid.
>
>
>
> You really do need to call others stupid to feel yourself clever.


>
>
>
> For any observer the closing speed of 2 objects can be even close to 2c,
>
> e.g. if there are 2 opposite beams of accelerated particles.

Hey idiot....this is from a third party point of view. From the accelerated particle point of view the speed between them is <c.

>
>
>
> Or even exactly 2c, if there are 2 light beams.

ROTFLOL....you clearly have no idea what you were talking about.

[kenseto]

On Monday, 13 August 2012 11:10:48 UTC-4, Big Dog wrote:
> On 8/13/2012 9:45 AM, rotchm wrote:
>
> >
>
> >> The point is: There is no facts about any SR assertions.
>
> >
>
> > Yes, there are many facts about SR's assertions. G you are stupid.

There is no fact about OWLS being constant c.
There is no fact about RoS....just assertion that conflicting with isotropy of the speed of light.
There is no fact about geometric projection....just assertion to make the pole tilted the right way to make it fit into the barn.
There is no fact about the bug die tweice in the bug/rivet paradox.
etc, etc.......

[Vilas Tamhane]

> >>>> conceptual scheme" Schr�dinger.

Observations lead to science. Interpretations are the essence of
science. Mathematics is the tool to make it useful. Physics is
incomplete without these three ingredients. Problem starts when we
cannot know reality of unexpected observation, such as MMX. Then SR is
born. Nothing wrong with it, but everything is wrong when it is
presented as a gospel. This turns physics into religion.
When I objected to the idea of EM waves without ether, somebody wrote
to me to look at the beautiful wave equations of Maxwell. To my great
astonishment and dismay, he said, these equations stand alone. Rest
(interpretations) is just unnecessary scaffolding. In other words,
don’t question, just calculate.
On these calculations, that is on the part of maths, it would be
worthwhile to see how Bertrand Russell described it.
“Pure mathematics consists entirely of assertions to the effect that
if such and such a proposition is true of ‘anything’, then such and
such another proposition is true of that thing. It is essential not to
discuss whether the first proposition is really true, and not to
mention what the anything is, of which it is supposed to be true. Both
these points would belong to applied mathematics. We start in pure
mathematics, from certain rules of inference, by which we can infer
that if one proposition is true, then so is some other proposition.
These rules of inference constitute the major part of the principles
of formal logic. We then take any hypothesis that seems amusing, and
deduce its consequences. If our hypothesis is about ‘anything’, and
not about some one or more particular things, then our deductions
constitute mathematics. Thus mathematics may be defined as the subject
in which we never know what we are talking about, not whether what we
are saying is true.”

That is why reality is fundamental to physics.

[Big Dog]

On 8/14/2012 9:16 AM, kenseto wrote:
> On Monday, 13 August 2012 11:10:48 UTC-4, Big Dog wrote:
>> On 8/13/2012 9:45 AM, rotchm wrote:
>>
>>>
>>
>>>> The point is: There is no facts about any SR assertions.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Yes, there are many facts about SR's assertions. G you are stupid.
>
> There is no fact about OWLS being constant c.
> There is no fact about RoS....just assertion that conflicting with isotropy of the speed of light.
> There is no fact about geometric projection....just assertion to make the pole tilted the right way to make it fit into the barn.
> There is no fact about the bug die tweice in the bug/rivet paradox.
> etc, etc.......

Further proof that Seto is a waste of time. Endless circling....

Love the bit about the pole being tilted to fit in the barn. LOL.