Scientific theories in crankdom

[Big Dog]

1. Any scientific theory should be logically DEDUCED from previous
concepts, so that there is an inexorable advance in science by pure
deduction. No crazy new ideas are allowed.

2. Scientific theories ought to pass the intuitiveness test. That is,
the explanation has to seem obviously right and sensible FIRST before
any comparison with experiment is done.

3. Experimental results are not really a sound measure of the validity
of a scientific theory, because any experimental result whatsoever can
be reinterpreted or made consistent with any theory whatsoever. So
comparing a theory with experiment doesn't prove anything.

4. Scientific theories that are not taught in high school physics or
freshman physics are too arcane to believe, and they are obvious
attempts to exclude those with general education. The use of mathematics
in the theory only makes this more obvious.

5. Any scientific theory that does not offer causal explanations in
terms of matter influencing matter by some form of contact, and from
earlier to later in time, simply can't be called a scientific theory,
because ALL decent scientific theories have those characters.

6. No theory should be allowed to use familiar terms but with
specialized meanings, because that does not properly serve a scientific
theory's objective to EXPLAIN. Instead, such a practice only confuses.
(Classical cases, such as "impulse" or "field" or the distinction
between "heat" and "temperature" are excused. Why? Because they are.)

[Larry Stones]

On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 17:34:36 -0500, Big Dog wrote:

> 1. Any scientific theory should be logically DEDUCED from previous
> concepts, so that there is an inexorable advance in science by pure
> deduction. No crazy new ideas are allowed.

One of the worse thing I ever heard, not even dare to read the rest

[kenseto]

On Monday, October 29, 2012 6:34:36 PM UTC-4, Big Dog wrote:
> 1. Any scientific theory should be logically DEDUCED from previous
>
> concepts, so that there is an inexorable advance in science by pure
>
> deduction. No crazy new ideas are allowed.

That's what SR is all about.

[mpc755]

You understand a relativistic ether wave propagates a photon.

In a double slit experiment the particle travels a well defined path
which takes it through a single slit and the associated relativistic
ether wave passes through both.

[space...@gmail.com]

Which is absorbed wave or particle?

If waves come first then there is no necesity for a particle.
Einstein questioned what he won the Nobel for in 1937...

Mitchell Raemsch

[Thomas Heger]

Am 29.10.2012 23:34, schrieb Big Dog:
> 1. Any scientific theory should be logically DEDUCED from previous
> concepts, so that there is an inexorable advance in science by pure
> deduction. No crazy new ideas are allowed.

No!
The scientific method goes completely different than you believe.

'Pure deduction' is not a requirement, of course.
The term 'theory' is reserved for something else. It is NOT a weird
guess, a new idea or your personal interpretation of an experiment.

These have the names: assumptions, ideas, interpretation or hypothesis.

'Theory' is an assumption, that has withstood attempts to disprove it.

> 2. Scientific theories ought to pass the intuitiveness test. That is,
> the explanation has to seem obviously right and sensible FIRST before
> any comparison with experiment is done.

No!

This not a requirement: intuitiveness.

Many ideas in physics are actually counter-intuitive.

The requirement is validity. The assumptions should match what is observed.

> 3. Experimental results are not really a sound measure of the validity
> of a scientific theory, because any experimental result whatsoever can
> be reinterpreted or made consistent with any theory whatsoever. So
> comparing a theory with experiment doesn't prove anything.

No!!!
That is simple stupid.

> 4. Scientific theories that are not taught in high school physics or
> freshman physics are too arcane to believe, and they are obvious
> attempts to exclude those with general education. The use of mathematics
> in the theory only makes this more obvious.

???
Some ideas might be too difficult for high-school students. But that is
a different question and falls into the realm of teaching. The
'curriculum' is actually a difficult subject. Personally I wouldn't mind
teaching something, that is actually too difficult to use.

> 5. Any scientific theory that does not offer causal explanations in
> terms of matter influencing matter by some form of contact, and from
> earlier to later in time, simply can't be called a scientific theory,
> because ALL decent scientific theories have those characters.

No!
Usefulness is not a requirement. Physics is especially concerned with
ideas, that have no practical use.

And you must not put prerequisites in the requirements on theories, that
are subject to debate.

> 6. No theory should be allowed to use familiar terms but with
> specialized meanings, because that does not properly serve a scientific
> theory's objective to EXPLAIN. Instead, such a practice only confuses.
> (Classical cases, such as "impulse" or "field" or the distinction
> between "heat" and "temperature" are excused. Why? Because they are.)

???
Heat and temperature ARE different.


'To allow' is not your privilege. The terms and phrases used are
subject to agreement among scientists.


TH

[Paul B. Andersen]

You didn't read the subject line properly, did you? :-)

--
Paul

http://www.gethome.no/paulba/

[Yosemite Samuelson]

On Tuesday, October 30, 2012 12:38:43 AM UTC-5, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 29.10.2012 23:34, schrieb Big Dog:
>
> > 1. Any scientific theory should be logically DEDUCED from previous
> > concepts, so that there is an inexorable advance in science by pure
> > deduction. No crazy new ideas are allowed.
>
> No!
> The scientific method goes completely different than you believe.

You misunderstand. Big Dog is explaining crank beliefs by deliberately adopting the posture of one in his original post. Those are not his actual opinions.

Remainder snipped.

Yosemite Samuelson

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message news:k6ob1b$mlp$1...@news.albasani.net...


http://www.gethome.no/paulba/

==================================
Hey Porkie!
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/StandingWaves.html

0-2 = 2
0+2 = 2
Hilarious.
That sure is a theory in crankdom.
Bwhahahahahahaha!

-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

[Big Dog]

On 10/30/2012 5:43 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

>
> You didn't read the subject line properly, did you? :-)
>

Sigh

[Alfonso]

I don't usually feed Trolls but you totally misrepresent the debate as
it should be. The question really is the philosophy underpinning Physics.

On the one hand you have classical philosophy. This has as its
cornerstone the philosophical law of causality. If something changes,
something must have caused that change. Under this philosophy the
purpose of science is try and understand the physical process linking
cause and effect. Under this philosophy a "Law" is an established
mathematical relationship which has been found to hold true when tested
and a "theory" is an attempt to explain the causal sequence. This
originally underpinned all science since Galileo. In a sense the law of
causality was a way of banning from science such things as witchcraft
magic and miracles. Classical philosophy is intuitive and is still the
basis of most other science. Because of this - and because the roll of
philosophy is neglected in the teaching of physics - many people in this
newsgroup assume that classical philosophical ideas are indivisible from
science and look for explanations in classical terms.

To a degree the philosophy underpinning science is a matter of choice.
The choice will affect what the purpose of the science is. What is
allowed and what isn't. The root problem is that physics is no longer
based on classical philosophy but neither did it choose to make a
change. A group of influential physicists chose a different philosophy
and started interpreting their work in terms of this new philosophy.
This occurred just after the first world war when, as a reaction to its
horrors just about everything was being questioned and change was very
much in the air. e.g. The conventions in Religion, Art, and Music where
overturned.

What this new philosophy states is accurately described by this quote:

"It should be QUITE CLEAR that 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 Tom Roberts without attribution).

and in this from Schrödinger.

"What is in principle unobservable should not at all be contained in our
conceptual scheme"

If you take this statement and consider for example the decay of a
radioactive nucleus. Classical philosophy would say that there must be a
reason (cause) why a particular nucleus decays and it would be
legitimate to try and produce a theory as to the nature of the internal,
dynamic structure of a nucleus such that at some point in time it
decays. Applying the philosophy of Schrödinger, Heisenburg et al then
as this is unobservable, it is forbidden to speculate that it exists. As
the cause cannot be observed - there is no cause. This leads to the
abandonment of the law of causality. Also if "we can never actually
"know" what Nature herself is really doing" the whole idea of proposing
a "theory" trying to describe what nature is doing is considered a
pointless exercise. Under the new philosophy the word "Theory" has
changed its meaning. "the most that human beings can aspire to is to
make models of the world" - such a model - mathematical in nature - is
described as a theory. There is no requirement that any plausible
explanation shall be provided only that it gives accurate predictions
"We can only make models and test them".

Unfortunately the change in philosophy does not appear on the time line
of physics when presented to the student in text books, which seems
strange as it is impossible to make sense of what is going on without
that knowledge. With the help of distortion and spin students are given
the impression of continuity, of a change forced on physics by
experiment. They are given the impression that theories - such as SR -
*do* explain things "it is just that it is counter intuitive". SR
explains nothing, neither is it required to because "we can never
actually "know" what Nature herself is really doing" or how it does it,
"we can only make models". SR is such a model.

Personally I find the philosophy rather extreme. I believe that
Schrodinger's cat is either alive or dead and that the only thing that
changes when the box is opened is our knowledge. I believe our
perception of reality should not be ignored. At the end of the day the
human mind is the only thing we have to work with. Elevating maths -
itself a product of the human mind - to be the be-all and end all is
wrong. There are other ways of describing the world which should
compliment the maths.

Alfonso

[Big Dog]

On 10/30/2012 12:56 PM, Alfonso wrote:

>
> I don't usually feed Trolls but you totally misrepresent the debate as
> it should be. The question really is the philosophy underpinning Physics.
>
> On the one hand you have classical philosophy. This has as its
> cornerstone the philosophical law of causality. If something changes,
> something must have caused that change. Under this philosophy the
> purpose of science is try and understand the physical process linking
> cause and effect. Under this philosophy a "Law" is an established
> mathematical relationship which has been found to hold true when tested
> and a "theory" is an attempt to explain the causal sequence. This
> originally underpinned all science since Galileo. In a sense the law of
> causality was a way of banning from science such things as witchcraft
> magic and miracles. Classical philosophy is intuitive and is still the
> basis of most other science. Because of this - and because the roll of
> philosophy is neglected in the teaching of physics - many people in this
> newsgroup assume that classical philosophical ideas are indivisible from
> science and look for explanations in classical terms.
>

And by which description, Newton's gravitation had no "law of causality"
and should have been banned from science.

[mpc755]

"Doth not this aethereal medium in passing out of water, glass,
crystal, and other compact and dense bodies in empty spaces, grow
denser and denser by degrees, and by that means refract the rays of
light not in a point, but by bending them gradually in curve
lines? ...Is not this medium much rarer within the dense bodies of the
Sun, stars, planets and comets, than in the empty celestial space
between them? And in passing from them to great distances, doth it not
grow denser and denser perpetually, and thereby cause the gravity of
those great bodies towards one another, and of their parts towards the
bodies; every body endeavouring to go from the denser parts of the
medium towards the rarer?" - Newton

Newton is referring to the state of displacement of the aether.

The aether does not grow denser and denser. The aether is, or behaves
similar to, a supersolid. However, Newton is correct, displaced aether
pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward matter is gravity.

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Alfonso" wrote in message news:Bo2dnX6oTtcsiQ3N...@bt.com...

Elevating maths -
itself a product of the human mind - to be the be-all and end all is
wrong. There are other ways of describing the world which should
compliment the maths.

Alfonso

=============================================================
Newton wrote:
Every body perseveres in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a right
line, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed
thereon.

PROJECTILES persevere in their motions, so far as they are not retarded by
the resistance of the air, or impelled downwards by the force of gravity. A
top, whose parts by their cohesion are perpetually drawn aside from
rectilinear motions, does not cease its rotation, otherwise than as it is
retarded by the air. The greater bodies of the planets and comets, meeting
with less resistance in more free spaces, preserve their motions both
progressive and circular for a much longer time.

The alteration of motion is ever proportional to the motive force impressed;
and is made in the direction of the right line in which that force is
impressed.

If any force generates a motion, a double force will generate double the
motion, a triple force triple the motion, whether that force be impressed
altogether and at once, or gradually and successively. And this motion
(being always directed the same way with the generating force), if the body
moved before, is added to or subtracted from the former motion, according as
they directly conspire with or are directly contrary to each other; or
obliquely joined, when they are oblique, so as to produce a new motion
compounded from the determination of both.

p = mv

m dp/dt = F

p_x + p_y + F_z = m(v_x + v_y + g_z)

m is shorthand for mass.
g is shorthand for acceleration under gravity.
F is shorthand for force.
v is shorthand for velocity.
p is shorthand for motion.
_x is subscript for the horizontal x direction.
_y is subscript for the orthogonal y direction.
_z is subscript for the vertical z direction.
t is shorthand for time

The only difference between Newton's writing and the equations is brevity.
Manipulating equations is far words manipulating than easier.

The other way of describing the world which should compliment the maths is
education; learn to read the shorthand, it says exactly the same thing in a
different language.
If mathematics is a product of the mind then so is English.

There are other ways of describing the world which should compliment

your griping over the language of mathematics.

[Thomas Heger]

Am 30.10.2012 11:43, schrieb Paul B. Andersen:

>
> You didn't read the subject line properly, did you? :-)
>

Actually not.

Somehow I managed to overlook it. So the text itself remained and I
thought, it would be a good idea to write something about it.

[Paul B. Andersen]

On 30.10.2012 13:13, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway wrote:
> "Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message news:k6ob1b$mlp$1...@news.albasani.net...
>>
>> http://www.gethome.no/paulba/
>>
> ==================================
> Hey Porkie!http://www.gethome.no/paulba/StandingWaves.html

http://www.gethome.no/paulba/pdf/StandingWaves.pdf

--
Paul

http://www.gethome.no/paulba/

[kenseto]

Newton's gravitation can have "law of causality" when a strued
aether such as the E-Matrix is posited.Sr can have causality if
you accept that space-time path is the path in a structured
aether such as the E-Matrix.

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message news:k6pegb$8a7$1...@news.albasani.net...

0-2 = 2
0+2 = 2

at the nodes.
Neat frequency doubler, Porkie. You should patent it.

Hilarious.
That sure is a theory in crankdom.
Bwhahahahahahaha!

-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of

[Paul B. Andersen]

Classical causality applies in both SR and GR.
That's why rwo events separated by a space like interval can't
affect each other.

SR and GR are deterministic theories and thus 'classical'
in this respect.

> To a degree the philosophy underpinning science is a matter of choice.
> The choice will affect what the purpose of the science is. What is
> allowed and what isn't. The root problem is that physics is no longer
> based on classical philosophy but neither did it choose to make a
> change. A group of influential physicists chose a different philosophy
> and started interpreting their work in terms of this new philosophy.
> This occurred just after the first world war when, as a reaction to its
> horrors just about everything was being questioned and change was very
> much in the air. e.g. The conventions in Religion, Art, and Music where
> overturned.
>
> What this new philosophy states is accurately described by this quote:
>
> "It should be QUITE CLEAR that 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 Tom Roberts without attribution).

Of course, isn't this obvious?
A theory of physics is a model of certain aspects of Nature,
it is not Nature itself.
Nature isn't a set of mathematical equations.

I find it remarkable that we are able to make models of
Nature that work so well as NM, SR and GR do.
(Within their respective domains of applicability, of course.)

And classical causality applies in the models of Nature
called SR and GR.


But QM is another world, it is not deterministic.

So you agree with Einstein:
"God doesn't play dice with the world."

What's then your problem with SR and GR which are
deterministic theories based on classical philosophy
with classical causality?

It's funny that you agree with Einstein only about
what he seemed to have got wrong! :-)

--
Paul

http://www.gethome.no/paulba/

[Big Dog]

On 10/30/2012 4:51 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> On 30.10.2012 18:56, Alfonso wrote:

>>
>> What this new philosophy states is accurately described by this quote:
>>
>> "It should be QUITE CLEAR that 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 Tom Roberts without attribution).
>
> Of course, isn't this obvious?
> A theory of physics is a model of certain aspects of Nature,
> it is not Nature itself.
> Nature isn't a set of mathematical equations.
>

Alfonso will claim that it is the aim of science to uncover what Nature
ACTUALLY DOES, and so more than a model is desired as the outcome of
science. The problem comes because he also insists that NATURE MUST BE
adherent to certain assumptions, in particular that every effect must IN
REALITY be associated with a prior, time-ordered cause. If Nature does
NOT adhere to that, as it turns out, then Alfonso must claim that we
have no sensible way to understand Nature and that is an unacceptable
outcome. He furthermore is not willing to entertain any philosophy that
allows Nature to deviate from that assumption, regardless whether it
actually seems to match observed behavior.

There are in fact models which work well and which do suppose that
Nature herself does NOT insist on strict, time-ordered sequencing of
cause and effect. Alfonso's response is that this is not a real theory
of Nature, because Nature cannot possibly act that way, because that
would be incompatible with his chosen philosophy.

Alfonso believes in a bastard son of the Anthropomorphic Principle:
"Nature really is organized in such a way that my philosophy of Nature
happens to be compatible with it, because otherwise I would not have
come up with that philosophy of Nature."

[Big Dog]

What's also interesting is that Alfonso complains that the other
sciences don't have a problem with using a philosophy of strictly
time-ordered cause preceding effect, and so why should physics be different?

The answer points directly to the statement made by you, Paul, and by
Tom. It's because those other sciences are successful with models that
have that characteristic of time-ordered cause preceding effect. Since
those models work, then there is no need to drive to models that do not
carry that assumption. However, in some areas of physics, the successful
models are the ones that do not have that characteristic.

Operationally, ALL the sciences are operating under the success metric
of models matching observations. The fact that some sciences have models
that exhibit a characteristic that is not seen in the models of another
science is neither here nor there, really.

[Paul B. Andersen]

On 30.10.2012 23:13, Big Dog wrote:
> On 10/30/2012 4:51 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> On 30.10.2012 18:56, Alfonso wrote:
>
>>>
>>> What this new philosophy states is accurately described by this quote:
>>>
>>> "It should be QUITE CLEAR that 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 Tom Roberts without attribution).
>>
>> Of course, isn't this obvious?
>> A theory of physics is a model of certain aspects of Nature,
>> it is not Nature itself.
>> Nature isn't a set of mathematical equations.
>>
>
> Alfonso will claim that it is the aim of science to uncover what Nature
> ACTUALLY DOES, and so more than a model is desired as the outcome of
> science. The problem comes because he also insists that NATURE MUST BE
> adherent to certain assumptions, in particular that every effect must IN
> REALITY be associated with a prior, time-ordered cause. If Nature does
> NOT adhere to that, as it turns out, then Alfonso must claim that we
> have no sensible way to understand Nature and that is an unacceptable
> outcome. He furthermore is not willing to entertain any philosophy that
> allows Nature to deviate from that assumption, regardless whether it
> actually seems to match observed behavior.

Sure. The old 'clockwork universe'. Alfonso is a crank.

I know from previous postings that he thinks that SR violates
causality:
On 16.08.2012 15:09, Alfonso wrote:
| if I change my speed (cause) relative to
| a light source 1 ly away the effect (a change in wavelength) be
| need not time-ordered i.e. it can take place 1 year before
| the cause without the need to identify any physical process
| (unique set of physical states) by which my action can effect
| what happens one light year away 1 year
| earlier. Which is what the maths of SR describes.

This is of course nonsense.
If I change my speed towards a light source and measure that
the wavelength changes, I can identify my acceleration as
"the physical process (unique set of physical states) by which
my action can effect" my measurement of the wavelength.
The effect follows the cause.

My point was only to point out that classical causality
applies in SR and GR.

> There are in fact models which work well and which do suppose that
> Nature herself does NOT insist on strict, time-ordered sequencing of
> cause and effect. Alfonso's response is that this is not a real theory
> of Nature, because Nature cannot possibly act that way, because that
> would be incompatible with his chosen philosophy.

Sure. God seems to be playing dice after all.


But as opposed to what Alfonso thinks, SR and GR do insist on
strict, time ordered sequencing of cause an effect.

> Alfonso believes in a bastard son of the Anthropomorphic Principle:
> "Nature really is organized in such a way that my philosophy of Nature
> happens to be compatible with it, because otherwise I would not have
> come up with that philosophy of Nature."

But the models of (tiny aspects of) Nature SR and GR
are compatible with 'classical philosophy' (causality, determinism),
even if Alfonso don't understand that they are.

Modern theories (post QM) are not.


--
Paul

http://www.gethome.no/paulba/

[Big Dog]

On 10/30/2012 4:51 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

>

> What's then your problem with SR and GR which are
> deterministic theories based on classical philosophy
> with classical causality?
>
> It's funny that you agree with Einstein only about
> what he seemed to have got wrong! :-)
>

Alfonso hides the fact that he is also a materialist, I believe.
It's pretty clear that his idea of natural causation is material
substance impinging on material substance, and any model that does not
feature that at root is not getting at the right cause. This goes beyond
classical physics, of course, but you'll see him scramble to try to
assert that every classical physicist before 1920 also had faith in
materialism.

For instance, he considers observational time dilation an effect that
must have a material cause, and that the geometry of spacetime cannot be
that cause because spacetime is not material.

Never mind that the ideal gas law in microscopic form gives for
monoatomic gases c_v = 3/2 R and for diatomic gases c_v = 5/2 R, where
those factors of 3 and 5 come DIRECTLY from the geometry of Euclidean
space. Hence bashing the notion that no effect can come from geometry.

The interesting thing is that Alfonso claims to be a fan of classical
philosophy and has no firm idea what classical physics says.

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message news:k6pn19$qsa$1...@news.albasani.net...

If I change my speed towards a light source and measure that
the wavelength changes,

============================================
then the speed changes by definition of acceleration.
Since c = fw and you believe c doesn't change you are compelled to accept
f changes, but instead of f' = f * (c+v)/c as Doppler determined, Einstein
says
f' =[ f * (c+v)/c ] / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) and you are fucking stupid enough to
believe the moron.

[Ron-boy]

On Oct 30, 7:15 pm, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:

> For instance, he [Lil Al] considers observational time dilation an effect that

> must have a material cause, and that the geometry of spacetime cannot be
> that cause because spacetime is not material.

Ummmm...exactly HOW does math cause people in different inertial
frames to age differently, with one still a mere teenager whereas
the other is a great-granddad?? Methinks that Big Dog is a Big Nut.

~RA~

[Tom Roberts]

On 10/30/12 10/30/12 6:55 PM, Ron-boy wrote:
> Ummmm...exactly HOW does math cause people in different inertial
> frames to age differently, with one still a mere teenager whereas
> the other is a great-granddad??

[You got it wrong, and this does not happen for people
who REMAIN in their inertial frames; one of them must
change frames and return to the other in order to
demonstrate this. I'll ignore your error and discuss
the "twin paradox".]

Math does not "cause" anything. OF COURSE NOT. Our theories of physics are
MODELS OF THE WORLD, nothing more [@].

But the world we inhabit is OBSERVED to behave the way you mention for an
appropriate "twin paradox" situation [#], so valid models of the world MUST
behave that way. SR and GR predict this, and are good models within their
respective domains. Your personal ignorance does not change this.

[@] But then, all knowledge you think you have about the
world is really knowledge about a MODEL you have made of
the world. You have been making such models since birth --
you cannot even find your bed at night without a mental
model of your house. If you can describe something in
words or math, that is a MODEL. This ought to be obvious:
the world is neither words nor math.

[#] See the FAQ for references; the "twin paradox" has been
performed many times.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html


Tom Roberts

[Tom Roberts]

On 10/30/12 10/30/12 5:23 PM, Big Dog wrote:
> What's also interesting is that Alfonso complains that the other sciences don't
> have a problem with using a philosophy of strictly time-ordered cause preceding
> effect, and so why should physics be different?
>
> The answer points directly to the statement made by you, Paul, and by Tom. It's
> because those other sciences are successful with models that have that
> characteristic of time-ordered cause preceding effect. Since those models work,
> then there is no need to drive to models that do not carry that assumption.
> However, in some areas of physics, the successful models are the ones that do
> not have that characteristic.
>
> Operationally, ALL the sciences are operating under the success metric of models
> matching observations. The fact that some sciences have models that exhibit a
> characteristic that is not seen in the models of another science is neither here
> nor there, really.

There is also an explanation that is one level deeper than that. All those other
sciences are using APPROXIMATIONS to the underlying fundamental theories of
physics. But GR and QM are not approximations, they are the best fundamental
theories of physics we have (SR is a different approximation to GR). It is the
specific process of approximation that gives the ILLUSION of Alfonso's NAIVE
notion of causality; the underlying world structure need not have it, and our
best models of that structure do not have it.

I also remark that the NAIVE view of causality is useless as a model, because
causal chains can never be backtracked uniquely. I recall a famous example: when
I strike a match, what is the cause of the flame? is it the friction of match on
the matchbox? is it the combination of phosphorous and oxygen molecules? is it
my desire for heat and light? An honest examination of this shows that
"causation" can never be established, in the sense of the NAIVE causality. We
now know this is because that causality chunks the world in ways that are
natural to humans ("match", "flame"), but are highly UNNATURAL in our best
fundamental models of the world ("quark", "electron") -- that
chunking/coarse-graining is the basis of the approximation that yields NAIVE
causality from an underlying theory that lacks it completely.

Note that causality in modern physics is not like that at all. The field values
at point A can be influenced only by the field values at points inside A's past
lightcone. And for the fields we know and use, there is a field equation that
tells precisely how the field values in that past lightcone affect the values at
point A. Note that within A's past lightcone, the temporal ordering of events is
independent of frame or observer, so the past/present ordering of causality is
preserved [#]. And in classical (deterministic) theories, the fields need not be
known throughout that past lightcone in order to determine the fields at A, one
only needs their values on a suitable Cauchy surface bounded by the past lightcone.

[#] Outside the lightcone the past/present ordering is NOT
invariant, and depends on how one looks (what frame one uses).
But that does not affect the ordering of causality, because
such events cannot affect what happens at point A -- we say
they are not causally connected to A.



IOW: the NAIVE causality is natural, appropriate, and accurate, at the scale of
human beings; it is an essential part of our everyday common sense. But it it is
unnatural, inappropriate, and not accurate at all, at the scale of subatomic
phenomena -- common sense simply does not apply. Anyone who believes it should
apply at all scales needs to learn something about the real world, and abandon
their personal fantasy world. But that scale of the world can only be reached
via scientific instruments, and to most people that means STUDY from the
scientific literature and textbooks.


Tom Roberts

[Big Dog]

How is it that math makes the constant-volume specific heat 3/2 R for a
monoatomic gas and 5/2 R for a diatomic gas? After all, those factors of
3 and 5 come strictly from geometry.

[Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato]

El martes, 30 de octubre de 2012 21:53:30 UTC-5, tjrob137 escribió:
> On 10/30/12 10/30/12 5:23 PM, Big Dog wrote:
>
> > What's also interesting is that Alfonso complains that the other sciences don't
>
> > have a problem with using a philosophy of strictly time-ordered cause preceding
>
> > effect, and so why should physics be different?
>
> >
>
> > The answer points directly to the statement made by you, Paul, and by Tom. It's
>
> > because those other sciences are successful with models that have that
>
> > characteristic of time-ordered cause preceding effect. Since those models work,
>
> > then there is no need to drive to models that do not carry that assumption.
>
> > However, in some areas of physics, the successful models are the ones that do
>
> > not have that characteristic.
>
> >
>
> > Operationally, ALL the sciences are operating under the success metric of models
>
> > matching observations. The fact that some sciences have models that exhibit a
>
> > characteristic that is not seen in the models of another science is neither here
>
> > nor there, really.
>
>
>
> There is also an explanation that is one level deeper than that. All those other
>
> sciences are using APPROXIMATIONS to the underlying fundamental theories of
>
> physics. But GR and QM are not approximations, they are the best fundamental
>
> theories of physics we have (SR is a different approximation to GR).

Without any doubt at all, GR and QM are the best theories of physics we have TODAY; but why do you say that they are “fundamental” and “not approximations”? Being born before 1905June30, surely you would be saying in that epoch about Newtonian mechanics the same you say today about GR and QM.

Is not evident for you that Nature knowledge by men is an increasing complex, continuous and endless collective process, being new theories based in the old ones? That knowledge is an approximation of how Nature behaves, tending to be a better one as theories (models) evolve with time, sometimes denoted with a new name, giving us the (until now always temporal) illusion that the (more probable non-existing) definitive end is reached.

RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)

[Paul Cardinale]

On Oct 30, 7:48 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 10/30/12 10/30/12   6:55 PM, Ron-boy wrote:
>
> > Ummmm...exactly HOW does math cause people in different inertial
> > frames to age differently, with one still a mere teenager whereas
> > the other is a great-granddad??
>
>         [You got it wrong, and this does not happen for people
>          who REMAIN in their inertial frames; one of them must
>          change frames and return to the other in order to
>          demonstrate this. I'll ignore your error and discuss
>          the "twin paradox".]
>
> Math does not "cause" anything. OF COURSE NOT. Our theories of physics are
> MODELS OF THE WORLD, nothing more [@].
>
> But the world we inhabit is OBSERVED to behave the way you mention for an
> appropriate "twin paradox" situation [#], so valid models of the world MUST
> behave that way. SR and GR predict this, and are good models within their
> respective domains.

Is there anything (that we know of) outside the domain of GR?

Paul Cardinale

[Alfonso]

Rubbish. You have been led to believe this but it isn't true. Lets take
a situation.

A S
B->v

As A and B coincide they see a flash of light from S. They both measure
the speed to be c. LET is a theory in the classical sense. It says there
is an aether. The measuring instruments of A and B will be differently
affected by their different speeds w.r.t the aether and while the real
speed of light is different for each of them what they measure with
affected instruments will inform them that the speed for both is c.
Quite simply a physical body - a measuring rod - is held together with
action at a distance force and the aether is responsible for
transferring that force (Maxwell). If the aether transferring the force
is in motion the equilibrium length is different to when it is
stationary. Thus you have a causal relationship between instruments and
the aether. As the instruments are differently affected then A and B
will calculate a different time for the event at S.

Einstein in his 1920 lecture objected to the asymmetry in Lorentz's
explanation but totally failed to come up with an alternative, vaguely
talking about "an aether without the immobility of Lorentz's".
Einstein's "aether without the immobility of Lorentz's" was trying to
explore the idea of an aether - needed in terms of Maxwell's theory to
provide a causal explanation as to why a source does not affect the
speed of the light it produces - with which all observers would have a
equal relationship to avoid the asymmetry. i.e. an aether which all
observer's would find themselves stationary w.r.t. Having failed, then
in classical terms his theory was a failure as it said nothing which
Lorentz's didn't say and was totally lacking in a causal explanation.

It was the new philosophy which came to his rescue. The idea that
physics theories do not require physical explanations as reality is
beyond the human mind so explanations are pointless. Thus Maxwells wave
in aether theory became Maxwell's equations - devoid of the causality
provided by the aether, and the maths of Lorentz became the SR theory.
The aether disappeared from physics not because of anything Einstein
did, not through any experiment, nor was it the result of any
theoretical wizardry. It was the introduction of a new philosophy
which said causal explanations were not needed.

"'Principle-theories' employ the analytic, not the synthetic, method.
The elements which form their bases and starting-point are not
hypothetically constructed but empirically discovered ones, general
characteristics of natural processes, principles that give rise to
mathematically formulated criteria which these separate processes or the
theoretical representations of them have to satisfy. The theory of
relativity belongs to this class." Einstein

Put simply SR is mathematical formulation based upon empirically
discovered starting points. Empirically the null result of the MMX
showed in terms of Maxwell's aether theory, that for some reason an
observer always finds himself stationary with the aether. The second
postulate (principle) simply describes what an observer stationary w.r.t
the aether would observe.

A S
B->v

Returning to my example, SR gives no causal explanation which would make
A's instruments different to B's. On the contrary it says all inertial
FoR are equivalent. So if A measures the speed as c it is because it is
c and B measures it as c because it is c. In order for this to be so the
same light must separate from the source at two different speeds (which
is what makes B's light blue shifted compared to A's) and the event
causing the flash has to take place at different times for each observer
not merely appear to. The new philosophy has no problem with this. It
says a physics theory is not trying to describe reality it must simply
be mathematically consistent and give the correct results in its domain
of applicability. Thus it can be assumed, without any causal explanation
that A's instruments are different to B's and B's different to A's
because they are in relative motion.

"Causality is NOT abandoned by physics. Strict, time-ordered
deterministic causality through a unique set of physical states is
abandoned." PD

i.e Classical Causality - where cause follows effect involving a
physical process is abandoned.

Alfonso.

[Big Dog]

You have confused "causal determinism" with "materialism".
Causality is enforced in relativity in that two events where one can be
influenced by the other, the influenced one is always in the future of
the other. That is what causality means. You have conflated that with
"identification of some material agent responsible for the influence"
which is materialism, not causal determinism. For you, what you call
"physical processes" always involves the engagement of a material
substance impinging on a material substance. That is materialism, not
causal determinism.

>
>
> A S
> B->v
>
> Returning to my example, SR gives no causal explanation which would make
> A's instruments different to B's. On the contrary it says all inertial

> FoR are equivalent.So if A measures the speed as c it is because it is

> c and B measures it as c because it is c.

Not quite so. The REASON it is c is because of the geometric structure
of spacetime. You have spluttered in the past that you do not accept
geometric structure as being a causal explanation for anything, and have
implied that only some material-based process is something you would
accept as an explanation. And yet even in classical thermodynamics, as I
have pointed out, the factors of 3/2 and 5/2 in the constant-volume
specific heats of monoatomic and diatomic gases come DIRECTLY from
geometry, something which you say is unacceptable.

> In order for this to be so the
> same light must separate from the source at two different speeds

It is CLEARLY untrue that this "must" be so. There are clearly other
theories which produce this result WITHOUT this being so. And so this at
best represents a failure of imagination on your part, in which you say
that the only way that things could possibly happen are the ways that
you can think of.

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Alfonso" <Alf...@duffadd.com> wrote in message news:59OdnTZKbZKuQA_N...@bt.com...

Lets take
a situation.

                   A                                    S
                   B->v

As A and B coincide they see a flash of light from S. They both measure
the speed to be c.

 

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

Impossible. B detects c+v

 

A.  c<----S
B->v
A detects c from S

B detects c+v from S

 

By the PoR we would have B stationary and

 

v<-A c<----S
B.

A detects  (c+v) – v  = c

B detects  (c+v) from S

Velocity is independent of position, you are even more

confused than Tomb Robber.

[Big Dog]

On 11/1/2012 2:07 PM, Paul Cardinale wrote:

>
> Is there anything (that we know of) outside the domain of GR?

I can think of at least a couple.

One is granularity of spacetime, since GR presently is only successful
as a continuum theory. This is part of what a quantum field theory of
gravity is supposed to resolve.

The second has to do with why initial conditions are what they are. Put
generally, GR (along with other laws of physics) are good at generating
the evolution of a system from an initial state, and there are
interesting constraints to that evolution such as the 2nd law of
thermodynamics and spontaneous symmetry breaking in particle physics.
But there doesn't seem to be any accounting for why it is that initial
states in the universe are low-entropy, highly symmetric states to begin
with. Similarly, we know that given a highly compactified universe
initially, GR predicts expansion from that initial state. But why was it
compactified to start? I call this the Simple Initial State problem. I
think it is interesting that the GR prediction of expansion of the
universe might be coupled to the second law of thermodynamics, and this
is of course why black hole behavior is interesting. Black hole
thermodynamics are superb probes of this connection and has led to
things like the holographic universe conjecture. But even in this case,
thermodynamics and spacetime behavior are evolutions.

[Tom Roberts]

On 11/1/12 11/1/12 - 1:22 PM, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote:
> El martes, 30 de octubre de 2012 21:53:30 UTC-5, tjrob137 escribió:
>> There is also an explanation that is one level deeper than that. All those
>> other sciences are using APPROXIMATIONS to the underlying fundamental
>> theories of physics. But GR and QM are not approximations, they are the
>> best fundamental theories of physics we have (SR is a different
>> approximation to GR).
>
> Without any doubt at all, GR and QM are the best theories of physics we have
> TODAY; but why do you say that they are “fundamental” and “not
> approximations”?

Because today they are the most fundamental theories we have. That is, there is
nothing to which they are approximations. Hopefully this will change....

As opposed to the other "theories" used in solid state, atomic physics, optics,
chemistry, biology, ... -- all of them are indeed approximations to either QM or
GR. Even the SR used in particle physics is an approximation (to GR).

> Being born before 1905June30, surely you would be saying in
> that epoch about Newtonian mechanics the same you say today about GR and QM.
> Is not evident for you that Nature knowledge by men is an increasing complex,
> continuous and endless collective process, being new theories based in the
> old ones? That knowledge is an approximation of how Nature behaves, tending
> to be a better one as theories (models) evolve with time, sometimes denoted
> with a new name, giving us the (until now always temporal) illusion that the
> (more probable non-existing) definitive end is reached.

Yes. We KNOW there are problems with GR and QM. Many people are working to
resolve these problems.


Tom Roberts

[Tom Roberts]

All quantum phenomena.

Perhaps cosmology -- the returns are not in yet.


Tom Roberts

[Larry Stones]

On Thu, 01 Nov 2012 16:49:48 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:


> Yes. We KNOW there are problems with GR and QM. Many people are working
> to resolve these problems.
>
>
> Tom Roberts

Working exactly how, kinda arrogance don't you think?

╔╗╔═╔╦╔╦╔╦╗ ╔═╔══╔═╔═╔═╔═╗
║║║║║╔║╔║║║ ║╚╚╗╔║║║║║═║╚╣
║╚╠╦║╣║╣╚╗║ ╠╗ ║║║║║║║═╠╗║
╚═╚╩╚╝╚╝ ╩╝ ╚═ ╚╝╚═╚╩╚═╚═╝

[black head]

On Oct 31, 2:53 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 10/30/12 10/30/12   5:23 PM, Big Dog wrote:

> snipeed}

> I also remark that the NAIVE view of causality is useless as a model, because
> causal chains can never be backtracked uniquely. I recall a famous example: when
> I strike a match, what is the cause of the flame? is it the friction of match on
> the matchbox? is it the combination of phosphorous and oxygen molecules? is it
> my desire for heat and light? An honest examination of this shows that
> "causation" can never be established, in the sense of the NAIVE causality. We
> now know this is because that causality chunks the world in ways that are
> natural to humans ("match", "flame"), but are highly UNNATURAL in our best
> fundamental models of the world ("quark", "electron") -- that
> chunking/coarse-graining is the basis of the approximation that yields NAIVE
> causality from an underlying theory that lacks it completely.

Even with this naive view of causality, I think it's possible to say
that a cause is a member of a set of causes, all being necessary for a
certain effect to occur. But at the same time, this set is also one of
a number of sets that are sufficient for a certain effect to occur.

Larry Harson.

[snipped]

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"black head" <larry...@softhome.net> wrote in message news:5d68ee41-ce11-4f68...@i8g2000vbq.googlegroups.com...

Even with this naive view of causality, I think it's possible to say
that a cause is a member of a set of causes, all being necessary for a
certain effect to occur. But at the same time, this set is also one of
a number of sets that are sufficient for a certain effect to occur.

Larry Harson.

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

Yes, I agree with that. In order for a building to collapse because

a plane hit the building we want to satisfy ourselves that the cause

was Osama bin Laden inciting a suicide pilot to deliberately

fly the plane into the building and not the fault of security

preventing the passenger from boarding the plane or the fault

of the avgas tanker driver delivering the fuel that allowed

the plane to take off in the first place, to name just a couple

of causes. We could also claim the collapse was the fault of

the architect who didn’t design the building to withstand a

fire that burnt and melted the floor support structure, making

the cause a failure in human thinking. We can even blame it

on gravity without which the building would not have fallen. 

Ultimately, all buildings will fall, whether deliberate taken

down because they are old, redundant, or by misadventure.

What you are saying is there are multiple independent

causes, some of which act in parallel and some of which

are sequential. The plane needed avgas, the avgas driver

didn’t go on strike, the fuel was refined from crude oil

that was shipped from the Middle-East, and so we have a

sequence of causes and effects in parallel with the suicide

pilot attending terrorist training in bin Laden’s school

followed by him attending flying lessons in the USA where

he wasn’t interested in learning how to land.

All of which boils down to no unique identifiable physical

cause but identifiable blame for one of them. So we killed

the bastard and hooray for that.

[Tom Roberts]

On 11/1/12 11/1/12 3:36 PM, Alfonso wrote:
> On 30/10/12 21:51, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> SR and GR are deterministic theories and thus 'classical'
>> in this respect.
>

> Rubbish. [... much nonsense and confusion]

In GR, within a region that is globally hyperbolic (i.e. contains no
singularities), it has been proven that given the values of the fields on a
Cauchy surface (i.e. an achronal spacelike surface), the fields can be extended
UNIQUELY throughout the region (via the field equation).

For details see Hawking and Ellis. There are many subtleties.

That is PRECISELY as "deterministic" as is Newtonian mechanics, and as is
classical electrodynamics.

SR is, of course, merely the local limit of GR, and the same applies.


Why should anybody take you seriously, when you make MANY errors of fact, and
CLEARLY do not understand the subject at even the level of freshman physics?


Tom Roberts

[bja...@iwaynet.net]

On 10/29/2012 5:34 PM, Big Dog wrote:
> 1. Any scientific theory should be logically DEDUCED from previous
> concepts, so that there is an inexorable advance in science by pure
> deduction. No crazy new ideas are allowed.

Obviously true. Wild speculations aren't allowed all previous concepts
form the foundation of new ideas. For example "greenhouse gas" theory
has been firmly established as "accepted science" since 19th century.

> 2. Scientific theories ought to pass the intuitiveness test. That is,
> the explanation has to seem obviously right and sensible FIRST before
> any comparison with experiment is done.

Exactly correct. For example given the amount of fossil fuels burned and
CO2 dumped into the atmosphere, it is intuitively obvious that CO2 is a
pollutant needing to be regulated as such. No comparison with
experimental data is needed.

> 3. Experimental results are not really a sound measure of the validity
> of a scientific theory, because any experimental result whatsoever can
> be reinterpreted or made consistent with any theory whatsoever. So
> comparing a theory with experiment doesn't prove anything.

Exactly correct. "Accepted science" is determined by a democratic vote
of scientists. To see if a theory is correct, all one need ask is how
many scientist believe in that theory, how many national instituted and
agencies support it and more important of all, how many international
political committees endorse the ideas. Global warming clearly meets ALL
of these criteria .

> 4. Scientific theories that are not taught in high school physics or
> freshman physics are too arcane to believe, and they are obvious
> attempts to exclude those with general education. The use of mathematics
> in the theory only makes this more obvious.

Clearly, mathematics in a theory is designed as jargon to exclude those
with a general education from disrupting the discussion. This is why
today, computer models provide the answer, nicely hiding complex
mathematics while still giving "virtual" results that anyone with a
general education can understand! What can be more clear than "virtual
ice" is melting or "virtual seas" are warming and becoming more acid
killing off all "virtual life". Who even needs to mention the word
"virutal" and everyone can understand the essentials. Even school
children who can this way be indoctrinated with the "new science".

> 5. Any scientific theory that does not offer causal explanations in
> terms of matter influencing matter by some form of contact, and from
> earlier to later in time, simply can't be called a scientific theory,
> because ALL decent scientific theories have those characters.

Exactly correct. CO2 CAUSES global warming! It's established science.
What else COULD it be? See? No answer. If critics can't provide some
OTHER causality than the one you propose (CO2) then obviously they have
no credible theories.

> 6. No theory should be allowed to use familiar terms but with
> specialized meanings, because that does not properly serve a scientific
> theory's objective to EXPLAIN. Instead, such a practice only confuses.
> (Classical cases, such as "impulse" or "field" or the distinction
> between "heat" and "temperature" are excused. Why? Because they are.)

Actually it goes quite beyond this. Redefining common words changing
their meaning to something more supportive of your theory is a GOOD
Thing but because some frown on that, the best thing is to make up your
own terms. That way nobody can question your explanations. They can
question your terms but then you only have to explain how ignorant,
uneducated and "insane" they are and the question is answered.

Global warming terms:

> Anthropogenic Global Warming
> Arctic amplification (AA)
> Biome
> Carbon Foot Print
> Carbon Head Tax
> Climate change
> Climate vs. Weather
> Conveyor belts
> Eco-centric
> Enviro surtaxes
> Enviro-Friendly
> Environmental Impact
> Environmental Prediction Reanalysis Global Warming!
> Greenhouse Effect
> Greenhouse Gasses
> Habitat loss
> Inversion layers
> Ocean acidification
> Ocean de-salination
> Ocean heat accumulation
> Ocean temperature
> Ozone Holes
> Paleothermometers (Proxy Paleothermometers)
> Permit charges
> Positive Feedback
> Prepaid Recycling fees
> Projected emissions giants Radiative Forcing Functions
> Radiative Forcing
> Recyclable
> Reshaping life on Earth
> Resource conservation
> Self-sustaining
> Southern Oscillations
> Surface temperature
> Toxic brew of climate change
> User fees

And best of all are scientific descriptions like:

"The Arctic is Screaming!"

By Mark Serreze a Senior NASA scientist at Boulder Co, Ice and Snow
center who predicted an ice-free arctic by the end of summer 2012.

The problem is that the public just doesn't understand that words like
"the arctic is screaming" have specialized climate science meanings that
they don't understand and hence do not understand the science behind it.

I think Big Dog has hit the nail on the head with Krank Science rules
which we just proved by a quick look at Climate Science as a prime Kook
Kandidate.

[Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato]

El jueves, 1 de noviembre de 2012 16:49:49 UTC-5, tjrob137 escribió:
> On 11/1/12 11/1/12 - 1:22 PM, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote:
>

> > El martes, 30 de octubre de 2012 21:53:30 UTC-5, tjrob137 escribi�:

>
> >> There is also an explanation that is one level deeper than that. All those
>
> >> other sciences are using APPROXIMATIONS to the underlying fundamental
>
> >> theories of physics. But GR and QM are not approximations, they are the
>
> >> best fundamental theories of physics we have (SR is a different
>
> >> approximation to GR).
>
> >
>
> > Without any doubt at all, GR and QM are the best theories of physics we have
>

> > TODAY; but why do you say that they are �fundamental� and �not
>
> > approximations�?

>
>
>
> Because today they are the most fundamental theories we have. That is, there is
>
> nothing to which they are approximations. Hopefully this will change....
>

Nothing? And Nature does not exist for you?

>
>
> As opposed to the other "theories" used in solid state, atomic physics, optics,
>
> chemistry, biology, ... -- all of them are indeed approximations to either QM or
>
> GR. Even the SR used in particle physics is an approximation (to GR).
>

Evidently we are considering the approximation of different entities. I compare theories (models) with Nature (that is what an experiment is all about), but you seem comparing theories (models) only among themselves.

>
>
>
>
> > Being born before 1905June30, surely you would be saying in
>
> > that epoch about Newtonian mechanics the same you say today about GR and QM.
>
> > Is not evident for you that Nature knowledge by men is an increasing complex,
>
> > continuous and endless collective process, being new theories based in the
>
> > old ones? That knowledge is an approximation of how Nature behaves, tending
>
> > to be a better one as theories (models) evolve with time, sometimes denoted
>
> > with a new name, giving us the (until now always temporal) illusion that the
>
> > (more probable non-existing) definitive end is reached.
>
>
>
> Yes. We KNOW there are problems with GR and QM. Many people are working to
>
> resolve these problems.
>

Recognizing then that all theories evolve in some way from past to present, if GR and QM have problems between them today (even being the more successful ones), I considered a good option to revise their respective development with the hope to clear those problems. And being Einstein a pioneer in both theories, what better to start revising what he did in 1905 (denoted by me 1905R, in order to distinguish it from what was developed later by him and others).

I recently put to debate in this group a result derived from 1905R that is in contradiction with the GR Principle of Equivalence.
>
>
>
>
> Tom Roberts

RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)

[Alfonso]

On 02/11/12 04:20, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 11/1/12 11/1/12 3:36 PM, Alfonso wrote:
>> On 30/10/12 21:51, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>> SR and GR are deterministic theories and thus 'classical'
>>> in this respect.
>>
>> Rubbish. [... much nonsense and confusion]
>
> In GR, within a region that is globally hyperbolic (i.e. contains no
> singularities), it has been proven that given the values of the fields
> on a Cauchy surface (i.e. an achronal spacelike surface), the fields can
> be extended UNIQUELY throughout the region (via the field equation).
>
> For details see Hawking and Ellis. There are many subtleties.
>
> That is PRECISELY as "deterministic" as is Newtonian mechanics,

You might note the difference between a Law and a Theory in classical
philosophy.

A Law - as in Newton's laws of motion, and Boyle's law is an established
mathematical relationship without an explanation.

A theory is OTOH an explanation in terms of causality as in the kinetic
theory of gases, Maxwell's aether theory and Lorentz's aether theory.

Under the new philosophy such distinctions disappear as it states that

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

can only make models and test them". Thus a mathematical model (a Law)
is now described as a "theory" on the grounds that no further
understanding is possible.

The following statement is impeccable logic within the framework of
classical philosophy:

"One might ask why a physical ether should be necessary for light waves
to propagate in: why do they demand a physical medium? The answer would
seem to be that according to the theory these "waves" carry physical
energy in readily measurable amounts, so that they must be physical
waves; and physical waves cannot be waves in nothing."

The new philosophy says "we can never actually "know" what Nature
herself is really doing. We can only make models and test them" thus we
can never know the nature of light all we can do is produce models which
predict what it *does*. One such model is the EM wave model where the
mathematics of waves accurately predict results - but it is only a
model. It is not the only model. That model of light says that energy is
evenly spread through space and the other that it is not. A logical
contradiction *if* you are claiming to describe reality but you are not.
There is no harm in having two models provided, within their domain of
applicability they give accurate prediction - i.e. pass the tests when
you test them. That is all that is required of a physics theory/model
under the new philosophy.

Einstein was caught between the two philosophies. He believed in the aether

"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is
unthinkable"

Modern physicists don't see it that way. Einstein's theory of gravity is
a model. No one really believes that there is some physical entity out
there which is "curved". "Curved space" is simply a convenient label
given to what the maths is describing.

Your problem is that you still believe the spin version given to
students. That Einstein (the genius) came up with a theory which didn't
need the aether. That we have "learned" "this that and the other" when
in fact "we" decided to give "ourselves" greater freedom by ditching one
philosophy and adopting another which results in "this that and the
other" interpretation.

"In the abstract, it should be QUITE CLEAR that 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, which is known as Physics." Tom Roberts

That is a very concise and correct statement of the new philosophy but
you don't understand your own quote. Trawling for quotes you don't
understand is a bad idea as is quoting them without attribution.



Alfonso

[Big Dog]

On 11/2/2012 12:41 PM, Alfonso wrote:
> On 02/11/12 04:20, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> On 11/1/12 11/1/12 3:36 PM, Alfonso wrote:
>>> On 30/10/12 21:51, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>> SR and GR are deterministic theories and thus 'classical'
>>>> in this respect.
>>>
>>> Rubbish. [... much nonsense and confusion]
>>
>> In GR, within a region that is globally hyperbolic (i.e. contains no
>> singularities), it has been proven that given the values of the fields
>> on a Cauchy surface (i.e. an achronal spacelike surface), the fields can
>> be extended UNIQUELY throughout the region (via the field equation).
>>
>> For details see Hawking and Ellis. There are many subtleties.
>>
>> That is PRECISELY as "deterministic" as is Newtonian mechanics,
>
> You might note the difference between a Law and a Theory in classical
> philosophy.
>
> A Law - as in Newton's laws of motion, and Boyle's law is an established
> mathematical relationship without an explanation.
>
> A theory is OTOH an explanation in terms of causality as in the kinetic
> theory of gases, Maxwell's aether theory and Lorentz's aether theory.
>

I'm pretty sure you don't have a good appreciation for what the kinetic
theory of gases supposes either. The axioms of that model are that
1. The particles of the gas are much much smaller than the path length
between collisions.
2. That the collisions, which need not be contact, are elastic.
3. That the motion of the particles are random.
4. That the potential energy of the interactions between the particles
is, on average, small compared to the kinetic energy.

Note that there is no explanation at all for the nature of the
interaction between the particles, and hence no "why" answer to the
causal mechanism. Nor is there any explanation for why the interaction
length is small compared to the path length.

It is merely a MODEL, with a lot of unspecified parameters and
unjustified assumptions.

[Tom Roberts]

On 11/1/12 11/1/12 - 5:59 PM, black head wrote:
> On Oct 31, 2:53 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> I also remark that the NAIVE view of causality is useless as a model, because

>> causal chains can never be backtracked uniquely. [...]

>
> Even with this naive view of causality, I think it's possible to say
> that a cause is a member of a set of causes, all being necessary for a
> certain effect to occur. But at the same time, this set is also one of
> a number of sets that are sufficient for a certain effect to occur.

Think about this honestly, and you will find that you must include EVERYTHING
that precedes the effect in the "set of causes". That makes it useless as a model.


Tom Roberts

[Paul B. Andersen]

Lets elaborate your example a little:
Let space time be flat.
Let's define the initial conditions precisely.

In an inertial frame of reference which we can call
the "stationary frame" we have:
At the time t=0 S is at the position x=L and is emitting a light pulse.
A is at this time stationary at x=0, his clock showing 0.
B is at the position x=0, his clock showing 0, and he is moving with
the speed v.


B--> V
A S
|------------------------------------|----> x
0 L


LET, SR and GR predicts: (GR is identical to SR in flat space time)

A will observe the light pulse when his clocks show L/c.

In the rest frame of B, the coordinates of the event
"light emitted by S" are:
x' = (L - v0)/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) = L/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
t' = (0 - vL/c^2)/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) = -(L/c)(v/c)/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)

So B will observe the light when his clock shows:
x'/c + t' = (L/c)(1-v/c)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) = (L/c)sqrt((1-v/c)/(1+v/c))

To sum it up:
LET, SR and GR predicts that:
Clock A will show L/c when the light is observed.
Clock B will show (L/c)sqrt((1-v/c)/(1+v/c)) when the light is observed.

Cause: light is emitted from S
Effect: A and B observe the light.

According to as well LET, SR and GR the effect follows the cause.
We have classical causality where the effect follows the cause.
----------------------------------------------------------------

LET, SR and GR are able to predict exactly what will be observed
in the future when the initial conditions are known precisely.
We have determinism.
--------------------

What are you talking about?

The cause is: light emitted from S.
The effect is: light observed by A and B.
According to LET, SR and GR the effect follows the cause.
Classical causality.

And if you know the initial conditions precisely,
the theories can predict what A and B will observe.
Determinism.

You seem to have a strange idea of what causality and determinism are.

(I suppose this was a typo)

Classical causality, where effect follows cause applies

in both SR and GR.

If you think otherwise, you should devise a scenario and
prove that SR or GR predicts that the cause follows the effect.

You have tried that before:

On 16.08.2012 15:09, Alfonso wrote:
| if I change my speed (cause) relative to
| a light source 1 ly away the effect (a change in wavelength) be
| need not time-ordered i.e. it can take place 1 year before
| the cause without the need to identify any physical process
| (unique set of physical states) by which my action can effect
| what happens one light year away 1 year
| earlier. Which is what the maths of SR describes.

You didn't succeed.

--
Paul

http://www.gethome.no/paulba/

[Big Dog]

On 11/2/2012 3:24 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

> You seem to have a strange idea of what causality and determinism are.
>

Yes, he does. He's not looking for just causal determinism. He's looking
for materialism, in which there is a material basis for the cause and
effect relationship.

[Larry Stones]

This is an elementary error.

It is enough to only consider the direct neighbouring causes control
volume, the rest of your EVERYTHING does not counts nor mater. This is how
Nature works.

[black head]

You don't need to include all the causes, since the scientific method
relies on the common sense of scientists when defining the
experimental conditions required to observe an effect. Secondly, micro
causes are lumped together into macro causes and these will similarly
be lumped together.

You can't write down the vast number of causes required to observer
Faraday's law, but you can communicate the fact that the movement of a
magnet in a coil will cause an effect to be observed in the
measurement of the induced current. It's not THE cause but A cause for
an effect.

And let's not forget the models for the weather that scientists are
attempting to build. Are they really useless? If so, then why bother
creating them? Just because something can't be done perfectly don't
mean an attempt shouldn't be made in establishing the non-trivial
causes behind an effect.

Larry.

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Paul Cardinale" <pcard...@volcanomail.com> wrote in message news:b60663ea-ae8a-4b19...@m4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...

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

Is there anything (that we know of) outside the domain of

Newton-Faraday-Doppler physics, miserable moron Cardinale?

[Paul B. Andersen]

On 02.11.2012 21:24, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> On 01.11.2012 21:36, Alfonso wrote:
>> On 30/10/12 21:51, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>> Classical causality applies in both SR and GR.
>>> That's why rwo events separated by a space like interval can't
>>> affect each other.
>>>
>>> SR and GR are deterministic theories and thus 'classical'
>>> in this respect.
>>
>> Rubbish. You have been led to believe this but it isn't true. Lets take
>> a situation.
>>
>> A S
>> B->v

>> A and B coincide they see a flash of light from S.

The above is correct, but I see now that it isn't
the scenario described by Alfonso.
So let's consider the following scenario:

Let space time be flat.

In an inertial frame of reference which we can call
the "stationary frame" we have:

S is at the position x=L when it emits a light pulse.
A is stationary at x=0, his clock showing 0, when he observe the pulse.

B is at the position x=0, his clock showing 0, and he is moving with

the speed v when he observe the pulse.

B--> V
A S
|------------------------------------|----> x
0 L

The coordinates of the event "light pulse emitted by S" are:
x = L, t = - L/c

In the inertial rest frame of B, the coordinates of this event are:
x' = (L -v(-L/c)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) = L sqrt((1+v/c)/(1-v/c))
t' = (-L/c - Lv/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) = -(L/c)sqrt((1+v/c)/(1-v/c))

The events "A observe the light" and "B receive the light"
are coinciding, yet A and B have different opinions about
the spatial and temporal intervals between this event and
the event "light emitted from S".

Spatial and temporal intervals are frame dependent.
However, the space time interval sqrt( x^2 - (ct)^2) is
invariant. Both A and B will agree that it is zero.
(light-like interval).

This is still true:

>
> The cause is: light emitted from S.
> The effect is: light observed by A and B.

And this isn't even 'action at a distance'.
The light is moving from S to A and B.

> According to LET, SR and GR the effect follows the cause.
> Classical causality.
>
> And if you know the initial conditions precisely,
> the theories can predict what A and B will observe.
> Determinism.
>
> You seem to have a strange idea of what causality and determinism are.
>

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Paul B. Andersen" <som...@somewhere.no> wrote in message news:k739g9$pmq$1...@news.albasani.net...

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

No they are not, you are lying again, Porky.

[Alfonso]

Define what, in physical terms, you mean by "space time" and "Flat"?
Space-time is simply a mathematical construction. You are stepping
through the mathematics of a mathematical model. Under the new
philosophy no one cares whether there is any reality corresponding to
space-time. Under classical philosophy you need to explain what it is.

> Let's define the initial conditions precisely.
>
> In an inertial frame of reference which we can call
> the "stationary frame" we have:

A frame of reference is a mathematical abstraction. An invention of man
for his own convenience. In nature speed is relative. What a FoR does is
allow you to think as if speed was absolute. A Frame of reference has
become a comfort blanket for relativists. It is endowed with a reality
of its own which cannot exist because a FoR does not physically exist.
All frames of reference define the same physical space.

> At the time t=0 S is at the position x=L and is emitting a light pulse.
> A is at this time stationary at x=0, his clock showing 0.
> B is at the position x=0, his clock showing 0, and he is moving with
> the speed v.
>
>
> B--> V
> A S
> |------------------------------------|----> x
> 0 L

No you have misread the question. The flash of light reaches A just as B
is coincident with A. When the light left the source the situation was
as shown:

B--> V
A S
|<--x-->|------------------------------------|----> x
Y 0 L

B is at a distance x from A. In the time it takes B to travels to A the
burst travels from S to O. What you have is a burst of photons, A and B
all coincident in the same location in space. What a theory based on
classical philosophy would have to explain is why A and B both measure
the speed of those photons as c and why, when they compute the time of
the event at S they get radically different results.

If A and B coincide at To Then A will conclude that the event took
place at
ta = To-LO/c

B on the other hand sees S and A travelling towards him

B
V<--A V<--S
|<--x-->|------------------------------------|----> x
Y 0 L

For B the light has travelled a distance x + LO' at c in the same time
that A has travelled from O to Y at V a time of x/V

So it took place at tb = To - (x + LO')/c ----- [1]
Now tb = To - x/V
so x = (To - tb)V -------------[2]
Substitute 2 in 1
tb = To - To.V/c + tb.V/c - LO'/c

tb(1 - V/c) = (To - To.V/c - LO'/c)

tb = (To(1-V/c) - LO')/(1 - V/c)

tb = To - LO'/(1 - V/c)

A first order difference is computed time. SR says that all FoR are
equivalent so instruments are not affected by inertial motion.

[snip maths based on a misreading of the question]

>
> According to as well LET, SR and GR the effect follows the cause.
> We have classical causality where the effect follows the cause.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> LET, SR and GR are able to predict exactly what will be observed
> in the future when the initial conditions are known precisely.
> We have determinism.

The difference is that in classical philosophy a LAW predicts outcome, a
THEORY explains the physical process which brings it about. SR may
predict the outcome but provides no causal explanation. i.e. a theory
would have to explain why A and B both measure the speed of the photons
as c and why, when they compute the time of the event at S they get
radically different results. LET is a theory consistent with classical
philosophy and provided an explanation. There is an aether which is
responsible for transferring action at a distance EM force (Maxwell).
"Solid" objects are made up of charged particles and their dimensions
depend on the equilibrium of the forces between them. When the medium
transferring the force is in motion the dimensions change. As A and B
are travelling at different speeds their instruments will differ and
both of the above can be explained.

All you have said about the situation is that light leaves S and arrives
at AB. See above as to what a theory under Classical philosophy would
have to explain

>
> And if you know the initial conditions precisely,
> the theories can predict what A and B will observe.
> Determinism.
>
> You seem to have a strange idea of what causality and determinism are.

If you check you will find I have not used the word "Determinism" and I
have explained in some detail what Classical (pre 1920) causality meant.
What you have to explain is why - without a radical shift in thinking
taking place - why suddenly after WW1 the aether was no longer a part of
physics thinking .
The aether had been an essential part of physics for 200 years and it
had been given a massive boost by none other than Maxwell himself.

My interest is in the historical development of physics and early on I
became aware that a shift in thinking had taken place. I had narrowed
the shift as having taken place around 1920. The exact nature of the
shift did not become clear until I listened to this lecture:


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

Then the pieces fell into place. The nature of the radical shift in
thinking became apparent. The lecture is a little tedious so I have
tried to saved you the trouble of having to listen to it yourself. The
new philosophical ideas introduced by Schroding Heisenburg et al
originated from the writings of Immanuel Kant.

>> "'Principle-theories' employ the analytic, not the synthetic, method.
>> The elements which form their bases and starting-point are not
>> hypothetically constructed but empirically discovered ones, general
>> characteristics of natural processes, principles that give rise to
>> mathematically formulated criteria which these separate processes or the
>> theoretical representations of them have to satisfy. The theory of
>> relativity belongs to this class." Einstein
>>
>> Put simply SR is mathematical formulation based upon empirically
>> discovered starting points. Empirically the null result of the MMX
>> showed in terms of Maxwell's aether theory, that for some reason an
>> observer always finds himself stationary with the aether. The second
>> postulate (principle) simply describes what an observer stationary w.r.t
>> the aether would observe.

What no comment?

>>
>> A S
>> B->v
>>
>> Returning to my example, SR gives no causal explanation which would make
>> A's instruments different to B's. On the contrary it says all inertial
>> FoR are equivalent. So if A measures the speed as c it is because it is
>> c and B measures it as c because it is c. In order for this to be so the
>> same light must separate from the source at two different speeds (which
>> is what makes B's light blue shifted compared to A's) and the event
>> causing the flash has to take place at different times for each observer
>> not merely appear to. The new philosophy has no problem with this. It
>> says a physics theory is not trying to describe reality it must simply
>> be mathematically consistent and give the correct results in its domain
>> of applicability. Thus it can be assumed, without any causal explanation
>> that A's instruments are different to B's and B's different to A's
>> because they are in relative motion.
>>
>> "Causality is NOT abandoned by physics. Strict, time-ordered
>> deterministic causality through a unique set of physical states is
>> abandoned." PD
>>
>> i.e Classical Causality - where cause follows effect involving a
>> physical process is abandoned.
> (I suppose this was a typo)

yes. Do you disagree with PD that modern physics does not accept the
restrictions of Classical causality? Classical causality was the
cornerstone of classical philosophy.

>
> Classical causality, where effect follows cause applies
> in both SR and GR.
>
> If you think otherwise, you should devise a scenario and
> prove that SR or GR predicts that the cause follows the effect.
>
> You have tried that before:
> On 16.08.2012 15:09, Alfonso wrote:
> | if I change my speed (cause) relative to
> | a light source 1 ly away the effect (a change in wavelength) be
> | need not time-ordered i.e. it can take place 1 year before
> | the cause without the need to identify any physical process
> | (unique set of physical states) by which my action can effect
> | what happens one light year away 1 year
> | earlier. Which is what the maths of SR describes.
>
> You didn't succeed.

OK Try this. You have a source of gamma photons 1 ly away which
generates photons at regular intervals. I measure the interval between
one arriving and the next at a point. I change my speed so that I am
travelling at v towards the source. The interval between one pulse
arriving and the next is shorter. Why? The photons left the source 1
year ago and under classical philosophy nothing I can do can affect what
has already happened. Their physical spacing was determined 1 year ago.
Nothing has happened to them between them leaving the source and
reaching me so why has the interval changed? The obvious answer is that
my speed relative to the photons has change. Same spacing going past
faster means shorter interval but that is not allowed by relativity.

A typical relativists answer is that I have gone from one FoR where the
spacing was one distance to a FoR where the spacing is a different
distance and always was.

As I said earlier. A frame of reference is a mathematical abstraction.
A Frame of reference has become a comfort blanket for relativists. they
endow it with a separate reality of its own which cannot exist because a
FoR does not physically exist. All frames of reference define the same
physical space.

Alfonso


>

[shuba]

Extreme crank Alfonso wrote:

> Define what, in physical terms, you mean by "space time" and "Flat"?

Were you actually interested in an answer to that question, you
would have spent some time becoming familiar with the subject
instead of just writing repetitive hate speech on the internet.


---Tim Shuba---

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Alfonso" <Alf...@duffadd.com> wrote in message news:h_qdnZlLbKFlyAjN...@bt.com...

As I said earlier. A frame of reference is a mathematical abstraction.
A Frame of reference has become a comfort blanket for relativists. they
endow it with a separate reality of its own which cannot exist because a
FoR does not physically exist. All frames of reference define the same
physical space.

Alfonso


>

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

That is just plain misleading, it’s like saying money doesn’t physically

exist because I pay by debit card.

A track is a frame of reference, a train is another frame of

reference and a passenger on the train moves in both FoRs

simultaneously, one at 3 mph as he walks down the train

aisle or corridor and the other at 33 mph as he walks along

the track carried by the train at 30 mph. The train and the

track are not mathematical abstractions, they are physical

realities just as a coin is a physical reality of money, but it is

money that is a mathematical abstraction, a comfort blanket

for armchair philosophers. You can’t have negative coins

to be in the red.

[Ron-boy]

On Oct 30, 2012, Tom Roberts wrote:

> [See] http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
>....SR and GR predict [the things listed], and are good models within their
>respective domains.

I did my part and perused the cited site, but sighted basically nada.

To explain: The main focus there was on these four items:
1. Light's Round-trip Speed 2. Light's One-way Speed

3. Time Dilation 4. Length Contraction

RE 1: Round-trip invariance was given via experiment pre-SR,
so no SR prediction there, just pure acceptance

RE 2: SR strove mightily to "predict" one-way invariance, but
it could not because such invariance cannot occur experimentally
(light's speed between two clocks cannot be c experimentally)

RE 3: If you are talking reciprocal dilation, then SR has it but
it ain't a scientific prediction because it is caused by Einstein's
use of absolutely asynchronous (invalid) clocks

If you are talking intrinsic clock slowing (as in the case where
triplets have totally different ages sans acceleration), then SR
did not predict this because it was given by the round-trip
experiment

RE 4: If you are talking intrinsic length contraction, then SR
did not predict this because it was given by the round-trip
experiment

Looks like they need to change the site name to
"There is no experimental basis for Special Relativity"

On 10/30/12 2012, Ron-boy wrote:
>> Ummmm...exactly HOW does math cause people in different inertial
>> frames to age differently, with one still a mere teenager whereas
> >the other is a great-granddad??

> [You got it wrong, and this does not happen for people
> who REMAIN in their inertial frames; one of them must
> change frames and return to the other in order to

> demonstrate this. I'll ignore your error and discuss....

Sorry to bust yo bubble, bud, but it's actually *your* error.

Dr. Dirk bitterly complains about repetitive posting, but since
all of you SR defenders keep on repeating *your* errors, it is
of course necessary to keep on repeating the corrections.

The following quote comes from this site:
http://mentock.home.mindspring.com/twins.htm

"To avoid accelerations in the thought experiments above, we can
simply make the second Bob frame into a "messenger" Carl that never
accelerates, but passes by Bob as they set their watches together.
Messenger Carl then travels to Ann and compares watches as they pass
each other. That makes it clear that there are three distinct inertial
frames involved."

Re SR and this paragraph:
There are two major problems, viz.,

[1] as noted above, SR did not predict physical time slowing, and
[2] SR actually rejects the physical cause of physical time slowing,
which is motion through space (absolute motion).

The only way that the differently-aged triplets differed was by being
in two different inertial frames. (no acceleration, no gravitation,
no
SR clock synchronization, no odometers, no triangles, no Doppler
effect, no history, no lack of symmetry, etc., etc.)

One observer in Inertial Frame A is older than another observer in
Inertial Frame B. Neither ever accelerated during the experiment.

This is a fact that cannot be explained by SR.

(And do not forget that light's speed between two clocks cannot
be c experimentally. It cannot happen, so it cannot be a postulate
or even a hunch.)

<<<<shrug>>>>

~RA~
who will keep on repeating the truth
until it sticks

[Ron-boy]

On Oct 31, 9:25 am, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/30/2012 6:55 PM, Ron-boy wrote:
>
> > On Oct 30, 7:15 pm, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> For instance, he [Lil Al] considers observational time dilation an effect that
> >> must have a material cause, and that the geometry of spacetime cannot be
> >> that cause because spacetime is not material.

>
> > Ummmm...exactly HOW does math cause people in different inertial
> > frames to age differently, with one still a mere teenager whereas

> > the other is a great-granddad?? Methinks that Big Dog is a Big Nut.
>
> How is it that math makes the constant-volume specific heat 3/2 R for a
> monoatomic gas and 5/2 R for a diatomic gas? After all, those factors of
> 3 and 5 come strictly from geometry.

See Tom's reply re math can cause nothing to happen in reality.

~RA~

[Alfonso]

On 03/11/12 19:05, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway wrote:
> "Alfonso" <Alf...@duffadd.com> wrote in message
> news:h_qdnZlLbKFlyAjN...@bt.com...
>
>
> As I said earlier. A frame of reference is a mathematical abstraction.
> A Frame of reference has become a comfort blanket for relativists. they
> endow it with a separate reality of its own which cannot exist because a
> FoR does not physically exist. All frames of reference define the same
> physical space.
>
> Alfonso
>
>
> >
> =========================================================
> That is just plain misleading, it’s like saying money doesn’t physically
> exist because I pay by debit card.

Does money physically exist? For the most part today most of it exists
only as a series of magnetic orientations on a hard disk. Transferring
money involves changing the magnetic orientations on two HDDs. In a very
real sense money is not a "thing" in its own right merely a
representation of a thing. Money is not "wealth" as such, it represents
wealth but underpinning it is confidence in one's ability to exchange it
for something real. If that confidence is undermined one can discover
the ephemeral nature of money and its lack of physical existence.

I believe the whole banking crisis is the result of bankers thinking of
money as a commodity in its own right rather than thinking about what it
represents.


> /A track is a frame of reference,

No a track is a physical structure

a train is another frame of /
> /reference

No a train is a means of transport.

and a passenger on the train moves in both FoRs/
> /simultaneously,

Speed is relative. a passenger has a speed relative to the track and a
different speed relative to the train. The train has a speed relative to
the track. Describing it in terms of FoR is merely a convenience. It
does not change anything.


one at 3 mph as he walks down the train /
> /aisle or corridor and the other at 33 mph as he walks along/
> /the track //carried by the train at 30 mph.



The train and the/
> /track are //not mathematical abstractions, they are physical/
> /realities

agreed and they all have relative speeds w.r.t. each other. The concept
of a FoR is a mathematical abstraction which is convenient. Despite all
our sophistication in discovering that speed is relative instinctively
we think of it as absolute. A FoR allows us to do that. In a FoR speed
is absolute. If you define a FoR you can say "the speed of x is v" and
not "the speed of x relative to y is v".

My point was that relativists have an unsound habit of "explaining"
things by saying "because it is in a different FoR" as if a FoR
physically exists and can support a separate reality from another FoR.


just as a coin is a physical reality of money, but it is /
> /money that is a mathematical abstraction, a comfort blanket/
> /for armchair philosophers. You can’t have negative coins/
> /to be in the red./
> /-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
> Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway/

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Alfonso" <Alf...@duffadd.com> wrote in message news:l6qdnctLjY2mwAvN...@bt.com...

On 03/11/12 19:05, Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway wrote:
> "Alfonso" <Alf...@duffadd.com> wrote in message
> news:h_qdnZlLbKFlyAjN...@bt.com...
>
>
> As I said earlier. A frame of reference is a mathematical abstraction.
> A Frame of reference has become a comfort blanket for relativists. they
> endow it with a separate reality of its own which cannot exist because a
> FoR does not physically exist. All frames of reference define the same
> physical space.
>
> Alfonso
>
>
>  >
> =========================================================
> That is just plain misleading, it’s like saying money doesn’t physically
> exist because I pay by debit card.

Does money physically exist?

 

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

 

For the most part today most of it exists
only as a series of magnetic orientations on a hard disk. Transferring
money involves changing the magnetic orientations on two HDDs. In a very
real sense money is not a "thing" in its own right merely a
representation of a thing. Money is not "wealth" as such, it represents
wealth but underpinning it is confidence in one's ability to exchange it
for something real. If that confidence is undermined one can discover
the ephemeral nature of money and its lack of physical existence.

I believe the whole banking crisis is the result of bankers thinking of
money as a commodity in its own right rather than thinking about what it
represents.

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

Gold is money. Coins exist. Bank notes, cheques and electronic

transfers are promises to pay. Fort Knox and the Bank of England

hold gold bullion so that one country can pay the other. The

“banking

crisis” as you call it was a snowball when the Icelandic

banks ran out of gold to pay its creditors in 2008. “Quantitative

easing”

is

Britain printing more bank notes than it has gold to

redeem

them;

one ounce of gold

will cost you £1000 today. It’s

other

name is “inflation”, 50

years ago a bag of chips cost 6d and

a

pint of beer 1s/6d,

today they cost £1.20 and £3.50. In ounces

of gold the price has not changed.

Copper is

stolen by cutting

cables from railway signal lines

because copper has a higher

value as scrap than it does as

pennies, and pennies are now

made of cheaper iron alloy.

Check it and you’ll find they are

magnetic. HV overhead power

cables are now aluminium even

though aluminium has twice

the resistivity of copper and we are

paying more for heating

the atmosphere, because copper is

MONEY.

> /A track is a frame of reference,

No a track is a physical structure

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

It’s both. If you drive a car you are by definition a driver.

“No a driver is a woman.”

“No a driver is a golf club.”

A TRACK IS A FRAME OF REFERENCE, usually the

stationary frame.

 

 

a train is another frame of /
> /reference

No a train is a means of transport.

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

It’s both. If you make a retail purchase you are by definition

a customer.

“No a customer is a man.”

“No a customer is a child.”

“No a customer is a car driver.”

A TRAIN IS A FRAME OF REFERENCE, usually the

moving frame.

 

 

  and a passenger on the train moves in both FoRs/
> /simultaneously,

Speed is relative. a passenger has a speed relative to the track and a
different speed relative to the train. The train has a speed relative to
the track. Describing it in terms of FoR is merely a convenience. It
does not change anything.

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

 

Of course it doesn’t change anything, nobody claimed it did!

The term FoR is used for train, plane, car, bicycle, boat, the

universe, a skateboard, ANYTHING to which an observer might

or might not be attached.  If I call a train a FoR and you call it

a means of transport that doesn’t change anything.

 

 

one at 3 mph as he walks down the train /
> /aisle or corridor and the other at 33 mph as he walks along/
> /the track //carried by the train at 30 mph.



  The train and the/
> /track are //not mathematical abstractions, they are physical/
> /realities

agreed and they all have relative speeds w.r.t. each other.

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

So why interrupt me in mid-sentence if you agree?

 

The concept
of a FoR is a mathematical abstraction which is convenient.

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

You have some objection to convenience?

 

 

Despite all
our sophistication in discovering that speed is relative instinctively
we think of it as absolute.

 

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

Oh no. That is so wrong it is fucking wrong.

YOU, despite all YOUR sophistication, instinctively think

speed is absolute.

I, as an engineer and physicist, do not. Don’t come that

“we” shit with me. All speeds are relative to some frame

of reference, a convenient term I use for a car coming

the other way, a tree, the train I’m at rest in, the 500

mph speed of the ground passing beneath the stationary

plane I’m flying in.

When I was a child I’d stand in the concertina between

railway carriages where there was a gap in the floor

where the carriages met. You don’t see them today, but

they were once common. Peering through the gap I could

see the sleepers (railroad ties to our American friends)

passing beneath me. It was definitely the ground that

was moving, not the train. Even at the age of 7 or 8 I

understood relative motion, INSTINCTIVELY.

You need a serious attitude adjustment to your instinctive

philosophy. Take a train ride and tell me the station

doesn’t come to the train.

 

 

 

A FoR allows us to do that. In a FoR speed
is absolute.

 

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

Nonsense. Nothing is absolute except the philosophical

concept of the entire universe where the sum of the momenta

of its components is zero. 

 

 

If you define a FoR you can say "the speed of x is v" and
not "the speed of x relative to y is v".

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

I define a road as a “stationary” FoR. The speed of my

car (x) is 30 mph (v) and the speed of your car (y) relative

to mine (x) is 60 mph (u). You don’t get a speeding ticket

because you are coming toward me at 30 mph relative to

the road. All speed is relative to some FoR.

 

 

My point was that relativists have an unsound habit of "explaining"
things by saying "because it is in a different FoR" as if a FoR
physically exists and can support a separate reality from another FoR.

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

My point is neither they nor you nor Wilson really understand

mathematical physics, your philosophy is based on your false

intuitions and instincts rather than the simple w = u+v where

u is the velocity of the FoR of A wrt the FoR of B, v is the

velocity of the FoR of B wrt C to give w, the velocity of the

FoR of A wrt the FoR of C.  

[Big Dog]

If you're going to use Tom as back-up to your position, then you should
reread his many posts where he clearly says that geometry has obvious
impact on physically measured results. I agree with him.

See also any freshman textbook's description of where the
constant-volume specific heat factors come from. And that's CLASSICAL
physics.

[Paul B. Andersen]

In other words, you claim that wavelength is invariant.
(Invariant means that it is not affected by the state
of motion of the observer.)

Let's forget theories of physics for a while, and
see what real measurements in the real world have to tell us.

A diffraction grating spectrometer measures wavelength only.
The wavelength is the spacing between two points of equal
phase on the wave. (Or the spacing between two wave crests).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction_grating

That's the kind of instrument that is used to measure
the spectra of astronomical objects from IR to UV.

I can assure you that it is very obvious that the measured
wavelength of the light from an astronomical object is changing
due to the changing velocity of the Earth, and when the spectrometer
is in a satellite, the changing velocity of the satellite.

So it is an experimentally proven fact that the observer
will measure the spacing between the gamma photons
in your scenario to change when he accelerates.

Given this irrefutable fact from the real world,
the question is how you interpret it.
(Note: I am asking how YOU interpret it, not what
this or that theory say about it.)

Are you claiming that when we observe that the wavelength
of the light from a star changes as the Earth orbits the Sun
(or the observing satellite orbits the Earth), it proves that
the light which was emitted from the star decades or centuries
ago is affected by the measurement, and that classical causality
is violated?

If not, how do you interpret it?

Remember, it is not an option to claim that the measured
wavelength doesn't change when the observer changes his velocity.

--
Paul

http://www.gethome.no/paulba/

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Paul B. Andersen" <som...@somewhere.no> wrote in message news:k76kuh$v5t$1...@news.albasani.net...

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

The wavelength from the star changes. The wavelength

on MMX does not. The star moves wrt the detector,

the light source on MMX does not. The light leaves

the star at c and approaches the Earth at c+v. The

light leaves the source of MMX and approaches the 

detector at c.

Remember, it is not an option to claim that the frequency

changes when the observer changes his velocity or you

get v = a.dt/(a.dt) where a is the change as a moron such

as Roberts interprets it and you have not measured the

frequency at all.

[Tom Roberts]

On 11/4/12 11/4/12 2:25 PM, Big Dog wrote:
> On 11/3/2012 6:07 PM, Ron-boy wrote:
>> See Tom's reply re math can cause nothing to happen in reality.
>
> If you're going to use Tom as back-up to your position, then you should reread
> his many posts where he clearly says that geometry has obvious impact on
> physically measured results. I agree with him.

See also my many posts stating that physical theories are MODELS of the world we
inhabit. Trying to discuss mathematics "causing" some physical phenomenon is an
invalid mixing of different levels -- math is part of the MODEL, not the world,
and it cannot possibly "cause" anything IN THE WORLD. Math of course includes
geometry.

Say, rather, that the aspects of the world modeled by geometry can (and do!)
have physical consequences in the world. "Time dilation", "length contraction",
and certain specific heats are all examples of this.

People who seek a "physical cause" for "time dilation" (etc.) are misguided --
they don't understand the model/theory they are implicitly (and usually
unconsciously) using. Geometry is an essential aspect of every known model of
the world that has any reasonable domain of validity, presumably because it is
modeling very fundamental aspects of the world we inhabit.

And a key question today is: does that still hold at scales far
below our current experiments, to the Planck scale and beyond?
This is an important aspect of theories of quantum gravity.


Tom Roberts

[Koobee Wublee]

On Nov 4, 3:18 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:

> Trying to discuss mathematics "causing" some physical phenomenon is an
> invalid mixing of different levels -- math is part of the MODEL, not the world,
> and it cannot possibly "cause" anything IN THE WORLD. Math of course includes
> geometry.

Stop dodging criticisms. Without math, you cannot come up with so-
called predictions of your model and design experiments to test for
these predictions. You should know this by now as a professional
physicist. <shrug>

> Say, rather, that the aspects of the world modeled by geometry can (and do!)
> have physical consequences in the world. "Time dilation", "length contraction",
> and certain specific heats are all examples of this.

It is so stupid to talk about how models can affect the real world.
They cannot. Any pre-teen kids can tell you that. Instead, Tom
should be talking about the validity of the model. Again, only
through mathematics, you can compute the predictions of these models
and design experiments to test for these predictions. <shrug>

> People who seek a "physical cause" for "time dilation" (etc.) are misguided --
> they don't understand the model/theory they are implicitly (and usually
> unconsciously) using.

Gee! The mathematical model shows so. Tom is just giving excuses on
why his religion in SR and GR should be continued to be worshipped.
The self-styled physicists had realized that the model of time
dilation manifests the twins’ paradox and began to despair. Out of
desperation, a spiritual idea was tossed around that time is merely a
projection to a more “universal” (and thus absolute”) measurement in
evolution of events. In doing so, worship of spacetime was born, and
the self-styled physicists took a spiritual turn. To this day, there
remains no such spiritual connection of time being merely a projection
of this gospel known as spacetime, proper time, or other mystic
jargons. <shrug>

> Geometry is an essential aspect of every known model of
> the world that has any reasonable domain of validity, presumably because it is
> modeling very fundamental aspects of the world we inhabit.
>
> And a key question today is: does that still hold at scales far
> below our current experiments, to the Planck scale and beyond?
> This is an important aspect of theories of quantum gravity.

Tom, don’t go beyond if you are in a stasis of spiritual limbo in SR
and GR. You must justify your gospel of spacetime is reality first,
and you are going to face with an uphill battle. Koobee Wublee has
shown the invalidity to the Lorentz transform that is not backed or
addressed by any predictions of the models that satisfy the null
results of the MMX. There is no need to invent more mysticism based
on the existing mysticism. <shrug>

[Alfonso]

I purposely said nothing about wavelength. Under classical philosophy a
photon is a localised packet of energy which can only occupy one
location in space. likewise the next photon in a stream. Those two
locations have a distance between them. If that spacing changes then -
under classical philosophy - some physical process must have caused that
change and that process must be linked via physical states to the cause.

Under the new philosophy one is allowed to assume that a photon does
not have a location at all, in fact it does not exist until you detect
it. This follows from

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

and you cannot observe it between it leaving the source and you
detecting it.

> (Invariant means that it is not affected by the state
> of motion of the observer.)

I am asking you to explain why it isn't, if it isn't. What physical
process causes it to change if you say it changes. I say that modern
physics does not offer an explanation because the new philosophy says it
doesn't have to. Physics is not trying to understand reality - that is
beyond the human mind - it is trying to predict outcome by means of
models.

Let me recap as to the origins of our discussion. You questioned my
statement that physics had replaced classical philosophy with a new
philosophy. Classical philosophy was based on the law of causality
whereby effect followed cause and the two were linked by a physical
process. Under classical philosophy a LAW provides a mathematical
relationship which has been found to work while a THEORY gave a physical
explanation of the physical process. The purpose of physics was to try
and explain how nature worked.

Under the new philsophy no attempt is made to understand nature as
reality is beyond the human mind. The purpose of physics now is not
"understanding and explanation" but "prediction". The word THEORY is now
used as a name for a mathematical model which is what SR is. You
adequately demonstrate this in one of your threads where your
"explanation" consists of feeding values into mathematical relationships
which predicts the result. All that shows is that the mathematical model
gives the right result - which I never doubted. You seem to think that
"explains" what is happening in the classical sense but you are
mistaken. What has confused you perhaps is that SR has its origins in
"classic electrodynamics" but it is no longer a "theory" under classical
philosophy as no alternative explanation is provided - in the classical
sense - to Lorentz's aether. Such an explanation is outlawed under the
new philosophy as it says that we cannot really know what nature does we
can only make models.

The problem with "cranks" is that they do not appreciate the change in
philosophy and still expect causal explanations as one would under
classical philosophy when that is not what physics is about any more.

The problem with the way physics is taught is that the change in
philosophy does not appear on the time line and is not covered although
I cannot see how what happened can make sense without that knowledge.

The problem with people like you and Roberts is that your education did
not make clear the change in philosophy and you have been left with the
wrong impression that physics does explain things - it is simply that
the "explanations" are counter-intuitive. What that means is that there
is no equivalent of a causal explanation as would be accepted under
classical philosophy. It is classical philosophy which is intuitively
based. When it comes down to it the "explanation" is "The maths says".
This somewhat tedious lecture makes it clear.

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

While you and Roberts stoutly defend modern physics I am not convinced
either of you would defend the philosophy underpinning it.

Alfonso

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Alfonso" <Alf...@duffadd.com> wrote in message news:C4ednftEa5R4CwrN...@bt.com...

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

This simple demonstration shows wavelength is observer

dependent, the phase of each wave is identical:

  http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/Relative.gif

[Big Dog]

On 11/5/2012 4:37 AM, Alfonso wrote:
> On 04/11/12 20:58, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

>>
>> In other words, you claim that wavelength is invariant.
>
> I purposely said nothing about wavelength. Under classical philosophy a
> photon is a localised packet of energy which can only occupy one
> location in space. likewise the next photon in a stream. Those two
> locations have a distance between them. If that spacing changes then -
> under classical philosophy - some physical process must have caused that
> change and that process must be linked via physical states to the cause.
>

Andersen is still on target.

You are saying that classical philosophy demands Euclidean geometry
(which basically says that spacing itself is observer-independent), and
then THIS is what requires that if spacing changes then there has to
have been a physical interaction with the object itself to alter it.

I dispute that. There is nothing in classical *philosophy* that demands
a particular geometry.

What you have done is ADDED things to your supposed "classical
philosophy" like a presumed geometry, so that you can say "Well, the
geometry cannot support that observation, so there must be some other
physical cause."

[Tom Roberts]

On 11/5/12 11/5/12 4:37 AM, Alfonso wrote:
> Under classical philosophy a photon
> is a localised packet of energy which can only occupy one location in space.

Under "classical philosophy" there is no such thing as a photon. A photon is
INHERENTLY a quantum object that is OUTSIDE classical considerations. That
"philosophy" cannot deal with quantum phenomena. That's why it is no longer
relevant in physics.


> [... nonsense and various mis-characterizations of "new philosophy"]

Quantum phenomena are more complicated than you understand. Indeed, it appears
they are more complicated than you can possibly understand, because of your
refusal to study modern physics. This carries over into your insistence on
"physical causes", even for things which are inherently geometrical.


Tom Roberts

[Larry Stones]

On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 21:53:27 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:

> There is also an explanation that is one level deeper
> than that. All those other sciences are using APPROXIMATIONS
> to the underlying fundamental theories of physics. But GR
> and QM are not approximations,

You mean theories, the laws of thermodynamics are definitely not
approximations, neither are Newtons laws. They are the strongest
laws I ever seen!

You are doing an overbably mistake. Approximations are done in
electronics, programming, modelling - such as line/curve
fitting, polynomial approximations, just to mention the few. You
do them in order to match your capacity available.

You never do approximations in Newton and Thermodynamics. You
do them - and the bridge will fall, something you cant afford !!


> they are the best fundamental
> theories of physics we have (SR is a different approximation to GR).

:) lol

[Larry Stones]

On Sun, 04 Nov 2012 17:18:33 -0600, Tom Roberts wrote:


> See also my many posts stating that physical theories are MODELS of the
> world we inhabit.

A theory is just that, a blueprint. It does not become a
model until you CONSTRUCT the MODEL and extract some DATA
of interest, you may call them say - predictions, needed
to match some measurements or observations.

> Trying to discuss mathematics "causing" some physical
> phenomenon is an invalid mixing of different levels -- math is part of
> the MODEL, not the world, and it cannot possibly "cause" anything IN THE
> WORLD. Math of course includes geometry.

Exactly, glad you agree!

>
> Say, rather, that the aspects of the world modeled by geometry can (and
> do!) have physical consequences in the world. "Time dilation", "length
> contraction", and certain specific heats are all examples of this.
>
> People who seek a "physical cause" for "time dilation" (etc.)

friction along space-time trajectory

> are
> misguided -- they don't understand the model/theory they are implicitly
> (and usually unconsciously) using. Geometry is an essential aspect of
> every known model of the world that has any reasonable domain of
> validity,
> presumably because it is modeling very fundamental aspects of the world
> we inhabit.
>
> And a key question today is: does that still hold at scales far
below
> our current experiments, to the Planck scale and beyond? This is an
> important aspect of theories of quantum gravity.
>
>
> Tom Roberts

Interesting, would geometry possibly crash beyond small and large scale !?

What else will stand if geometry would crash, probabilities?

[Larry Stones]

On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 10:31:24 -0600, Tom Roberts wrote:

> Quantum phenomena are more complicated than you understand. Indeed, it
> appears they are more complicated than you can possibly understand,
> because of your refusal to study modern physics. This carries over into
> your insistence on "physical causes", even for things which are
> inherently geometrical.

How is a photon a QM object, photons are not subjected to probabilities,
are they? A photon may either be instantiated or not, no?

[Paul B. Andersen]

Oh, no. Alfonso.
I won't let you escape that easily.

You wrote:
"Their physical spacing was determined 1 year ago.
Nothing has happened to them between them leaving
the source and reaching me so why has the interval
changed?"

So you are clearly claiming that distance is invariant.

Light has a measurable wavelength.
Wavelength is a distance.

So I will repeat what you snipped.
Will you flee again?

The following is a story from the real world.
The question is which conclusions you will draw
from what is actually measured in the real world.

A diffraction grating spectrometer measures wavelength only.
The wavelength is the spacing between two points of equal
phase on the wave. (Or the spacing between two wave crests).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction_grating

That's the kind of instrument that is used to measure
the spectra of astronomical objects from IR to UV.

I can assure you that it is very obvious that the measured
wavelength of the light from an astronomical object is changing
due to the changing velocity of the Earth, and when the spectrometer
is in a satellite, the changing velocity of the satellite.

It's no question about it, it is a fact known by any reasonably
knowledgeable person.

Given this irrefutable fact from the real world,
the question is how you interpret it.
(Note: I am asking how YOU interpret it, not what

this or that theory or philosophy say about it.)

[Tom Roberts]

On 11/2/12 11/2/12 - 12:41 PM, Alfonso wrote:
> You might note the difference between a Law and a Theory in classical philosophy.

You are deluding yourself. During the last 2 centuries we have learned A LOT
about the world we inhabit, and your notion of "classical philosophy" has not
kept up. Indeed, it is IMPOSSIBLE for it to "keep up", as it is now known to be
inconsistent with the way the world is observed to operate. You are attempting
to live in your own dream world, not the actual world we inhabit.

There simply is not any "causal" basis for many phenomena
OBSERVED in the world we inhabit. One MUST abandon such
classical notions in order to understand the world we inhabit.
Fortunately, it is no longer required to have the genius of
Planck, Einstein, Bohr, and the others, one merely needs to
STUDY. You are sorely lacking in the latter.


> A Law - as in Newton's laws of motion, and Boyle's law is an established
> mathematical relationship without an explanation.
> A theory is OTOH an explanation in terms of causality as in the kinetic theory
> of gases, Maxwell's aether theory and Lorentz's aether theory.

That is a GROSS mis-characterization of classical philosophy. "Laws" were called
that, because they SEEMED to be universal, whether or not one could derive them.
We now know that EVERY SUCH LAW is invalid, and they are merely approximations
to better models developed more recently. And not all theories actually use
"causality" -- you are VERY naive.

A good example is classical electrodynamics. There is no
"causality" anywhere in the theory. In particular, charge does
not "cause" E and B fields, and they do not "cause" charge.
But the fields and the charge are 100% correlated by Maxwell's
equations plus the Lorentz force equation. Indeed, most of
classical physics is expressed in terms of differential
equations, which cannot capture "causality" at all.

We now KNOW that the hubris involved in calling some equation a "natural law" is
misplaced. This, in turn, has led to the change in nomenclature from "laws and
theories" to "models". The notion of "model" captures much better what
scientists are doing, because a model naturally comes with a domain of validity,
while "law" and "theory" imply universal applicability. We KNOW that our current
best models are not universal.


>[... much nonsense displaying great hubris and profound ignorance]

You may bemoan the fading of "classical philosophy", but if you want to do
science, you must get over your regrets and look toward more modern ideas and
models.


> "In the abstract, it should be QUITE CLEAR that 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, which is known as Physics." Tom Roberts
>
> That is a very concise and correct statement of the new philosophy but you don't understand your own quote. Trawling for quotes you don't understand is a bad idea as is quoting them without attribution.

You really ought to read what you quote. That quotation is attributed, and I
obviously did not "trawl" for it.

If you had actually read it, and understood it, you would know that your notions
of "classical philosophy" cannot possibly be valid.


Tom Roberts

[John Gogo]

Light may have been emitted decades or centuries ago but it is not how
you think. The human apparatus is generic- also any instrument
attached is also generic because any addition of magnification stems
from the original base magnitude. The "picture" that we develop of
the universe is singular in the fact that all of the information in
the photo comes from infinite varying distances. The "picture"
captures the frame. What is the frame? Nothing that would eventually
appear to us in the form of c, the speed of light.

[John Gogo]

On Nov 5, 4:57 pm, "Paul B. Andersen" <some...@somewhere.no> wrote:

Light from distant galaxies might initially take decades and centuries
to produce enough light for the original source's ability of actually
being large enough to be observed on Earth. Up until now, we have
been thinking in terms of physics lengthwise- when we should be
thinking of physics width wise.

[John Gogo]

What we see in the photo is a picture of how we handle the phenomena-
as if a picture would reveal any truth about the real hard core Newton
physics.

[John Gogo]

This is not to say that there might be derived a power, a mathematics,
and eventually a physics of the meaning of the picture philosophy.

[Tom Roberts]

On 11/5/12 11/5/12 10:36 AM, Larry Stones wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 21:53:27 -0500, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> There is also an explanation that is one level deeper
>> than that. All those other sciences are using APPROXIMATIONS
>> to the underlying fundamental theories of physics. But GR
>> and QM are not approximations,
>
> You mean theories, the laws of thermodynamics are definitely not
> approximations, neither are Newtons laws. They are the strongest
> laws I ever seen!

Then you have not looked very hard at all. They are indeed ALL approximations.

Newton's "laws" are approximations to relativistic kinematics. Thermodynamic
"laws" are approximations to statistical mechanics, which is itself an
approximation to relativistic kinematics.

> You never do approximations in Newton and Thermodynamics.

You mean that _YOU_ never do them. Physicists KNOW they are themselves
approximations.

> You
> do them - and the bridge will fall, something you cant afford !!

You misunderstand. The equations of Newtonian mechanics are themselves
approximations. But for bridge building and similar engineering tasks, they are
more than adequately accurate. So the fact they are approximations does not
affect the stability or integrity of structures designed using them.

>> they are the best fundamental
>> theories of physics we have (SR is a different approximation to GR).
>
> :) lol

Yes, apparently you'd rather laugh out loud than STUDY. So you have no hope of
understanding physics.


Tom Roberts

[Peter Webb]

Koobee Wublee wrote:

> On Nov 4, 3:18 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
>
> > Trying to discuss mathematics "causing" some physical phenomenon is
> > an invalid mixing of different levels -- math is part of the MODEL,
> > not the world, and it cannot possibly "cause" anything IN THE
> > WORLD. Math of course includes geometry.
>
> Stop dodging criticisms. Without math, you cannot come up with so-
> called predictions

How are these "so called predictions" different from "regular
predictions" ?

> of your model and design experiments to test for
> these predictions. You should know this by now as a professional
> physicist. <shrug>

You are completly missing the point of what Tom is saying. I would not
try and put words in his mouth, but the mathematics is a description of
the theory. Moons don't orbit how they do because the "maths tells
them"; the maths is a description of behaviour not a determinant of it.

>
> > Say, rather, that the aspects of the world modeled by geometry can
> > (and do!) have physical consequences in the world. "Time dilation",
> > "length contraction", and certain specific heats are all examples
> > of this.
>
> It is so stupid to talk about how models can affect the real world.
> They cannot. Any pre-teen kids can tell you that.

Perhaps. I don't know about teenagers or adults. If you have learned
Newton's laws (which admittedly few pre-teens would have) you would
know for example that they have consequences in the real world (eg the
stability of different orbits).

But you are of course trying to argue that physics is itself invalid,
as your arguments concern the nature of physical law and not Relativity
per se. I can only recommend that you avoid using modern technology of
you really are that suspicious of physics.

> Instead, Tom
> should be talking about the validity of the model.

Please don't bother Tom. We can all (except for KW) easily google
experimental evidence for Relativity, there's tons of it on the web.

> Again, only
> through mathematics, you can compute the predictions of these models
> and design experiments to test for these predictions. <shrug>
>

In this case, yes. And for that matter also true in the case of
Newtownian physics, quantum mechanics, electromagnetism and many other
parts of physics.

Do you actually understand the mathematical derivation of GR? If not,
you are going to find it very hard to design or discuss experiments
which test it.

> > People who seek a "physical cause" for "time dilation" (etc.) are
> > misguided -- they don't understand the model/theory they are
> > implicitly (and usually unconsciously) using.
>
> Gee! The mathematical model shows so. Tom is just giving excuses on
> why his religion in SR and GR should be continued to be worshipped.
> The self-styled physicists

Who here is a "self styled physicists" - ie they claim to know
something about physics, but have no formal qualifications in the
subject?

If there is anybody like that in this thread, then they are obviously
way out of their depth. So who in this thread is "self-styled" ?

> had realized that the model of time
> dilation manifests the twins� paradox and began to despair. Out of
> desperation, a spiritual idea was tossed around that time is merely a
> projection to a more �universal� (and thus absolute�) measurement in
> evolution of events. In doing so, worship of spacetime was born, and
> the self-styled physicists took a spiritual turn. To this day, there
> remains no such spiritual connection of time being merely a projection
> of this gospel known as spacetime, proper time, or other mystic
> jargons. <shrug>
>

You seem to think that the SR prediction of what happens in the so
called Twins Paradox is wrong.

Do you believe the travelling twin will return:

a) Younger,

b) Older, or

c) The same age as the stay-at-home twin?

> > Geometry is an essential aspect of every known model of
> > the world that has any reasonable domain of validity, presumably
> > because it is modeling very fundamental aspects of the world we
> > inhabit.
> >
> > And a key question today is: does that still hold at scales
> > far below our current experiments, to the Planck scale and
> > beyond? This is an important aspect of theories of quantum
> > gravity.
>
> Tom, don�t go beyond if you are in a stasis of spiritual limbo in SR
> and GR. You must justify your gospel of spacetime is reality first,
> and you are going to face with an uphill battle.

No. THere's tons of evidence for its existence. Try googling
"experimental proofs of relativity" as a start.

> Koobee Wublee has
> shown the invalidity to the Lorentz transform that is not backed or
> addressed by any predictions of the models that satisfy the null
> results of the MMX.

How can a transform be "invalid" ? Are rotations "valid" ? Because the
Lorentz transform is actually just a rotation.

> There is no need to invent more mysticism based
> on the existing mysticism. <shrug>

Then don't.

You are the only person in this thread inventing things.

[Larry Stones]

On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 22:16:12 -0600, Tom Roberts wrote:

>> :) lol
>
> Yes, apparently you'd rather laugh out loud than STUDY. So you have no
> hope of understanding physics.
>
>
> Tom Roberts

Sorry, I was exaggerating, lol is overbably only smiling, rotflol is
laughing

However, if all motion and changes laws are approximation to SR,
SR being an approximation to GR, then what is GR an approximation
to!?

GR only works inside middle-large scale, which is not well defined.
Small, middle, large and extra large scale are GR free.

Definitely at boundaries and beyond relativity is a grossly approximation.

What level of approximation had relativity inside the manifold?

[Alfonso]

On 05/11/12 16:31, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 11/5/12 11/5/12 4:37 AM, Alfonso wrote:
>> Under classical philosophy a photon
>> is a localised packet of energy which can only occupy one location in
>> space.
>
> Under "classical philosophy" there is no such thing as a photon.

Oh dear. You really are confused. The "classical" in Classical
electrodynamics has nothing to do with Classical philosophy. SR has its
roots in classical electrodynamics but became accepted as a theory
because of a change in the philosophical basis of physics introduced by
Heisenburg, Schordinger et al. In terms of classical philosophy
Lorentz's theory ticked the boxes and Einstein's brought noth8ing new to
the table. He had failed to come up with an alternative classical,
causal explanation to that of Lorentz's he objected to.

The photon, as a particle of light goes back to Newton. Its existence
was demonstrated by Planck and Einstein long before Heisenburg,
Schordinger et al started interpreting everything in accordance with the
philosophy which influenced them - that of Immanual Kant.

A
> photon is INHERENTLY a quantum object.

No a photon is a particle of light. It is whatever it is. It is the
choice and application of Kant's philosophy which interprets it as a
quantum object. This states that reality is beyond the human mind.

"we can never actually "know" what Nature herself is really doing" - Tom
Roberts :o)

This is not "inherent" to anything this is a philosophical assumption
which when applied leads to interpreting photons as quantum objects.

If one interprets photons according to classical philosophy one would
assume, from Einstein's interpretation of the photo electric effect that
a photon is a localised packet of energy with sufficient energy on its
own to displace an electron. As light travels in straight lines one
would assume the photon travelled from the source to where it was
detected. The fact that it is not possible to determine the direction in
advance nor is it possible to detect it in transit is not considered a
problem. If it left A and was detected at B then it would be logical to
assume it set out in the direction A-B unless there was evidence to the
contrary. The probability distribution provided by the maths (Quantum
mechanics is a calculus which is good at solving this sort of problem)
describes the extent of our knowledge as to the likelihood of a photon
setting out in a particular direction.

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

The new philosophy raises the status of mathematics in physics. Thus if
by observation and mathematical analysis you cannot determine the
direction a photon sets out in then according to the philosophy we must
assume it sets out in all directions allowed by the maths. The maths is
assumed to be a complete description of all that is knowable.

"Photons .. are QUANTUM PARTICLES and not the "tiny bullets" of a
simplistic extrapolation of our everyday experience. Rather than saying
they "travel in straight lines", it is perhaps less violence to the
language to say "they travel in all possible directions at all possible
speeds, and interfere in important ways with themselves and each
other"." Tom Roberts in a thread "do photons travel in straight lines".

You really shouldn't quote stuff you don't understand the full
implications of.

The Copenhagen interpretation is that the photon does not exist as a
particle until it is created by the act of detection. This has been
criticised because the question arises as to why it is detected where it
was.
The many worlds interpretation overcomes this problem by saying that
there are an infinite number of parallel universes and photons set out
in every direction allowed by the maths in one or other of the
universes. In our universe it happens to arrive where we detect it.
There are other interpretations but these are the front runners.

The new philosophy forbids us to extrapolate our everyday experience.
An electron is the most stable particle we know of. We never find half
an electron or an electron with a part charge. We can control it
exceedingly well and our everyday concepts of reality would suggest that
it has a precise location - although for practical reasons we cannot
determine it. The new philosophy says no.

"What is in principle unobservable should not at all be contained in our

conceptual scheme" Schrödinger. If we cannot observe the position of an
electron we are not allowed to conceive that it has one. It is a fuzzy
object described by the probability distribution described by the maths.
It is a quantum object.

However if this is the correct way of looking at things then you cannot
pick and choose what to apply it to. Thus we are forbidden to apply
different criteria to Schrodinger's cat. We must assume that it is both
dead and alive until the box is opened because that is what the maths
describes. The Copenhagen interpretation says that opening the box
collapses the possibilities into one or the other; dead or alive. The
many worlds interpretation that in some universes the cat is dead and in
others it is alive. The retrospective measurement - the autopsy which
shows the cat has been dead for some time is not allowed as evidence
that the cat was alive before the box is opened. Physics is about
prediction and that is no aid to prediction.

Alfonso

[Big Dog]

On 11/6/2012 11:03 AM, Alfonso wrote:
> On 05/11/12 16:31, Tom Roberts wrote:

>
> A
>> photon is INHERENTLY a quantum object.
>
> No a photon is a particle of light. It is whatever it is.

You were right the second time.

It is whatever it is.

The characterization of "particle of light" does not match the behaviors
observed of light. "Quantum object" does a much better job of that.

[hanson]

.... ahahahaha... ahahahahaha... AHAHAHA... ROTFLMAO
>
Sordid and illiterate Einstein Dingleberry "Peter Webb"
<webbfamily...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

>
>
Tom Roberts wrote:
math is part of the MODEL, not the world, and it cannot
possibly "cause" anything IN THE WORLD. Math of
course includes geometry.
>>

Koobee Wublee wrote:
Stop dodging criticisms. Without math, you cannot
come up with so-called predictions
>

"Peter Webb" wrote:
in the so called Twins Paradox

Do you believe the travelling twin will return:
a) Younger,
b) Older, or
c) The same age as the stay-at-home twin?
>

hanson wrote:
(Posted 2 days ago)
Well Peter, it appears that so far no person has ever
satisfactorily answered that to your understanding
and/or acceptance. ... upon which....
>
Peter Webb wrote:
No.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox> is fine.
>
hanson wrote:
Peter, your answer is clear and I have no objection
that you, as devoted Einstein worshipper, do believe
and accept that explanation to your satisfaction.
>
So, Peter be consistent now and do NOT repost
your 3 liner question above every time fancy strikes.
>
If you do you will label yourself as a mindless, flip-
flopping Einstein Dingleberry that sways in Albert's
ass-hair & worships Albert's sphincter without knowing
why & much less comprehending Einstein's useless
Gedanken farts.
>
hanson adds:
So Webb, you sorry crank and crackpot, you had to
indict yourself, didn't you. Thanks for the laughs though....
ahahaha... ahahahahahahanson

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Alfonso" <Alf...@duffadd.com> wrote in message news:dfOdnaSxy4hP3wTN...@bt.com...

On 05/11/12 16:31, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 11/5/12 11/5/12   4:37 AM, Alfonso wrote:
>> Under classical philosophy a photon
>> is a localised packet of energy which can only occupy one location in
>> space.
>
> Under "classical philosophy" there is no such thing as a photon.

Oh dear. You really are confused. The "classical" in Classical
electrodynamics has nothing to do with Classical philosophy. SR has its
roots in classical electrodynamics but became accepted as a theory
because of a change in the philosophical basis of physics introduced by
Heisenburg, Schordinger et al. In terms of classical philosophy
Lorentz's theory ticked the boxes and Einstein's brought noth8ing new to
the table. He had failed to come up with an alternative classical,
causal explanation to that of Lorentz's he objected to.

The photon, as a particle of light goes back to Newton. Its existence
was demonstrated by Planck and Einstein long before Heisenburg,
Schordinger et al started interpreting everything in accordance with the
philosophy which influenced them - that of Immanual Kant.

  A
> photon is INHERENTLY a quantum object.

No a photon is a particle of light.

 

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

It’s both.

Two is a number.

“No, two is a digit.”—Kennaugh.

“No, two is a value.” – Kennaugh.

 

The term “quantum” is preferred over “particle” because particle

 

conveys

the idea of mass; a photon has no mass.

A photon is a quantum of electromagnetic

radiation.

An electron is a quantum of charge.

A neutron is a quantum of mass.

A proton is both a quantum of mass and of charge.

 

It is well known that a changing electric field (current) produces

a magnetic field, and a changing magnetic field (flux) produces

an electric field.

Less well understood is current, which many think of as a flow

of electrons between poles, but currents flow in circuits where

there are no poles, for example in the rotor of an electric motor.

It is not known why

a changing electric field (current) produces

 

a magnetic field

, “why” is not a question that can be answered,

but it is known that electrons will fly in a vacuum from our

experience with CRTs. So if the electron has a circular path in

wire OR in a vacuum it has to produce a magnetic field, and

we have a photon which is a classical quantum.

[Dirk Van de moortel]

"Larry Stones" <larr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:k7bep5$vf8$1...@speranza.aioe.org

> On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 22:16:12 -0600, Tom Roberts wrote:
>
>>> :) lol
>>
>> Yes, apparently you'd rather laugh out loud than STUDY. So you have
>> no hope of understanding physics.
>>
>>
>> Tom Roberts
>
> Sorry, I was exaggerating, lol is overbably only smiling, rotflol is
> laughing

Lol is silly, and even I do it sometimes.
Rotflol is Seto.

Dirk Vdm

[space...@gmail.com]

On Monday, October 29, 2012 4:53:53 PM UTC-7, mpc755 wrote:
> On Oct 29, 6:34 pm, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 1. Any scientific theory should be logically DEDUCED from previous
>
> > concepts, so that there is an inexorable advance in science by pure
>
> > deduction. No crazy new ideas are allowed.
>
> >
>
> > 2. Scientific theories ought to pass the intuitiveness test. That is,
>
> > the explanation has to seem obviously right and sensible FIRST before
>
> > any comparison with experiment is done.
>
> >
>
> > 3. Experimental results are not really a sound measure of the validity
>
> > of a scientific theory, because any experimental result whatsoever can
>
> > be reinterpreted or made consistent with any theory whatsoever. So
>
> > comparing a theory with experiment doesn't prove anything.
>
> >
>
> > 4. Scientific theories that are not taught in high school physics or
>
> > freshman physics are too arcane to believe, and they are obvious
>
> > attempts to exclude those with general education. The use of mathematics
>
> > in the theory only makes this more obvious.
>
> >
>
> > 5. Any scientific theory that does not offer causal explanations in
>
> > terms of matter influencing matter by some form of contact, and from
>
> > earlier to later in time, simply can't be called a scientific theory,
>
> > because ALL decent scientific theories have those characters.
>
> >
>
> > 6. No theory should be allowed to use familiar terms but with
>
> > specialized meanings, because that does not properly serve a scientific
>
> > theory's objective to EXPLAIN. Instead, such a practice only confuses.
>
> > (Classical cases, such as "impulse" or "field" or the distinction
>
> > between "heat" and "temperature" are excused. Why? Because they are.)
>
>
>
> You understand a relativistic ether wave propagates a photon.
>
>
>
> In a double slit experiment the particle travels a well defined path
>
> which takes it through a single slit and the associated relativistic
>
> ether wave passes through both.

The aether wave has a particle of energy inside...
The center of the wave is what counts for the vibrating
particles movement through dimension.

Mitchell Raemsch

[Ron-boy]

Note to Big Tom and Little Dog:
No amount of geometry can cause two triplets to age differently.

Note to Big Tom and Little Dog:
Differential aging must have a physical cause, and if there
is no aging disease involved, then what could it be?

(Of course, Big Tom's slippery way out is to reply that he
was not talking about real time slowing, but SR's (unreal
and trivial - meaningless, actually) "time dilation,"
the cause of which is the use of asynchronous clocks.)

~RA~

[Big Dog]

On 11/6/2012 7:13 PM, Ron-boy wrote:

> Note to Big Tom and Little Dog:
> No amount of geometry can cause two triplets to age differently.

Well, so you say, but as I've pointed out, geometry does have important
physical effects.

>
> Note to Big Tom and Little Dog:
> Differential aging must have a physical cause, and if there
> is no aging disease involved, then what could it be?

Geometry. Which does have physical effects.

[Tom Roberts]

On 11/6/12 11/6/12 7:13 PM, Ron-boy wrote:
> No amount of geometry can cause two triplets to age differently.

How silly! It is the very same geometry [@] that "makes" the path length of two
sides of a triangle be larger than the path length of the third side. Do you
seriously believe that path length difference in a triangle is something other
than geometry?

Well, if you do, then whatever "causes" the one must "cause" the
other. Good luck with that....

[@] Up to isomorphism.

> Differential aging must have a physical cause,

Only when you don't understand the underlying physics. Geometry is ESSENTIAL in
physics. Geometrical relationships can have clear and obvious physical
consequences (e.g. you can carry a ladder through a doorway in some orientations
but not others).

[We've been over this many times. It's clear that you just
don't get it. And you won't until you STUDY. I won't bother
replying until you do.]


Tom Roberts

[Koobee Wublee]

On Nov 6, 9:07 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 11/6/12 11/6/12 7:13 PM, Ron-boy wrote:

> > No amount of geometry can cause two triplets to age differently.
>
> How silly! It is the very same geometry [@] that "makes" the path length of two
> sides of a triangle be larger than the path length of the third side. Do you
> seriously believe that path length difference in a triangle is something other
> than geometry?

The temporal dimension is assumed to be part of the geometry. Any
pathlength involved with the temporal dimension has to be justified to
be a proper (not in the sense of proper time, proper length, or proper
bullshit) measurement of the geometry, and none has been offered as
so. It is all pure speculation at the silliest level. <shrug>

> > Differential aging must have a physical cause,
>
> Only when you don't understand the underlying physics. Geometry is ESSENTIAL in
> physics. Geometrical relationships can have clear and obvious physical
> consequences (e.g. you can carry a ladder through a doorway in some orientations
> but not others).

At this stage, the question is not if anyone understands the
underlying physics or not. It is the justification to use the
temporal dimension as a pathlength which is just a proposal with
experimental support. <shrug>

Granted, these wild speculations do resolve the twins’ paradox, but if
SR is wrong in the first place, you have no way of ever knowing SR is
wrong. Without the assumptions, SR can easily be shown as false. So,
basically SR becomes a religion, if you believe in the messiah, your
religion prospers. If not, it will die off. <shrug>

Despite the philosophical points of SR, SR is thoroughly proven to be
false through mathematical analyses as derived from Larmor’s transform
and also from the experimental verifications of very predictable
coherency in interferometers that indicates absolute simultaneity in
which it falsifies relative simultaneity. <shrug>

Self-styled physicists would just tune in which experimental
verifications and tune out certain experiments to amplify their
religious beliefs. That is not within scientific method but a fvcking
joke! <shrug>

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Tom Roberts" <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:qYqdnUKr8ZY...@giganews.com...

Only when you don't understand the underlying physics. Geometry is ESSENTIAL in
physics. Geometrical relationships can have clear and obvious physical
consequences (e.g. you can carry a ladder through a doorway in some orientations
but not others).

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

 

Length contract the ladder and go through the door obliquely.

Insanity is ESSENTIAL in theoretical physics.

[Alfonso]

It has momentum! its path is affected by gravity!. It increases its
energy when it falls under gravity! It "has no mass" because SR says if
it had mass and it travelled at c that mass would become infinite. If it
"has mass" SR would be wrong so it can't have mass can it :o?

Mass has been redefined so as to allow a photon to "not have mass".

"Today the mass of an object is defined as the norm of its 4-momentum."
- Tom Roberts.

> A photon is a quantum of electromagnetic
> radiation.

I agree entirely but the term "quantum object" has acquired a lot of
mystical connotations because of the application of
Schrodinger/Heisenburg/et al philosophy. One is not allowed to ask "old
fashioned questions" about things which have been designated as "Quantum
objects". They are mystical

"Photons to not "travel" in any normal sense of the word, because they
are QUANTUM PARTICLES. Rather than saying they "travel in straight

lines", it is perhaps less violence to the language to say "they travel
in all possible directions at all possible speeds, and interfere in

important ways with themselves and each other"". Tom R as usual quoting
stuff without attribution which he doesn't really understand.

What I was replying to is:

"Under "classical philosophy" there is no such thing as a photon. A
photon is INHERENTLY a quantum object that is OUTSIDE classical
considerations. That "philosophy" cannot deal with quantum phenomena."

There is nothing whatsoever in classical philosophy which prevents light
being in quantised lumps - as you rightly say. I believed that TR was
using the term "Quantum object" in the "mystical" sense.

Although Scott Murray never realised where the new interpretations came
from i.e. Kant's philosophy his work highlights how they differ from
established physics "...it would be convenient to begin by defining what
they mean by quantization. Unfortunately that is not easy, because they
mean different things to different people and sometimes - shades of
duality ! - they even mean different things to the same person at
different times or even at the same time".

http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Journal%20Reprints-Quantum%20Theory%20/%20Particle%20Physics/Download/3321

http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Journal%20Reprints-Quantum%20Theory%20/%20Particle%20Physics/Download/3322

Alfonso

> An electron is a quantum of charge.
> A neutron is a quantum of mass.
> A proton is both a quantum of mass and of charge.
> It is well known that a changing electric field (current) produces
> a magnetic field, and a changing magnetic field (flux) produces
> an electric field.
> Less well understood is current, which many think of as a flow
> of electrons between poles, but currents flow in circuits where
> there are no poles, for example in the rotor of an electric motor.
> It is not known why
> a changing electric field (current) produces
> a magnetic field
> , “why” is not a question that can be answered,
> but it is known that electrons will fly in a vacuum from our
> experience with CRTs. So if the electron has a circular path in
> wire OR in a vacuum it has to produce a magnetic field, and
> we have a photon which is a classical quantum.

> /-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
> Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway/

[Paul B. Andersen]

> I purposely said nothing about wavelength.Under classical philosophy a

> photon is a localised packet of energy which can only occupy one

> location in space. likewise the next photon in a stream. Those two
> locations have a distance between them. If that spacing changes then -
> under classical philosophy - some physical process must have caused
> that
> change and that process must be linked via physical states to
> the cause.

Still fleeing Alfonso?

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Alfonso" <Alf...@duffadd.com> wrote in message news:75ednUH2MJXZ3wfN...@bt.com...

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

 

That statement demonstrates yet again that you do not

understand frames of reference and the PoR.

You are the classical philosopher here, have you not

read

and understood Galileo’s Dialog? I suggest you read it

again.

 

In the frame of reference of the photon, the photon is

 

stationary and the entire universe

is moving past it.

 

 

its path is affected by gravity!.

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

Assertion carries no weight.

First, provide the evidence.

Second, state why the entire universe should change its

path past the photon.

 

 

It increases its
energy when it falls under gravity!

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

 

Assertion carries no weight.

First, provide the evidence.

Second, state why the entire universe should change its

energy passing the photon.

 

 

 

 

It "has no mass" because SR says if
it had mass and it travelled at c that mass would become infinite. If it
"has mass" SR would be wrong so it can't have mass can it :o?

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

I’m the wrong person to argue in favour of SR with, even

sarcastically.

I’m a classical mathematician, physicist and philosopher.

There are more things wrong in theoretical heaven than

are

dreamt of in your philosophy, Salviati.

 

 

 

Mass has been redefined so as to allow a photon to "not have mass".

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

Mass has not been defined at all. It is only measured by the

use of force, and force is action at a distance.

Are you not supposed to be a philosopher?

 

 

"Today the mass of an object is defined as the norm of its 4-momentum."
  - Tom Roberts.

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

No I fail to see why you’d mockingly bring Simplicio into our discussion.

 

 

> A photon is a quantum of electromagnetic
> radiation.

I agree entirely but the term "quantum object" has acquired a lot of
mystical connotations because of the application of
Schrodinger/Heisenburg/et al philosophy. One is not allowed to ask "old
fashioned questions" about things which have been designated as "Quantum
objects". They are mystical

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

Then let us demyst them.

 

 

"Photons to not "travel" in any normal sense of the word, because they
are QUANTUM PARTICLES. Rather than saying they "travel in straight
lines", it is perhaps less violence to the language to say "they travel
in all possible directions at all possible speeds, and interfere in
important ways with themselves and each other"".

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

 

No unfortunately (or perhaps yes fortunately)  laser pointers are

not omnidirectional.

 

 

 

 

Tom R as usual quoting
stuff without attribution which he doesn't really understand.

 

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

No I fail to see why you’d bring Simplicio into our discussion.

 

 

  What I was replying to is:

"Under "classical philosophy" there is no such thing as a photon.

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

Newton’s corpuscles of light are part of classical philosophy.

Rest snipped, you are wrong.

[Alfonso]

Light is particulate, what exactly wavelength is is therefore open to
question which is why I deliberately avoided it. Wavelike phenomena are
produced when photons interact with something.

>
> So I will repeat what you snipped.
> Will you flee again?
>
> The following is a story from the real world.
> The question is which conclusions you will draw
> from what is actually measured in the real world.
>
> A diffraction grating spectrometer measures wavelength only.

It doesn't. Wavelength is inferred using theory.

> The wavelength is the spacing between two points of equal
> phase on the wave. (Or the spacing between two wave crests).

What wave? When light was thought to be a wave in the aether it was
considered to be a physical wave carrying physical energy and your
statement would have meaning. If there is no aether you cannot have a
physical wave in nothing so the waves of EM are a now a mathematical
model giving accurate predictions in its domain of applicability. That's
perfectly acceptable under the new philosophy.

"..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." Tom Roberts

It is a model. The purpose of physics now is to produce models with the
sole aim of accurate prediction - not understanding. Not something which
corresponds to our concepts of reality. That is why you can have two
contradictory theories, one of which says the energy of light is evenly
spread throughout space and the other says it definitely isn't. They are
just models. They are both useful. We can never actually "know" what
Nature herself is really doing. We do not know what the maths is really
describing.

>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction_grating
>
> That's the kind of instrument that is used to measure
> the spectra of astronomical objects from IR to UV.
>
> I can assure you that it is very obvious that the measured
> wavelength of the light from an astronomical object is changing
> due to the changing velocity of the Earth, and when the spectrometer
> is in a satellite, the changing velocity of the satellite.
> It's no question about it, it is a fact known by any reasonably
> knowledgeable person.

And there are loads of theories about why that might be. Extinction for
example. But you are missing the point entirely.

>
> Given this irrefutable fact from the real world,
> the question is how you interpret it.

Under classical philosophy the question is how you EXPLAIN it. How your
THEORY EXPLAINS it. That is what a theory does in classical philosophy.
Words have changed their meaning with the change in philosophy. A theory
no longer explains anything. It is a model which merely predicts outcome.

> (Note: I am asking how YOU interpret it, not what
> this or that theory or philosophy say about it.)
>
> Are you claiming that when we observe that the wavelength
> of the light from a star changes as the Earth orbits the Sun
> (or the observing satellite orbits the Earth), it proves that
> the light which was emitted from the star decades or centuries
> ago is affected by the measurement, and that classical causality
> is violated?

One explanation - consistent with Classical philosophy is Lorentz's
aether theory. It says that if you change your speed the real speed of
light changes but because your instruments are transformed by your speed
w.r.t the aether they still compute that the speed of light is c.
Lorentz Transforms? Invented by Lorentz? Remember those? The length of a
solid object depends on the electric forces between atoms. The electric
force is transferred via the aether (Maxwell) if the aether is in motion
the force changes and so does the length. The fact that the frequency of
light - or in my example - the interval between photons changes shows
that the speed of light HAS changed but for the reasons given you do not
detect the change. Both LET and emission theories give explanations as
required by Classical philosophy and both say the speed has changed
w.r.t the observer.

>
> If not, how do you interpret it?

If you now look at SR. The second postulate states that the speed of
light heading towards an observer is always c. It lacks any causal
explanation as to how nature brings this about. It is in Einstein's mind
an empirical starting point. The MMX showed that an observer is always
stationary w.r.t the aether which is what the second postulate
describes. AE describes SR as a "principle theory".

Principle theories: "The elements which form their bases and
starting-point are not hypothetically constructed but empirically
discovered ones, general characteristics of natural processes,
principles that give rise to mathematically formulated criteria."
Albert.

If one assumes the correctness of the second postulate, based on an
assumption that there is no absolute velocity, no reference frame then
what is described is as follows:
Me S
c<-* * * * * *
S generates a series of photons the distance between them is To.c. When
they reach me I measure the time as distance (To.c) over velocity c
To.c/c = To.

If the distance between me and S is increasing then between generating
one photon and the next S has moved further from me

Me S
c<-* * * * * *

Me S
c<-* * * * * *
|cTo'| |
vTo'

Completely consistent with the second postulate the spacing is now
cTo' + vTo and the interval measured by me is (c+v)To'/c. I can assure
you that it is possible to derive Einstein's Doppler equation from this.
The problem is that this is the only mechanism for Doppler shift allowed
in SR because the speed of the light w.r.t me is not allowed to change
only the speed at which it separates from the source in my FoR is
allowed to change.

I again point out that the second postulate lacks any causal explanation
as to how nature brings it about I am simply exploring the implications
of it being true without the obscuring effects of the mathematics.

If S is 1ly away and S is the one to change speed so that S and me are
separating at v then clearly it will be a year before I notice the
change i.e before the more widely spaced photons reach me.

The question is what happens if it is *me* who changes *my* speed? I
reiterate there is only one Doppler mechanism allowed by the second
postulate. The only thing allowed to change is the speed of separation
of the light from the source in my FoR - a direct consequence of it
being c w.r.t me. That results in a change in spacing but how can that
apply to the photons (a years worth) in transit.

We are agreed however that I will detect an immediate change in
interval. Implying from the second postulate that the spacing must have
changed as the speed is not allowed to. That spacing was generated 1
year ago at the source.

What relativists tend to do is say "well you have changed from one FoR
where the spacing was x and always was to another where it is y and
always was". A FoR is a mathematical abstraction. All FoR define the
same physical space. They are not capable of sustaining a different
reality from each other in the real world although in a mathematical
model one can assume what one likes. A mathematical model does not need
a causal explanation in order to give the right answer. It jumps quite
happily from one steady state solution to another.

If one believes in a physics which tries to explain what nature is up to
i.e. classical philosophy then there are two choices open. One can
believe that the second postulate is wrong and Doppler shift proves that
the speed of light varies or you can assume Lorentz is right. The
spacing does not change but your instruments do because of their
absolute velocity w.r.t the aether.

Now are you going to dodge the issue and explain what you see as being
the cause of the change in the spacing you claim takes place? Or are you
going to accept my statement that the philosophy underpinning modern
physics does not pretend to explain anything as it assumes as an article
of faith that reality is beyond the human mind.

Alfonso

>
> Remember, it is not an option to claim that the measured
> wavelength doesn't change when the observer changes his velocity.

I would refute that as you have not shown that light waves are physical
waves


>
>

[Big Dog]

On 11/7/2012 12:56 PM, Alfonso wrote:

>>
>> A diffraction grating spectrometer measures wavelength only.
>
> It doesn't. Wavelength is inferred using theory.
>

What theory do you have in mind?

Here's a simple experimental result. You can take a simple metal comb
with a spacing of about a centimeter. You can use this comb as a grating
for water surface waves AND air sound waves AND microwaves in vacuum.
All three have DRAMATICALLY different wave speeds, and you can arrange
them so that the sources also have DRAMATICALLY different frequencies,
but we can also arrange them so that it is *expected* that the
wavelength will be the same from all. The only theory being used to make
this *prediction* is speed = frequency x wavelength. IF, then, the
wavelengths are all the same AND if the grating is sensitive to
wavelength only and not to speed and not to frequency, then one expects
the same diffraction pattern from this same grating regardless of the
type of signal used.

And in fact, this is a common junior physics lab experiment, and sure
enough, you find that the diffraction patterns are identical. Which
proves that the grating measures SOMETHING other than the wave speed
(which varies from source to source) and other than the frequency (which
varies from source to source). In this case, the only thing that is
common to all three is the wavelength. So you know that the diffraction
grating measures wavelength and wavelength only.

This is about as basic an experiment for testing variables and controls
you can come up with.

[Big Dog]

On 11/7/2012 12:56 PM, Alfonso wrote:

>

> What wave? When light was thought to be a wave in the aether it was
> considered to be a physical wave carrying physical energy and your
> statement would have meaning. If there is no aether you cannot have a
> physical wave in nothing

I'm perpetually amazed at the things you claim cannot happen, and that
you bootstrap all these assumptions into what you call a "classical
philosophy". In this case, it is an assumption that the ONLY TWO
POSSIBLE scenarios are a wave in aether (or some other material
substrate) or a wave in *nothing*. No other scenarios are entertainable
in what you think is a classical philosophy.

The idea of a physical wave in a FIELD, where a field is a property of
space itself, is simply not a permissible possibility in your conceptual
framework. Because in your mental framework, space is NOT ALLOWED to be
describable as having properties that would support a wave.

That's not a philosophy. That's a small number of pigeonholes, into
which you demand everything must fit.

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Alfonso" <Alf...@duffadd.com> wrote in message news:FsydnQbo1tRPMwfN...@bt.com...

Light is particulate, what exactly wavelength is is therefore open to
question which is why I deliberately avoided it. Wavelike phenomena are
produced when photons interact with something.

Wavelength is inferred using theory.

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

You are being silly. WaveLENGTH is length.

An odometer measure length in terms of rotations.

The “theory” is pi * the wheel diameter.

A photon is an oscillating magnetic field and

its wavelength is the distance between successive

cycles. If two observers were able to detect the phase

of the photon’s magnetic field, one moving with respect

to the other, they will perceive different wavelengths.

This is not magic, a person walking with a stride of

two feet has a far longer stride when running even

if the time when the foot hits the ground (the period)

is the same  whether running or walking, and as long

as they do not change the altitude of their centre of

gravity the period is exactly the same whether running

or walking because the time to move vertically is the

same. Height = 1/2 gt^2, regardless of forward motion.

A running person has the same period as a walking

person but a different wavelength (right foot touching

ground to next right foot touching ground).

[Ron-boy]

I know that it is purely silly of me to do this,
but your prior post seems to call for it:

Show us in full on paper exactly how math
causes triplets to age differently.

~RA~

[Tom Roberts]

On 11/6/12 11/6/12 - 11:03 AM, Alfonso wrote:
> On 05/11/12 16:31, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> On 11/5/12 11/5/12 4:37 AM, Alfonso wrote:
>>> Under classical philosophy a photon
>>> is a localised packet of energy which can only occupy one location in
>>> space.
>> Under "classical philosophy" there is no such thing as a photon.
>
> Oh dear. You really are confused. The "classical" in Classical electrodynamics
> has nothing to do with Classical philosophy.

No, it is YOUR confusion. The word "classical" refers to the same set of
concepts in both usages. In physics, "classical" means "non-quantum". Your
attempts to discuss your notions of philosophy include essentially the same
basis as classical physics, with one notable exception: you do not recognize
geometry.

> SR has its roots in classical
> electrodynamics but became accepted as a theory because of a change in the
> philosophical basis of physics introduced by Heisenburg, Schordinger et al.

This is just plain not true. Those changes were required to accommodate quantum
phenomena. There are no quantum phenomena in SR or in classical electrodynamics.

> In
> terms of classical philosophy Lorentz's theory ticked the boxes and Einstein's
> brought noth8ing new to the table. He had failed to come up with an alternative
> classical, causal explanation to that of Lorentz's he objected to.

Over the years 1905-1911, Einstein, Minkowski, and Grossman demonstrated the
geometrical aspects of SR.

YOUR notion of "classical philosophy" does not take into account geometry, which
has been part of physics from the beginning. This is YOUR mistake, not that of
the physicists involved. Your excessively simplistic notions cannot even handle
the fact that a ladder can be carried through a doorway in some orientations but
not in others -- those orientation are PURELY GEOMETRY; there is no "physical
cause" here [#], there is only a "geometrical cause" (a poor phrase generated by
YOUR insistence on "cause").

[#] Do not be confused by the ladder physically colliding with
the doorway; go a level deeper and ask what causes that.

> The photon, as a particle of light goes back to Newton.

Not really. What Newton described has no relationship to what "photon" means
today. YOU are confused. Newton described "particles of light", but that is most
definitely NOT what photon are; photons are quintessentially quantum objects,
not "particles" and not "waves".

As I keep saying: most of what you think you know about physics is WRONG. Only
YOU can cure this, and that can only happen by STUDY.

>> A photon is INHERENTLY a quantum object.
>
> No a photon is a particle of light.

You are wrong. Plain and simple, YOU ARE WRONG.

> It is whatever it is.

No. This is probably the center of your confusion: misidentifying model and
world. Photons are part of the MODEL, and they are WHAT THE MODEL SAYS THEY ARE.

Whether the model accurately corresponds to the world we inhabit is a different
question. But the model known as the standard model (of particle physics) is
excellent, and stands unrefuted in a very wide domain, including everything
discussed in this newsgroup. There is a very large effort searching for "physics
beyond the standard model", and it has come up with VERY few candidates....

Google that phrase, and look for EXPERIMENTAL results.


> [... a lot more nonsense based on profound ignorance]

Your whole approach is flawed, because the NAIVE causality you espouse (in your
simplistic "classical philosophy") is not obeyed by the world we inhabit. It is
hopeless to attempt to make Nature behave according to your wishes.


Tom Roberts