Finite Relativism & Special Relativity Disproof
Phil Bouchard
> will
> take:
> 2.6e4 years
>
> GR anticipates:
> 2.5e6 years
>
> This makes the light beam 9,705.9% faster at that scale. For Alpha
> Centauri
> we were talking about a 100.00080373% difference.
Detailed information of all variables used in the interstellar and
intergalactical contexts are included in the book. A visual representation
of the test I gave, which disproves length contraction and therefore Special
Relativity, is also included.
The title will be available soon at the following location:
https://www.createspace.com/3370163
-Phil
kp
I have a machine that can produce an infinite amount of free energy.
if you send me $39.95, i'll send you a blueprint.
kp
Eric Gisse
[snip all, unread]
People stopped responding to Phil, so Phil starts a new thread.
Go away, Phil.
doug
So in your mind, randomly generated numbers from a spreadsheet
constitutes a theory? You have proved nothing except that
you do not understand relativity. Do you really think you
have shown anything? If what you consider disproof of
relativity was your silly ball in a box example that was
a pathetic attempt even by usenet crank standards.
>
Uncle Al
[snip crap]
> > This makes the light beam 9,705.9% faster at that scale.
[snip rest of crap]
idiot
<http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html>
Experimental constraints on Special Relativity
Science 323(5919) 1327 (2009)
Double pulsar J0737-3039A/B is within 0.05% of GR model
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-3/>
<http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/9148/title/Einstein_Unruffled_Relativity_passes_stringent_new_tests>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
Experimental constraints on General Relativity
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Igor
Please explain what experiment(s) you performed to falsify SR?
Phil Bouchard
"doug" <x...@xx.com> wrote in message
news:ltCdncn13ZO9AiLU...@posted.docknet...
>
> So in your mind, randomly generated numbers from a spreadsheet
> constitutes a theory? You have proved nothing except that
> you do not understand relativity. Do you really think you
> have shown anything? If what you consider disproof of
> relativity was your silly ball in a box example that was
> a pathetic attempt even by usenet crank standards.
Doug I think you're courageous inviting your own students seeing you live in
action on this usenet. I know standards in the education system felt down
badly because of the relatively low demand nowadays, but your situation is
exceptional. Now you're in a situation you can't get out of because there
is no way you can win. You had the worse grade, you failed to defend your
arguments and your vagues allegations of "a century of experiments" and you
come up with 0 scientific thought, but only hate and jealousy.
Eric Gisse
Why is a mediocre computer programmer coming here to whine about
relativity?
doug
Phil Bouchard wrote:
Phil comes in here expecting to be regaled as a hero and instead falls
flat on his face by demonstrating he has no idea what relativity says.
He tells us he does not like it and he took a freshman physics course
so now he is an expert. And, he has a spreadsheet which can give numbers
to thirty decimal places. In phil's mind, that makes him the world's
greatest physicist. Phil has lost long before he started.
Lets see, phil, you talked about tossing a ball wherein you demonstrated
conclusively you have no clue what relativity says. You made some
guesses from your spreadsheet in response to Sam (wrong guesses, by the
way) and then you proceed to bluster and look stupid. All of this is
to get everyone to pay $39.99 for a book to be written later when
phil actually tries to print out his spreasheeet code.
I am very happy to look at the last century of experiments and judge
them on their merits. It is phil who comes here having a tantrum about
how the world should bow down to him. My scientific thought is fine,
I am happy for any students to look at the century of experiments and
phil's laughable floundering and have them make up their own minds.
>
doug
Phil Bouchard wrote:
> "doug" <x...@xx.com> wrote in message
> news:fe6dnSgwWpnw_V3U...@posted.docknet...
>
>>Phil comes in here expecting to be regaled as a hero and instead falls
>>flat on his face by demonstrating he has no idea what relativity says.
>>He tells us he does not like it and he took a freshman physics course
>>so now he is an expert. And, he has a spreadsheet which can give numbers
>>to thirty decimal places. In phil's mind, that makes him the world's
>>greatest physicist. Phil has lost long before he started.
>
>
> Once again Doug, this is no scientific argument. FR tends more to be a law
> than a theory because its roots are purely mathematical.
Well, there is your problem right there. You need to learn some science.
Your prejudices clothed in some nonsense math do not make a description
of the universe.
>
>
>>Lets see, phil, you talked about tossing a ball wherein you demonstrated
>>conclusively you have no clue what relativity says. You made some
>>guesses from your spreadsheet in response to Sam (wrong guesses, by the
>>way) and then you proceed to bluster and look stupid. All of this is
>>to get everyone to pay $39.99 for a book to be written later when
>>phil actually tries to print out his spreasheeet code.
>
>
> According to Doug here is a list of the smartest people of all time, in
> order of precedence:
>
> Einstein (proved singularity, wormhole, length contraction, velocity cap of
> 3e8 m/s)
Einstein is a great mind. In ten years lets see who is still remembered
phil, the newly arrived crank or Einstein whose work has withstood a
century of careful tests.
> God (will create infinite amount of universes on the fly accordingly)
Sorry, there are lots of gods to choose from so you will have
to specify which ones you mean.
> Stephen Hawkins (confirmed wormholes)
> Michio Kaku (predicted time travel in the past)
> Doug (prophet)
Knows lots more physics than you do.
> Eric Gisse (faithful ipod fan)
Knows lots more physics than you do.
> Bill Gates (created crappy windows)
Bill Gates is one of your people.
>
>
>>I am very happy to look at the last century of experiments and judge
>>them on their merits. It is phil who comes here having a tantrum about
>>how the world should bow down to him. My scientific thought is fine,
>>I am happy for any students to look at the century of experiments and
>>phil's laughable floundering and have them make up their own minds.
>
>
> Nobody agreed paying taxes for your gravitational waves detection device, or
> even labeling Einstein the miracle as the scientific of the 20th century.
Well, you better tell congress that someone stole all their money.
You really are just suffering the effects of having your dreams
shattered by reality and you will feel better later.
>
>
Phil Bouchard
[...]
>> Einstein (proved singularity, wormhole, length contraction, velocity cap
>> of 3e8 m/s)
>
> Einstein is a great mind.
Ahhahaha! Special Relativity was written by Mileva Maric, and GR spacetime
by Minkovsky. He truly came out with the photoelectric effect and its
opposite E = mcc but really are plagiarized from ealier theories.
Einstein wrote 2 papers at the right time and I give him that but everything
else is flawed.
> In ten years lets see who is still remembered
> phil, the newly arrived crank or Einstein whose work has withstood a
> century of careful tests.
GR is a mapping of observations and cannot be used outside the galaxy. It
also disagrees with quantum mechanics.
>> God (will create infinite amount of universes on the fly accordingly)
>
> Sorry, there are lots of gods to choose from so you will have
> to specify which ones you mean.
Yahve, Jehovah or Allah are all the same god from Abraham.
[...]
Phil Bouchard
"Igor" <thoo...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:f46e988c-eebf-4fe2...@33g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
> Please explain what experiment(s) you performed to falsify SR?
# 1. Why "instantaneity" was proven if GR says it's impossible?
# 2. If Einstein-Rosen Bridges do exist, what defines its exact point of
exit in the Cartesian coordinate system?
# 3. Einstein said there is length contraction when an object travels nearly
the speed of light. I have two cannons that look like the following:
http://www.dkimages.com/discover/previews/821/45045356.JPG
Now imagine there is no distance between the cannons. From each cannon I
launch at c - epsilon:
1) two balls at the exact same moment
2) two balls with a 3.333e-9 s interval
3) two balls with a 3.333e-9 s interval and tied together with rope
So I wanted to know what would happen if there is an observer standing on
the ground with a camera in his
hands and taking pictures of the balls in motion.
Unfortunately here are their final grades:
Sam: 33% (A)
Greg: 0% (F)
Peter: 0% (F)
Doug: -33% (F)
This is the story of the knights who failed to defend Einstein the miracle
and his holy grail.
Phil Bouchard
[...]
> Einstein is a great mind. In ten years lets see who is still remembered
> phil, the newly arrived crank or Einstein whose work has withstood a
> century of careful tests.
"If the bee disappeared off the surface of the globe then man would only
have four years of life left. No more bees, no more pollination, no more
plants, no more animals, no more man." -- Albert Einstein
[...]
Eric Gisse
[...]
> > Eric Gisse (faithful ipod fan)
>
> Knows lots more physics than you do.
Also a faithful ipod fan.
[...]
Peter Webb
"Phil Bouchard" <ph...@fornux.com> wrote in message
news:49c0...@news.x-privat.org...
>
> "Igor" <thoo...@excite.com> wrote in message
> news:f46e988c-eebf-4fe2...@33g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Please explain what experiment(s) you performed to falsify SR?
>
>
> # 1. Why "instantaneity" was proven if GR says it's impossible?
>
> # 2. If Einstein-Rosen Bridges do exist, what defines its exact point of
> exit in the Cartesian coordinate system?
>
What bearing does this have on SR?
> # 3. Einstein said there is length contraction when an object travels
> nearly the speed of light. I have two cannons that look like the
> following:
> http://www.dkimages.com/discover/previews/821/45045356.JPG
>
> Now imagine there is no distance between the cannons. From each cannon I
> launch at c - epsilon:
> 1) two balls at the exact same moment
> 2) two balls with a 3.333e-9 s interval
> 3) two balls with a 3.333e-9 s interval and tied together with rope
>
> So I wanted to know what would happen if there is an observer standing on
> the ground with a camera in his
> hands and taking pictures of the balls in motion.
>
>
1) He sees two balls travelling away from him.
2) He sees two balls leave 3.333e-9 seconds apart
3) He sees two balls leave 3.333e-9 seconds apart, tied together with a
rope. Or, if the rope is not long enough, two balls leaving 3.333e-9 seconds
apart with bits of broken rope hanging from them.
See, now you know.
Any other questions about SR, feel free to ask.
HTH
Peter Webb
Sam Wormley
>
> "If the bee disappeared off the surface of the globe then man would only
> have four years of life left.
Phil, you don't eat fish? Grubs? Worms? Mushrooms? Wheat? What
about the animal-pollinated plants such as tomatoes, onions, avocados,
beans, green peppers, chili peppers, lemons, limes, and oranges,
berries, vanilla, sugar, almonds, watermelons and apples that can be
pollinated by butterflies and wasps?
It's true that nearly one third of global food production depends on
pollination by animals. But that's only a third.
Four years, eh?
Eric Gisse
> "Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:19ced67c-d647-4e01...@v18g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > Eric Gisse (faithful ipod fan)
>
> > > Knows lots more physics than you do.
>
> > Also a faithful ipod fan.
>
There is no reason why I cannot be a faithful fan of my ipod and know
more physics than is possible for your reptilian brain.
Goddamn its' games are nice for the toilet.
Greg Neill
> "Peter Webb" <webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> news:49c07937$0$2602$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>
>> Instantaeity has not been proven.
>
>
>> What bearing does this have on SR?
>
>
>> 1) He sees two balls travelling away from him.
>>
>> 2) He sees two balls leave 3.333e-9 seconds apart
>>
>> 3) He sees two balls leave 3.333e-9 seconds apart, tied together with a
>> rope. Or, if the rope is not long enough, two balls leaving 3.333e-9
>> seconds apart with bits of broken rope hanging from them.
>>
>> See, now you know.
>>
>> Any other questions about SR, feel free to ask.
>
Haha indeed. Phil *STILL* hasn't spotted the flaws in
his setup that makes it a washout for demonstrating SR
effects.
doug
Phil Bouchard wrote:
> "doug" <x...@xx.com> wrote in message
> news:0rydnevTgM7Q9V3U...@posted.docknet...
>
> [...]
>
>
>>>Einstein (proved singularity, wormhole, length contraction, velocity cap
>>>of 3e8 m/s)
>>
>>Einstein is a great mind.
>
>
> Ahhahaha! Special Relativity was written by Mileva Maric, and GR spacetime
> by Minkovsky. He truly came out with the photoelectric effect and its
> opposite E = mcc but really are plagiarized from ealier theories.
>
> Einstein wrote 2 papers at the right time and I give him that but everything
> else is flawed.
>
It is amazing the hatred and jealousy of the cranks for Einstein.
Relativity works. Get over it. You do not even know what relativity
says. All you know is you do not like it.
>
>>In ten years lets see who is still remembered
>>phil, the newly arrived crank or Einstein whose work has withstood a
>>century of careful tests.
>
>
> GR is a mapping of observations and cannot be used outside the galaxy. It
> also disagrees with quantum mechanics.
That is a silly statement with no support.
>
>
>>>God (will create infinite amount of universes on the fly accordingly)
>>
>>Sorry, there are lots of gods to choose from so you will have
>>to specify which ones you mean.
>
>
> Yahve, Jehovah or Allah are all the same god from Abraham.
You are limiting yourself to the middle eastern gods of a certain
period and are leaving out the rest of the world's gods. You have
many to choose from.
>
> [...]
>
>
doug
Phil Bouchard wrote:
> "Igor" <thoo...@excite.com> wrote in message
> news:f46e988c-eebf-4fe2...@33g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
>>Please explain what experiment(s) you performed to falsify SR?
>
>
>
> # 1. Why "instantaneity" was proven if GR says it's impossible?
No experiment here from Phil. Phil does not understand the
data he is referring to and why it is not in conflict with anything.
>
> # 2. If Einstein-Rosen Bridges do exist, what defines its exact point of
> exit in the Cartesian coordinate system?
Nope, no experiment by Phil here either. Lots of misplaced anxiety.
>
> # 3. Einstein said there is length contraction when an object travels nearly
> the speed of light. I have two cannons that look like the following:
> http://www.dkimages.com/discover/previews/821/45045356.JPG
>
> Now imagine there is no distance between the cannons. From each cannon I
> launch at c - epsilon:
> 1) two balls at the exact same moment
> 2) two balls with a 3.333e-9 s interval
> 3) two balls with a 3.333e-9 s interval and tied together with rope
>
> So I wanted to know what would happen if there is an observer standing on
> the ground with a camera in his
> hands and taking pictures of the balls in motion.
This is hilarious. You have no idea what relativity says. You can
actually read about it and find out how little you know or you can
wallow in your ignorance. You seem to take your stupidity as a
scientific argument.
>
>
> Unfortunately here are their final grades:
> Sam: 33% (A)
> Greg: 0% (F)
> Peter: 0% (F)
> Doug: -33% (F)
>
As I said, Sam should be offended. A high score from a crank is
a serious insult.
>
> This is the story of the knights who failed to defend Einstein the miracle
> and his holy grail.
>
Relativity is stil fine. GPS still works etc. Try again.
>
Eric Gisse
[...]
> You are limiting yourself to the middle eastern gods of a certain
> period and are leaving out the rest of the world's gods. You have
> many to choose from.
Thor and Raven are superior choices.
[...]
Igor
> "Igor" <thoov...@excite.com> wrote in message
And this is the story of the learning disabled idiot who failed to
answer my query. Scientific hypotheses can only be tested by
experiment. In case you've never heard of that word, here's the
lowdown from dictionary.com:
ex⋅per⋅i⋅ment /n. ɪkˈspɛrəmənt; v. ɛkˈspɛrəˌmɛnt/ [n. ik-sper-uh-
muhnt; v. ek-sper-uh-ment] –noun
1. a test, trial, or tentative procedure; an act or operation for the
purpose of discovering something unknown or of testing a principle,
supposition, etc.: a chemical experiment; a teaching experiment; an
experiment in living.
2. the conducting of such operations; experimentation: a product that
is the result of long experiment.
3. Obsolete. experience.
–verb (used without object) 4. to try or test, esp. in order to
discover or prove something: to experiment with a new procedure.
BradGuth
In this group of mostly incest mutated mindsets, sadly you'll not get
very far.
~ BG
BradGuth
So, now we know the bee disorder (aka CCD) is an Einstein plot in
order to get rid of most life on Earth. (just kidding, but thus far
it's working)
~ BG
Puppet_Sock
> > FR predicts a light beam from Earth to a similar planet from Andromeda
> > will
> > take:
> > 2.6e4 years
>
> > GR anticipates:
> > 2.5e6 years
>
> > This makes the light beam 9,705.9% faster at that scale. For Alpha
> > we were talking about a 100.00080373% difference.
>
> Detailed information of all variables used in the interstellar and
> intergalactical contexts are included in the book. A visual representation
> of the test I gave, which disproves length contraction and therefore Special
> Relativity, is also included.
Anybody who misunderstands significant digits that badly
is unlikely to understand the arithmetic involved in relativity,
never mind how to calculate how long it predicts light will
take to get from one place to another.
Even supposing the times quoted were in some way accurate,
which I'm disinclined to check, two digit quantities of time cannot
produce five digits of relative change, still less the eleven digits
quoted later.
There are fail passages in the immediate vicinity.
Socks
BradGuth
Einstein wasn't always right, so perhaps it'll take 16 years to get
our population down to 10%, or at least somewhat less than a billion.
~ BG
Phil Bouchard
"Greg Neill" <gnei...@MOVEsympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:49c0dfe8$0$19692$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com...
>
> Haha indeed. Phil *STILL* hasn't spotted the flaws in
> his setup that makes it a washout for demonstrating SR
> effects.
You are excessively confident because neither any precondition on the way
the balls are launched nor the measured length taken in picture have any
relevance for your defense.
BradGuth
> Phil Bouchard wrote:
> > "Igor" <thoov...@excite.com> wrote in message
What's quantum about real world and objectively measured FTL tunnel
time?
~ BG
Sam Wormley
>
> Relativity isn't fine and needs to be replaced.
>
>
Translation: Phil doesn't understand relativity.
Dorn.Strich
> "doug" <x...@xx.com> wrote in message
>
>
> [...]
>
> >> # 2. If Einstein-Rosen Bridges do exist, what defines its exact point of
> >> exit in the Cartesian coordinate system?
>
> > Nope, no experiment by Phil here either. Lots of misplaced anxiety.
>
> Einstein-Rosen Bridge is an attempt to haunt our minds for eternity because
> it can never be disproved. Not only it is part of the false hopes
> propaganda generated by Einstein and maintained for a century but is totally
> without any practical use even if it was true.
>
> > This is hilarious. You have no idea what relativity says. You can
> > actually read about it and find out how little you know or you can
> > wallow in your ignorance. You seem to take your stupidity as a
> > scientific argument.
>
> something without any substance, value and logic. According to you Einstein
> is the only one allowed to make paradoxes tangible and deadlocks logical in
> the science department.
>
> Maybe this is an attempt to make the fidels believe they are smarter than
> the rest of the world.
>
> [...]
>
> > Relativity is stil fine. GPS still works etc. Try again.
>
Relativity occupied a useless and redundant position. No replacement
is necessary. Straight to the trash bin it goes.
Dono
>
> > Relativity is stil fine. GPS still works etc. Try again.
>
There is medication for the severe delusions, you should ask your
doctor to increase your dosage.
Sam Wormley
>
> Relativity occupied a useless and redundant position. No replacement
> is necessary. Straight to the trash bin it goes.
Translation: David doesn't understand relativity.
Dono
> "Dono" <sa...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:805e95e2-3e53-4f95...@q30g2000prq.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > There is medication for the severe delusions, you should ask your
> > doctor to increase your dosage.
>
So, have him increased your dosage. It might help with your delusions.
doug
Phil Bouchard wrote:
> "doug" <x...@xx.com> wrote in message
> news:A9SdnZ8aEM5OaF3U...@posted.docknet...
>
> [...]
>
>
>>># 2. If Einstein-Rosen Bridges do exist, what defines its exact point of
>>>exit in the Cartesian coordinate system?
>>
>>Nope, no experiment by Phil here either. Lots of misplaced anxiety.
>
>
> You lack substance in your allegations hence making them invalid. The
> Einstein-Rosen Bridge is an attempt to haunt our minds for eternity because
> it can never be disproved. Not only it is part of the false hopes
> propaganda generated by Einstein and maintained for a century but is totally
> without any practical use even if it was true.
In other words, you feel it cannot be true since you do not like it.
>
>
>>This is hilarious. You have no idea what relativity says. You can
>>actually read about it and find out how little you know or you can
>>wallow in your ignorance. You seem to take your stupidity as a
>>scientific argument.
>
>
> What's really hilarious is seeing you trying to defend with conviction
> something without any substance, value and logic.
You are trying to attack relativity without even knowing what it
says. Those kind of ignorant attacks will always fail.
According to you Einstein
> is the only one allowed to make paradoxes tangible and deadlocks logical in
> the science department.
There are no paradoxes in relativity.
>
> Maybe this is an attempt to make the fidels believe they are smarter than
> the rest of the world.
The world does not care what a CS guy delusions are. The world is the
way it is.
>
> [...]
>
>
>>Relativity is stil fine. GPS still works etc. Try again.
>
>
> Relativity isn't fine and needs to be replaced.
No, there is no evidence of that except that you do not like
it. The world is not going to change for you.
>
>
Dorn.Strich
Translation: Wormley does not understand quantum mechanics and finds
comfort in the simple childish geometry of relativity.
Example: Wormley cannot grasp non-locality, a feature of quantum
mechanics which relativity is clueless about.
Eric Gisse
> On Mar 19, 10:24 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
> > Dorn.Strich wrote:
>
> > > Relativity occupied a useless and redundant position. No replacement
> > > is necessary. Straight to the trash bin it goes.
>
> > Translation: David doesn't understand relativity.
>
> Translation: Wormley does not understand quantum mechanics and finds
> comfort in the simple childish geometry of relativity.
Describe the WKB approximation in your own words.
Explain what Berry's phase is, and how it is related to the WKB
approximation.
If you can't do either of those, you don't really 'understand' quantum
mechanics nearly as much as you think you do.
>
> Example: Wormley cannot grasp non-locality, a feature of quantum
> mechanics which relativity is clueless about.
Example: Dave cannot answer questions about QM that require non-
shallow levels of study and understanding.
Example: Dave can't solve any QM system.
Example: Dave doesn't know what a wave function is.
Dorn.Strich
Watch Eric display the full spectrum of symptoms of anti-social
personality disorder. He throws those questions as if they are
rocks. One can almost feel the aggression in his reply. I am amused
how the flunkie student has the nerve to start asking questions.
Since we are merely throwing questions, here is a little one for the
flunkie: How can you reconcile quantum non-locality with relativistic
locality?
Sam Wormley
David, how do you see non-locality as appears in the form of
entanglement, contradicting any prediction of relativity? Be
specific please.
Dorn.Strich
First of all, do not qualify non-locality as if it only occurs in the
context of entanglement (unless that is how far your pitiful
understanding goes). Non-locality is INTRINSIC to QM; whereas
relativity is fully local. Thus QM invalidates relativity and
relativity invalidates QM. Since QM has no evidence against it, QM
stands and relativity crumbles.
Simple eh Sam?
Sam Wormley
> On Mar 19, 12:10 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 19, 7:58 am, "Dorn.Strich" <strich.9...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mar 19, 10:24 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>>>> Dorn.Strich wrote:
>>>>> Relativity occupied a useless and redundant position. No replacement
>>>>> is necessary. Straight to the trash bin it goes.
>>>> Translation: David doesn't understand relativity.
>>> Translation: Wormley does not understand quantum mechanics and finds
>>> comfort in the simple childish geometry of relativity.
>> Describe the WKB approximation in your own words.
>>
>> Explain what Berry's phase is, and how it is related to the WKB
>> approximation.
>>
>> If you can't do either of those, you don't really 'understand' quantum
>> mechanics nearly as much as you think you do.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Example: Wormley cannot grasp non-locality, a feature of quantum
>>> mechanics which relativity is clueless about.
>> Example: Dave cannot answer questions about QM that require non-
>> shallow levels of study and understanding.
>> Example: Dave can't solve any QM system.
>> Example: Dave doesn't know what a wave function is.
>
> Watch Eric display the full spectrum of symptoms of anti-social
> personality disorder.
Eric's point is that you, David, don't have sufficient knowledge
about QM to answer the questions. The implication is that you are
in no position to condemn relativity.
He throws those questions as if they are
> rocks. One can almost feel the aggression in his reply. I am amused
> how the flunkie student has the nerve to start asking questions.
As it turns out, Eric has done rather well as a physics undergraduate.
I look forward to his continued enlightenment in these newsgroups.
>
> Since we are merely throwing questions, here is a little one for the
> flunkie: How can you reconcile quantum non-locality with relativistic
> locality?
In fact there is an article in March 2009 issue of Sci Am
that makes that argument that the universe is non-local as
was assumed by Einstein... but I would like to point out
that that argument is far from over--and that, so far, special
relativity is holding its own.
That article concludes with...
"Quantum-mechanical wave functions cannot
be represented mathematically in anything smaller
than a mind-bogglingly high-dimensional
space called a configuration space. If, as some argue,
wave functions need to be thought of as concrete
physical objects, then we need to take seriously
the idea that the world’s history plays itself
out not in the three-dimensional space of our everyday
experience or the four-dimensional spacetime
of special relativity but rather this gigantic
and unfamiliar configuration space, out of which
the illusion of three-dimensionality somehow
emerges. Our three-dimensional idea of locality
would need to be understood as emergent as well.
The nonlocality of quantum physics might be
our window into this deeper level of reality.
"The status of special relativity, just more than
a century after it was presented to the world, is
suddenly a radically open and rapidly developing
question. This situation has come about because
physicists and philosophers have finally followed
through on the loose ends of Einstein’s longneglected
argument with quantum mechanics—
an irony-laden further proof of Einstein’s genius.
The diminished guru may very well have been
wrong just where we thought he was right and
right just where we thought he was wrong. We
may, in fact, see the universe through a glass not
quite so darkly as has too long been insisted".
Stay tuned!
Sam Wormley
> On Mar 19, 12:23 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>> David, how do you see non-locality as appears in the form of
>> entanglement, contradicting any prediction of relativity? Be
>> specific please.
>
> First of all, do not qualify non-locality as if it only occurs in the
> context of entanglement (unless that is how far your pitiful
> understanding goes). Non-locality is INTRINSIC to QM; whereas
> relativity is fully local. Thus QM invalidates relativity and
> relativity invalidates QM.
How? Be specific. All you are doing is throwing about a bunch
of words. Specifically, what prediction of relativity is contradicted?
Eric Gisse
I guess playing armchair physicist is a lot harder than playing
armchair psychiatrist when you know nothing about physics but lots
about psychology. Looks like the time you are spending in the mental
ward is paying off.
BTW, you'd be wise to learn that aggression does not mean 'anti
social'.
>
> Since we are merely throwing questions, here is a little one for the
> flunkie: How can you reconcile quantum non-locality with relativistic
> locality?
With quantum field theory, which is Lorentz invariant quantum
mechanics.
But the answer is a waste of words because you do not know what
Lorentz invariance means.
PD
> On Mar 19, 12:23 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Dorn.Strich wrote:
> > > On Mar 19, 10:24 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> > >> Dorn.Strich wrote:
>
> > >>> Relativity occupied a useless and redundant position. No replacement
> > >>> is necessary. Straight to the trash bin it goes.
> > >> Translation: David doesn't understand relativity.
>
> > > Translation: Wormley does not understand quantum mechanics and finds
> > > comfort in the simple childish geometry of relativity.
>
> > > Example: Wormley cannot grasp non-locality, a feature of quantum
> > > mechanics which relativity is clueless about.
>
> > David, how do you see non-locality as appears in the form of
> > entanglement, contradicting any prediction of relativity? Be
> > specific please.
>
> First of all, do not qualify non-locality as if it only occurs in the
> context of entanglement (unless that is how far your pitiful
> understanding goes). Non-locality is INTRINSIC to QM; whereas
> relativity is fully local.
This last clause is what's wrong. Locality has to be added as an extra
assumption, on top of relativity. Relativity alone is perfectly
compatible with non-locality. That's what QED is -- a fully
relativistic, non-local theory. A darned successful model to boot.
Dorn.Strich
That is really a waste. QFT, the so-called reconciliation of QM and
SR/GR, runs aground with invalid results. This is treated with
renormalization. Do you know what renormalization is Eric? (Hint: It
does not mean you going into rehab to become a normal person.)
[For the newbie, renormalization is an abnormal outgrowth of QFT. It
never existed in QM.]
Dorn.Strich
> On Mar 19, 11:32 am, "Dorn.Strich" <strich.9...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > First of all, do not qualify non-locality as if it only occurs in the
> > context of entanglement (unless that is how far your pitiful
> > understanding goes). Non-locality is INTRINSIC to QM; whereas
> > relativity is fully local.
>
> This last clause is what's wrong. Locality has to be added as an extra
> assumption, on top of relativity. Relativity alone is perfectly
> compatible with non-locality.
Your schizophrenia is getting the better of you again. While you
hallucinate that relativity is non-local, you are blinded to the fact
that relativity is at most luminal, and way below non-local. Einstein
postulated that nothing can travel faster than light, and non-local
effects obviously travel much faster, at instantaneous speed.
This is my suggestion:
1) Get a dictionary. Look up instantaneous, infinite, non-local.
2) Get a psychiatrist. Take the prescribed medications for a month,
then revisit the problems you are having a hard time following.
3) Thank me for my help.
Dorn.Strich
See my reply to PD.
PD
> On Mar 19, 1:36 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 19, 11:32 am, "Dorn.Strich" <strich.9...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > First of all, do not qualify non-locality as if it only occurs in the
> > > context of entanglement (unless that is how far your pitiful
> > > understanding goes). Non-locality is INTRINSIC to QM; whereas
> > > relativity is fully local.
>
> > This last clause is what's wrong. Locality has to be added as an extra
> > assumption, on top of relativity. Relativity alone is perfectly
> > compatible with non-locality.
>
> Your schizophrenia is getting the better of you again. While you
> hallucinate that relativity is non-local, you are blinded to the fact
> that relativity is at most luminal, and way below non-local.
Nice word salad. I wonder what you could ever possibly mean by it?
> Einstein
> postulated that nothing can travel faster than light, and non-local
> effects obviously travel much faster, at instantaneous speed.
Not so. There are no non-local effects "traveling" at faster than
light speed in quantum mechanics. Whatever gave you the idea that
there are?
>
> This is my suggestion:
> 1) Get a dictionary. Look up instantaneous, infinite, non-local.
You mean a dictionary of standard-usage English? Won't help you with
physics jargon. For that you need to look in physics books to see how
the term is defined. In this case, nonlocality has a specific
connotation that you won't find in Funk & Wagnalls, sorry.
> 2) Get a psychiatrist. Take the prescribed medications for a month,
> then revisit the problems you are having a hard time following.
> 3) Thank me for my help.
Thank you for your help. You've been tremendously amusing today.
PD
Dorn.Strich
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/d70e17e17045ef64
> On Mar 19, 1:19 pm, "Dorn.Strich" <strich.9...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Your schizophrenia is getting the better of you again. While you
> > hallucinate that relativity is non-local, you are blinded to the fact
> > that relativity is at most luminal, and way below non-local.
>
> Nice word salad. I wonder what you could ever possibly mean by it?
>
Did I not suggest a dictionary? It will take out some of your
confusion. Also, look up 'word salad' as well. Try to get some
insight into your symptoms.
> > Einstein
> > postulated that nothing can travel faster than light, and non-local
> > effects obviously travel much faster, at instantaneous speed.
>
> Not so. There are no non-local effects "traveling" at faster than
> light speed in quantum mechanics. Whatever gave you the idea that
> there are?
>
I like this one. If as you claim the non-local effects travel no
faster than light, then why call them 'non-local' to begin with? Ha
ha ha, the liar getting caught in his own web.
PD
> On Mar 19, 2:45 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/d70e17e1704...
>
> > On Mar 19, 1:19 pm, "Dorn.Strich" <strich.9...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Your schizophrenia is getting the better of you again. While you
> > > hallucinate that relativity is non-local, you are blinded to the fact
> > > that relativity is at most luminal, and way below non-local.
>
> > Nice word salad. I wonder what you could ever possibly mean by it?
>
> Did I not suggest a dictionary? It will take out some of your
> confusion. Also, look up 'word salad' as well. Try to get some
> insight into your symptoms.
>
> > > Einstein
> > > postulated that nothing can travel faster than light, and non-local
> > > effects obviously travel much faster, at instantaneous speed.
>
> > Not so. There are no non-local effects "traveling" at faster than
> > light speed in quantum mechanics. Whatever gave you the idea that
> > there are?
>
> I like this one. If as you claim the non-local effects travel no
> faster than light, then why call them 'non-local' to begin with? Ha
> ha ha, the liar getting caught in his own web.
I had no idea you spelled "nonlocal" s-u-b-l-u-m-i-n-a-l.
If you don't know what nonlocal means to a physicist, would you like a
reading reference as to what it means?
PD
Dorn.Strich
Not so. There are no non-local effects "traveling" at faster than
light speed in quantum mechanics. Whatever gave you the idea that
there are?
Strich smiles:
I like this one. If as you claim the non-local effects travel no
faster than light, then why call them 'non-local' to begin with? Ha
ha ha, the liar getting caught in his own web.
PD hallucinates:
I had no idea you spelled "nonlocal" s-u-b-l-u-m-i-n-a-l.
Strich replies:
Duh. Where is 'subluminal' in my post?
Obviously PD only means to mislead from his error, replayed here:
PD stated: "There are no non-local effects "traveling" at faster than
light speed in quantum mechanics."
Strich asks rhetorically: "If as you claim the non-local effects
PD
If the equine stables don't include oil-changing pits, then why call
them "equine" to begin with?
If you don't know what "nonlocal" means to a physicist, just say so,
and I'll give you a recommendation, completely with page numbers, for
something you can read to learn what it does mean.
PD
Dorn.Strich
> > PD stated: "There are no non-local effects "traveling" at faster than
> > light speed in quantum mechanics."
>
> > Strich asks rhetorically: "If as you claim the non-local effects
> > travel no faster than light, then why call them 'non-local' to begin
> > with?"
>
> If the equine stables don't include oil-changing pits, then why call
> them "equine" to begin with?
>
Well, what do you know, PD coughs up another example of
tangentiality*.
__________________________
*Tangentiality - A disturbance in the associative thought process in
which one tends to digress readily from one topic under discussion to
other topics that arise in the course of associations; observed in
schizophrenia and certain types of organic brain disorders.
PD
> On Mar 19, 3:45 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > PD stated: "There are no non-local effects "traveling" at faster than
> > > light speed in quantum mechanics."
>
> > > Strich asks rhetorically: "If as you claim the non-local effects
> > > travel no faster than light, then why call them 'non-local' to begin
> > > with?"
>
> > If the equine stables don't include oil-changing pits, then why call
> > them "equine" to begin with?
>
> Well, what do you know, PD coughs up another example of
> tangentiality*.
Don't get it, do you? That's odd. I just pointed it out to someone
with an IQ of 120 and he got it. Yet you with an IQ of 200 don't.
Hmmm. Can you even COUNT to 200? I certain you can't. Prove me wrong.
Offer continues to be out there: If you don't know what "nonlocal"
means to a physicist, just say so, and I'll give you a recommendation,
completely with page numbers, for something you can read to learn what
it does mean.
>
Dorn.Strich
> On Mar 19, 2:57 pm, "Dorn.Strich" <strich.9...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 19, 3:45 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > PD stated: "There are no non-local effects "traveling" at faster than
> > > > light speed in quantum mechanics."
>
> > > > Strich asks rhetorically: "If as you claim the non-local effects
> > > > travel no faster than light, then why call them 'non-local' to begin
> > > > with?"
>
> > > If the equine stables don't include oil-changing pits, then why call
> > > them "equine" to begin with?
>
> > Well, what do you know, PD coughs up another example of
> > tangentiality*.
>
> Don't get it, do you? That's odd. I just pointed it out to someone
> with an IQ of 120 and he got it. Yet you with an IQ of 200 don't.
> Hmmm. Can you even COUNT to 200? I certain you can't. Prove me wrong.
>
This other person being your other personality? I don't think anybody
would equate 'non-local' to 'equine' unless they are as schizophrenic
as you are.
PD
If you don't know what "nonlocal" means to a physicist, just say so,
and I'll give you a recommendation, completely with page numbers, for
something you can read to learn what it does mean. Waddya say,
Strich9? Yes or no?
Dorn.Strich
>
> > On Mar 19, 3:45 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > PD stated: "There are no non-local effects "traveling" at faster than
> > > > light speed in quantum mechanics."
>
> > > > Strich asks rhetorically: "If as you claim the non-local effects
> > > > travel no faster than light, then why call them 'non-local' to begin
> > > > with?"
>
> > > If the equine stables don't include oil-changing pits, then why call
> > > them "equine" to begin with?
>
> > Well, what do you know, PD coughs up another example of
> > tangentiality*.
>
> Don't get it, do you? That's odd. I just pointed it out to someone
> with an IQ of 120 and he got it. Yet you with an IQ of 200 don't.
> Hmmm. Can you even COUNT to 200? I certain you can't. Prove me wrong.
>
This other person being your other personality? I don't think anybody
PD
If you don't know what "nonlocal" means to a physicist, just say so,
and I'll give you a recommendation, completely with page numbers, for
Rock Brentwood
> GR was given birth by SR.
GR was not given birth by SR. GR was given birth by dual parentage --
SR *and* the Equivalence Principle. The latter is paradigm-independent
and applies universally across theory-space; e.g. there's a Galilean
variant, an Archimedean/Platonic variant, even a Biblical Creationist
variant of EP (such as any such thing could ever be defined). Hell,
there's even a Wizard of Oz variant of EP. The principle is orthogonal
to the *entirely independent* issue of what causal structure underlies
spacetime; and one can equally well state it in all these other
venues. In all cases, it underlies and leads to a geometrization of
gravity via the equivalence "free fall = inertial motion on a curved
spacetime background."
So, for instance, one would then have Newton-Cartan gravity (where g_
{mu nu} has signature (0,+,+,+) and g^{mu nu} the signature (-,
0,0,0)), or even Archimedean-Cartan gravity (where the respective
signatures are (0.+.+.+) and (-,0,0,0)); or even Outer Zone-Cartan
Gravity (where the evil queen controls O.Z.'s laws of Physics by use
of her emerald crystal).
But it is a complete misnomer to say that GR is *merely* an extension
of SR. The 4-dimensional and geometrical aspect are NOT extensions of
SR and have nothing at all to do with SR. (Not even when 4-D geometry
is used in SR does it have anything to do with SR. The 4-D'ism of
Maxwell's equations, for instance, have nothing to do with their being
"Lorentz-invariant" (in fact, the original versions of the equations
posed by Maxwell and later by Hertz (and even Lorentz c. 1895)) were
not Lorentz-invariant, but with the equations' "macroscopic" (D,H,B,E)
part being diffeomorphism-invariant).
This confusion of what goes with what is largely borne out of the red-
herringness of historical coincidence. Two or more things arose at the
same point in history so people have naturally come to identify them
with one another, when in fact their link is nothing but a red
herring. Another case in point of this phenomenon is the notion of
spin -- which first arose when people started grappling with how to
relativize quantum theory. Spin has absolutely nothing to do with
relativity, as is now well-known. Nor the Dirac equation (it, too, has
a perfectly sensible formulation that is largely signature-independent
and applies to Galilean spacetimes too, and even to *signature-
changing* spacetimes!) Nor even the "Dirac negative energy sea". In
fact, it was Maxwell who first brought up the issue of the vacuum
energy and the need to balance out the negative energy of matter with
a (HUGE) vacuum positive energy density for the electromagnetic field.
(This was in section 82 of his 1861 paper).
==========
"Tin-tan El Jefe es muerto, Jefe es muerto, Jefe es muerto; tin-tan El
Dictador es muerto!"
Androcles
"Rock Brentwood" <mark...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:49d866ac-1311-4a09...@a12g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
================================================
Is there some purpose to this verbal diarrhea?
Strich.Nein
=======================================================
PD blusters: Not so. There are no non-local effects "traveling" at
faster than light speed in quantum mechanics. Whatever gave you the
idea that there are?
Strich smiles: If as you claim the non-local effects travel no faster
than light, then why call them 'non-local' to begin with?
=======================================================
PD hallucinates: I had no idea you spelled "nonlocal" s-u-b-l-u-m-i-n-
a-l.
Strich replies: Duh. Where is 'subluminal' in my post?
=======================================================
Here is another one in another thread:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/e830c4d5f2fbb7d6
There are more, since he keeps refusing treatment.
Eric Gisse
[...]
> That is really a waste. QFT, the so-called reconciliation of QM and
> SR/GR, runs aground with invalid results. This is treated with
> renormalization. Do you know what renormalization is Eric? (Hint: It
> does not mean you going into rehab to become a normal person.)
Give us an example calculation of renormalization and explain why it
is mathematically wrong.
PD
If you don't know what "nonlocal" means to a physicist, just say so,
Strich.Nein
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sam, your calendar is retarded. It is the February issue, not March.
Keep your head glued together. I've already read and refuted that
article:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/100c2eb262c9cd79
Einstein never thought of the universe as non-local. He described
'non-local' as 'spooky', as a child would when confronted with the
unknown. He postulated that the universe was local. This has been
recorded for posterity in his infamous EPR paradox. Are you familiar
with EPR, Sam?
Eric Gisse
[...]
> There are more, since he keeps refusing treatment.
Having a copy of the DSM-IV and a disorder that falls under it does
not qualify you to make medical decisions.
Dorn.Strich
You are confused again Eric. No medical decisions were made. I
inferred his refusal of treatment by his continued manifestation of
symptoms of schizophrenia, as well as the absence of any
acknowledgement of such treatment being complied with.
As for you, your repeated attempts to divert responses to your posts
into alt.morons and alt.whine is further supporting your diagnosis of
anti-social personality disorder (see #2 below*).
___________________________________________
*Three or more of the following are required:
1) Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors
as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for
arrest;
2) Deceitfulness, as indicated by repeatedly lying, use of aliases, or
conning others for personal profit or pleasure;
3) Impulsivity or failure to plan ahead;
4) Irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical
fights or assaults;
5) Reckless disregard for safety of self or others;
6) Consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to
sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations;
7) Lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or
rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another.
Dorn.Strich
>
> Einstein never thought of the universe as non-local. He described
> 'non-local' as 'spooky', as a child would when confronted with the
> unknown. He postulated that the universe was local. This has been
> recorded for posterity in his infamous EPR paradox. Are you familiar
Rock Brentwood
> Please explain what experiment(s) you performed to falsify SR?-
There are other ways to attack a paradigm that don't require
falsifying it to show it's wrong. One can be wrong not just for what
one says wrong, but (far more importantly) for what one does NOT say,
that's correct.
Any time you have a paradigm shift from A -> B, especially when A's
been around a long time and has gotten a huge reservoir of empirical
support; there is not ONE thing that need to be done to establish a
cohesive connection from A to B, but TWO. The first requires the
support of the kind which, as you mention, could be undermined by
falsification; but for the second -- which is almost universally
neglected -- the issue is utterly irrelevant.
The criteria all focus on the issue of what's known as the
Correspondence Limit. The most precise statement of this principle
(once you remove all the hand-wavers and sloppy "just left h-bar go to
0" or "just let c to go infinity" amateurs from the room) boils down
to stipulation of a *continuous* connection between the actual
*formal* structures underlying the two paradigms in what may be known
as theory-space.
In the case of the "h-bar -> 0" limit, this issue is well-known and
has been well studied and falls under the header of "quantization
theory". This is the field dedicated to the study that focuses on the
different ways to "deform" classical structures to arrive at the
corresponding quantum structures (e.g. Poisson Algebras to Poisson-Lie
algebras; Boolean logic to quantum logic; classical phase spaces to
phase space-with-transition-probabilities (closely related to what's
called "coherent state quantization")).
Together these comprise what may be termed the INVERSE Correspondence
Limit. And, as is now well-known, there are a large number of highly
non-trivial lessons attendant to the issue that have not been fully
appreciated or even understood until relatively recently (particularly
issues relating to non-trivial global topologies). All of these show,
in perspective, just how dangerously naive and misleading the old hand-
waving adage of "just let h-bar -> 0" actually is and was all along.
The TWO issues that arise in relation to the Correspondence Limit are
those of (a) the FORWARD Correspondence limit (Soundness) and (b) the
REVERSE Correspondence limit (Completeness).
Issue (a) requires that all of what's present in Paradigm B have a
continuous connection to A, so that either (a1) the correct classical
limit recouping the correct empirical results occurs or (a2) a
refinement of the classical limit, that contains corrections, results.
It's only with (a2) that you can talk about "emprical verification" or
"falsification". It's only here that one draws a relevant distinction
between A and B and where the issue of testing comes up.
But it is NOT all of what's needed to secure paradigm B. The oblique
attack on B centers on issue (b) -- Completeness.
And the irony is that between (a) and (b), it's completeness that is
BY FAR the more important issue. This is where the part "especially
when A's been around a long time and has gotten a huge reservoir of
emprical support" comes into play -- and is why I added that specific
phrase.
It is not enough to justify a new paradigm by fulfilling (a1) and
(a2). The Correspondence Limit means you have to bring in ALL of
paradigm A. For, if you're going to claim that B ought to take the
place of A, then you had better first be assured that all that
reservoir of emprical support already accumulated by A is
grandfathered into B. Otherwise, none of what predated B can be used
to justify it and you have to start all the past 10,000 years or more
since the Ice Age over from scratch and systematically restablish the
foundation for B from the Stone Age on.
Completeness means that ALL the structure of A should be pulled back
over into B by the suitable formulation of the INVERSE correspondence
limit.
And here's where you run into the major -- and -- problem for
Relativity.
The relevant deformation, itself, does not have a real name, as far as
I'm aware. One may call it "relativization" and draw an analogy with
the parallel field of "quantization". Relativization may then be
thought of as all of what attends to the limit alpha = (1/c)^2 -> 0.
The structures being deformed here are the symmetry groups -- the
Galilean group and whatever it is that it "Relativizes" to. More
generally, it seeks to draw a link between the *representation* space
associated with the Galilei group and the representation space of
whatever it is that Galilei should relativize to.
What does Galilei relativize to? The naive solution to the latter
question is to stipulate that Galilei should relativize to the
Poincare' group.
This is wrong! And it's on this account that Relativity is wrong! It
is not wrong because of what it says -- rather, it is wrong because of
what it does NOT say. It is wrong by being INCOMPLETE.
The first chink in the armor becomes readily visible when you first
find out or note that the fully extended Galilei group has 11
parameters, and not 10; while Poincare' has only 10. No continuous
deformation can get you from one symmetry group (and its
representation space) to another that has a different number of
parameters.
So the notion that "Relativity" means "Poincare'-symmetry" is wrong
before it even gets out of the gates. As this is what most people
understand by "Relativity" that means that the "Relativity" that most
peoples' understand by the term "Relativity" is wrong.
The best-known Correspondence Limit that's appeared on the literature
is what's known as the In\"on\"u-Wigner contraction. This associates
each member of the representation space of the Poincare' group to a
corresponding member of the Galilei group.
The Soundness criterion, of course, is resolved by the alpha -> 0
limit. But completeness? Woefully inadequate.
This is because the representation space for the Galilei group is
HUGE!
One might next try to adapt the well-known 5-dimensional
representation of the Galilei group to a (suitably extended)
representation of the Poincare' group. Indeed, this leads to a natural
11-parameter group and a natural representation of (relativistic)
mass, kinetic energy, the "mass phase", even a sound encapsulation of
the *5* fluid dynamics transport laws into a *symmetric* 5x5 stress
tensor. It allows you to merge the Schroedinger equation with the
Klein Gordon equation (hint: change P^2/2m = H to P^2 - 2mH = 0, and
note that under relativiization this becomes P^2 - 2mH - alpha H^2 =
0). The Dirac equation passes over smoothly into the Galilei limit, by
the same account.
But the electromagnetic and gauge fields? Oops. Problem. Especially
for those that are massive, but even the massless ones. It turns out
that you need to enact a highly non-trivial representation --
reminiscent of Einstein-Laub's 1908-1909 development of the "moving
media" formalism -- one with an absolute velocity. This is because a
Galilean invariant Maxwell theory requires an absolute velocity, in
order to be able to form the requisite quadratic invariants needed for
the field theory. This is what Maxwell's old theory had an absolute
velocity vector (he called it G). So did c.1890-1895 Lorentz (by the
way), as did Heaviside (he used a "co-moving derivative"). Now you
have a 2-parameter continuous family of s. One parameter epsilon
mu = (1/V)^2 for wave speed V, the other alpha = (1/c)^2 for
"invariant speed".
A similar extension yields a continuous bridge between Galilean and
Poincare' gauge field. (By the way, the issue of devising a Galilean
limit to gauge field theory is still open -- so what I'm describing
here is an otherwise heretofore unknown solution to an open problem.
People who deal with solid state physics are real keen on getting a
Galilean variant of gauge theory, since solid state physics resides
mainly in the non-relativistic realm).
With the projective representation, you suddenly also have a nice and
simple account of the so-called "B-field" formalism, which is used to
quantize gauge fields with mass. The B in "B-field" is just the 5th
component of the potential!
Even all of this is not enough. The In\"on\"u-Wigner and Projective
contractions, even taken together, STILL do not fully exhaust the
representation space of the Galilei group. Taken together, even all
this extra addition still fails the completeness criterion.
The first chink in the extra layer of armor comes as soon as you try
to confront gravity. It turns out -- and this was a problem that
Einstein had originally grappled with in the late 1900's and early
1910's before giving up on it -- that there's no known simply way to
continuously connect the requisite structures associated with Newton-
Cartan and Einstei-Cartan or Riemannian gravity. Papers came out in
the 1970's showing what the root of the complication was. It turns out
that the projective contraction and 11-parameter group do not handle
the *second order* terms. You lose those in the contraction and the
resulting "correspondence limit" fails to land on "Newton-Cartan"'s
formulation of Newtonian gravity.
Ultimately, the root of the problems are that the representation space
for the Galilei group isn't just HUGE. It's IMPOSSIBLY huge. That is,
the very problem of classifying all the finite-dimensional
representations for the Galilei group is what's referred to in the
literature as a "wild" unsolvable algebraic problem.
Now, I don't (yet) know enough detail about what this designation
actually means to know whether they're actually saying that it's
unsolvable in the same sense of Goedel's Theorem or the Halting
Problem. But no matter. In whatever case, it means that the
representation space for Galilei is incredibly complicated.
As such, anything that fails to fully house it when running down the
reverse direction of the "A <- B" arrow is thereby also suspect of
failing to fully account for and grandfather in the past 10,000 years
of empirical data.
As such, Relativity is for that reason (as we understand the term
"Relativity" to mean "inverse of the In\"on\"u-Wigner contraction or
any continuous map from Galilei to Poincare') is wrong.
It is not wrong because of what it says or because that what it says
can be falsified. That's not even the relevant aspect of the term
wrong! Rather, it's wrong because of what it does NOT say. It's wrong
for being incomplete -- and seriously incomplete.
That is, there is far more to the deformation we call "Relativization"
than has been uncovered or understood over the past 100 years, and the
"invention" or "discovery" of the new paradigm is, in fact, an
"invention" or "discovery" yet to be fully made.
This is an elaboration on some of the issues I raised in...
The UI-Chicago Talk
At Dr. Kauffman's Quantum Topology Seminar
2008 October
http://federation.g3z.com/Physics/index.htm#BigIdea
Rock Brentwood
Eric Gisse
> On Mar 19, 5:03 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 19, 12:46 pm, "Strich.Nein" <strich.9...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > [...]
>
> > > There are more, since he keeps refusing treatment.
>
> > Having a copy of the DSM-IV and a disorder that falls under it does
> > not qualify you to make medical decisions.
>
> You are confused again Eric. No medical decisions were made. I
> inferred his refusal of treatment by his continued manifestation of
> symptoms of schizophrenia, as well as the absence of any
> acknowledgement of such treatment being complied with.
>
> As for you, your repeated attempts to divert responses to your posts
> into alt.morons and alt.whine is further supporting your diagnosis of
> anti-social personality disorder (see #2 below*).
Why exactly do you feel you are qualified to make medical diagnoses
over the internet?
Sam Wormley
<laughing>
In your dreams, David, in your dreams!
Sam Wormley
Specifically, David, what prediction of relativity is contradicted
by the quantum mechanics or entanglement?
doug
Rock Brentwood wrote:
> On Mar 17, 6:28 pm, Igor <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:
>
>>Please explain what experiment(s) you performed to falsify SR?-
>
>
> There are other ways to attack a paradigm that don't require
> falsifying it to show it's wrong. One can be wrong not just for what
> one says wrong, but (far more importantly) for what one does NOT say,
> that's correct.
This is pretty funny. You cannot point to anything that relativity
says that is wrong so you want to complain that it does not
cover all of physics. Your silly ideas have no effect on relativity.
Your dislike of it has no effect on it. Your philosophical
ramblings have no effect on it.
[snip bizarre ramblings]
>
Phil Bouchard
"doug" <x...@xx.com> wrote in message
news:1YSdnfiBwLznw1_U...@posted.docknet...
[...]
> No, there is no evidence of that except that you do not like
> it. The world is not going to change for you.
Is that all you can bring to denfend something that is mathematically
incorrect, proven to be logically wrong, does not fit with QM, predicts
illusional theories with impratical usages that can never be disproved and
fills science with false hopes such as singularities, wormholes, length
contraction, infinite masses, velocity cap of 3e8 m/s, the observed Hubble's
sphere inconsistency, time travel in the past and consequently an infinite
amount of universes created by God on the fly and dark matter.
You brought up 0 intellectual scientific arguments and your failure to
defend your propheties makes them invalid. Science will silently push you
and your fidels aside, just like Einstein did when experimental observations
disproved most of his papers. That makes QM, mathematics, engineering and
computer science not agreeing with Einstein the miracle and his mediocre
mathematical skillset and spaghetti logic.
Peter Webb
"Phil Bouchard" <ph...@fornux.com> wrote in message
news:49c31040$1...@news.x-privat.org...
>
> "doug" <x...@xx.com> wrote in message
> news:1YSdnfiBwLznw1_U...@posted.docknet...
>
> [...]
>
>> No, there is no evidence of that except that you do not like
>> it. The world is not going to change for you.
>
> Is that all you can bring to denfend something that is mathematically
> incorrect,
No, its not.
> proven to be logically wrong,
No, it has not.
> does not fit with QM,
SR fits in beautifully with QM; indeed, without SR, QM does not produce the
observed emmission spectral lines; SR is needed for QM to produce the
results that are produced in thousands of laboratries and observatories
world wide undertaking spectroscopic analysis.
> predicts illusional theories with impratical usages that can never be
> disproved and fills science with false hopes such as singularities,
> wormholes,
SR does not predict either singularities or wormholes.
> length contraction, infinite masses,
SR does not predict infinite masses.
> velocity cap of 3e8 m/s, the observed Hubble's sphere inconsistency,
What Hubble sphere inconsistency, and how does it relate to SR?
>time travel in the past
SR does not predict time travel into the past.
> and consequently an infinite amount of universes created by God on the fly
SR does not predict an infinite number of Universes, whether created on the
fly by God or in any other manner.
> and dark matter.
>
SR does not predict dark matter.
> You brought up 0 intellectual scientific arguments and your failure to
> defend your propheties makes them invalid. Science will silently push you
> and your fidels aside, just like Einstein did when experimental
> observations disproved most of his papers. That makes QM, mathematics,
> engineering and computer science not agreeing with Einstein the miracle
> and his mediocre mathematical skillset and spaghetti logic.
>
Well, there are obviously lots of scientific arguments for SR, as well as
huge amounts of direct experimental evidence. Like the fact that particle
accelerators work.
If you want scientific arguments, read some physics textbooks.
Phil Bouchard
"Peter Webb" <webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:49c314fd$0$32001$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
[...]
> SR does not predict either singularities or wormholes.
Why are you subjecting the discussion with SR? I am referring to Einstein,
all his essays and faithful disciples spreading it.
[...]
> Well, there are obviously lots of scientific arguments for SR, as well as
> huge amounts of direct experimental evidence. Like the fact that particle
> accelerators work.
>
> If you want scientific arguments, read some physics textbooks.
You skipped many posts but time dilation is enough to explain all
relativistic effects. That's all there is to it.
doug
Phil Bouchard wrote:
> "doug" <x...@xx.com> wrote in message
> news:1YSdnfiBwLznw1_U...@posted.docknet...
>
> [...]
>
>
>>No, there is no evidence of that except that you do not like
>>it. The world is not going to change for you.
>
>
> Is that all you can bring to denfend something that is mathematically
> incorrect,
Your assertion with no proof.
proven to be logically wrong,
Your assertion with no proof.
does not fit with QM, predicts
> illusional theories with impratical usages that can never be disproved and
> fills science with false hopes such as singularities, wormholes, length
> contraction, infinite masses, velocity cap of 3e8 m/s, the observed Hubble's
> sphere inconsistency, time travel in the past and consequently an infinite
> amount of universes created by God on the fly and dark matter.
Your dislikes and delusions are not scientific arguments.
>
> You brought up 0 intellectual scientific arguments and your failure to
> defend your propheties makes them invalid.
Gee, all I have is a century of experimental evidence and the current
quantum mechanics to support me. You have your hatred and jealousy
of Einstein on your side. Oh, I forgot, you had your freshman physics
class that you did not understand. And a spreadsheet with lots of
digits.
Science will silently push you
> and your fidels aside, just like Einstein did when experimental observations
> disproved most of his papers. That makes QM, mathematics, engineering and
> computer science not agreeing with Einstein the miracle and his mediocre
> mathematical skillset and spaghetti logic.
Your stupidity is not a scientific arguement. You have only shown you
have no clue what relativity is. You have presented no evidence of any
problems just your dislikes. Those do not get you anywhere in science.
CS maybe but not science.
>
>
doug
Phil Bouchard wrote:
> "Peter Webb" <webbf...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> news:49c314fd$0$32001$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> [...]
>
>
>>SR does not predict either singularities or wormholes.
>
>
> Why are you subjecting the discussion with SR? I am referring to Einstein,
> all his essays and faithful disciples spreading it.
The cranks all descend into the "faithful disciples" type of dispair
after awhile. You have gotten there pretty quickly but you are even
less knowledgeable than most of the cranks here.
>
> [...]
>
>
>>Well, there are obviously lots of scientific arguments for SR, as well as
>>huge amounts of direct experimental evidence. Like the fact that particle
>>accelerators work.
>>
>>If you want scientific arguments, read some physics textbooks.
>
>
> You skipped many posts but time dilation is enough to explain all
> relativistic effects. That's all there is to it.
So we have your unsupported assertion and that takes care of a century
of evidence. If you could show this, you would. You cannot. You are
only blustering.
>
>
BradGuth
> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:30da42fc-e438-48ce...@v5g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > In this group of mostly incest mutated mindsets, sadly you'll not get
> > very far.
>
> Indeed their comments are anything else than scientific at this stage. I
> have more work awaiting in algorithms for parallel computation using the
> theory and discussions with mathematicians anyways.
If FTL can be objectively measured and peer replicated, where's the
quantum tunneling question or doubt about FTL coming from?
Either it's happening, or it isn't.
~ BG
Dorn.Strich
It is like killing a werewolf only to discover it's a wolf, or
catching a vampire only to discover it's a bat, yet the uneducated
will still believe in superstition.
Similarly, FTL has been shown repeatedly but relativists continue to
hang on to a superstition of a lightspeed maximum.
Dorn.Strich
>
> - Show quoted text -
We need not go into predictions. It is all simple and
straightforward. The very postulate of relativity that light speed is
constant and is the maximum velocity is contradicted by non-locality
of QM. To avoid misunderstanding, tell us how you define non-
locality. I get the impression your screws are loose in this topic.
Dorn.Strich
>
> > Einstein never thought of the universe as non-local. He described
> > 'non-local' as 'spooky', as a child would when confronted with the
> > unknown. He postulated that the universe was local. This has been
> > recorded for posterity in his infamous EPR paradox. Are you familiar
> > with EPR, Sam?
>
> <laughing>
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sam, you are correct. In my dreams you are familiar with EPR. In
reality, obviously you are not.
Let me clarify a few things. Do you misinterpret Einstein's statement
of "spooky action at a distance" as implying he believed in non-
locality?
Also, do you agree with PD's statement that "non-local effects do not
propagate non-locally but locally" ?
PD
Explain how.
> To avoid misunderstanding, tell us how you define non-
> locality. I get the impression your screws are loose in this topic.
Now, see, I asked David if he wanted a reference to look up what
"nonlocal" means to a physicist. He couldn't summon the courage to ask
me for it, so he's going to you instead.
Childish, childish manipulation maneuvers.
PD
PD
>
> Also, do you agree with PD's statement that "non-local effects do not
> propagate non-locally but locally" ?
Since you put this in quotation marks, indicating a direct quote,
perhaps you could point to the post where I said that.
PD
Tom Roberts
> There are other ways to attack a paradigm that don't require
> falsifying it to show it's wrong. One can be wrong not just for what
> one says wrong, but (far more importantly) for what one does NOT say,
> that's correct.
>
> Any time you have a paradigm shift from A -> B, especially when A's
> been around a long time and has gotten a huge reservoir of empirical
> support; there is not ONE thing that need to be done to establish a
> cohesive connection from A to B, but TWO. The first requires the
> support of the kind which, as you mention, could be undermined by
> falsification; but for the second -- which is almost universally
> neglected -- the issue is utterly irrelevant.
>
> The criteria all focus on the issue of what's known as the
> Correspondence Limit. The most precise statement of this principle
> (once you remove all the hand-wavers and sloppy "just left h-bar go to
> 0" or "just let c to go infinity" amateurs from the room) boils down
> to stipulation of a *continuous* connection between the actual
> *formal* structures underlying the two paradigms in what may be known
> as theory-space.
I disagree. Strongly.
The reason a new theory B needs some relationship to the old theory A is
purely experimental: there were many experiments that supported and
confirmed A, so for B to be valid it must meet those experimental tests
(at least those within its domain). NOTHING more is needed [#]. In
particular, there need be no "*continuous* connection" between the
"formal structures" of A and B. That's an unreasonable constraint on the
structure of physical theories.
You are attempting to place constraints based on HUMAN
HISTORY onto the structure of new physical theories.
That's silly -- Nature has no cognizance of human history.
And, of course, humans have been known to get things wrong....
Indeed, it seems rather likely that some new theories of quantum gravity
could have no such continuous limit, yet be completely compatible with
the experimental record: I'm thinking specifically of theories not based
on a spacetime manifold -- a theory based on complex topological
structure at the Planck scale might well have a structure that could not
be *continuously* morphed into relativity's spacetime manifold.
[#] The existence of a continuous parameter that in some limit
takes B to A makes this easy to verify for many experiments
all in one fell swoop. But that's not the only way to do so
-- one could perform the usual comparison for each experiment,
individually.
> Completeness means that ALL the structure of A should be pulled back
> over into B by the suitable formulation of the INVERSE correspondence
> limit.
Again I disagree. This is physics, not math, and there's no need to do
this at all. What is needed is that ALL THE EXPERIMENTS (within B's
domain) that supported and confirmed A also support and confirm B, or at
least do not refute B. That is ALL that is required. The existence of
previous theory A in no way constrains the new theory B to "be like A"
or "have a limit A" or "include all possible phenomena that are in the
domain of A" (B will have its own domain [%]). Indeed, in general, the
existence of A is completely irrelevant to the validity of B -- all that
is required for B to be valid is that B not be refuted by any experiment
within its domain.
[%] It is highly desirable that the domain of B include the
entire domain of A, but that is not required. Of course it
may well be the case that if the domain of B omits a major
portion of the domain of A, then B will not replace A in
the minds of scientists....
Again I imagine a potential future theory of quantum gravity. It could
well be perfectly valid for it to not include "ALL" aspects of GR (such
as the singularity theorems), as long as it satisfies all of the
EXPERIMENTAL TESTS of GR. Indeed, this is the hope (or even expectation)
of many physicists....
You are attempting to place constraints based on HUMAN HISTORY onto the
structure of new physical theories. That's silly -- Nature has no
cognizance of human history. And, of course, humans have been known to
get things wrong....
IOW: your "theory-space" need not be some sort of
"continuous structure". Nor does it need to be any
particular type of mathematical category. AFAICT it need
have no particular structure whatsoever, and different
theories can be completely unrelated to each other, as
long as they meet the requirements of being a scientific
theory.
Rather than considering "theory-space", think "phenomena space", and
Venn diagrams on it that represent the domains of validity for various
physical theories. B and A should overlap considerably, and preferably B
should include A. This, of course, does not represent any sort of
underlying theoretical relationship between A and B, because in general
there need be none. It is quite possible that A simply got things wrong,
but was "lucky" and just happened to be able to meet the experimental
tests of its day.
For example, in the light of GR this last seems to the the
case for Newtonian Gravitation. Indeed, such "luck" has
been outrageously common in the history of physics....
Tom Roberts
Tom Roberts
> On Mar 17, 6:28 pm, Igor <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:
>> Please explain what experiment(s) you performed to falsify SR?-
>
You posted this twice. I responded to the other one.
Tom Roberts
Greg Neill
>
> [...]
>
>> So we have your unsupported assertion and that takes care of a century
>> of evidence. If you could show this, you would. You cannot. You are
>> only blustering.
>
is
> unsafe driving around.
Non sequitur. Doug never mentioned vehicles nor tires.
>
> Doug cannot understand either time dilation already handles the different
> inertia a particle moving at c - epsilon will be subjected to because of
its
> slower interaction with its environment. Therefore deviating a particle
at
> this velocity already requires a stronger force and there is no need
> increasing its "mass". In fact if you do, you'll be doubling the effects.
Phil does not understand conservation laws, such as
energy or momentum.
Phil Bouchard
"Greg Neill" <gnei...@MOVEsympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:49c3ab99$0$19656$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com...
>
> Non sequitur. Doug never mentioned vehicles nor tires.
Greg can't recognize parables.
> Phil does not understand conservation laws, such as
> energy or momentum.
Inertia is the resistance against a change in its motion.
doug
Phil Bouchard wrote:
> "doug" <x...@xx.com> wrote in message
> news:0IOdneSIncirhl7U...@posted.docknet...
>
> [...]
>
>
>>So we have your unsupported assertion and that takes care of a century
>>of evidence. If you could show this, you would. You cannot. You are
>>only blustering.
>
>
> According to Doug if you have 3 flat tires, it doesn't mean your vehicule is
> unsafe driving around.
>
> Doug cannot understand either time dilation already handles the different
> inertia a particle moving at c - epsilon will be subjected to because of its
> slower interaction with its environment.
Nice assertion but you cannot support it with any math showing how it
agrees with experiments. Until then, you are just dreaming and blustering.
Therefore deviating a particle at
> this velocity already requires a stronger force and there is no need
> increasing its "mass". In fact if you do, you'll be doubling the effects.
>
>
We have seen lots of words from you but that is not a scientific theory.
You have nothing so far. There is nothing to believe in from you.
Relativity has a century of experiments behind it. Any new theory must
explain ALL of them. So far you have failed to explain ANY of them.
No one will take you seriously until you have done some work.
doug
Phil Bouchard wrote:
> "Greg Neill" <gnei...@MOVEsympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:49c3ab99$0$19656$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com...
>
>>Non sequitur. Doug never mentioned vehicles nor tires.
>
>
> Greg can't recognize parables.
So phil has a theory with three flat tires but he does
not see a problem with that.
>
>
>>Phil does not understand conservation laws, such as
>>energy or momentum.
>
>
> Inertia is the resistance against a change in its motion.
It is good that phil is showing that Greg is correct.
>
>
Phil Bouchard
[...]
> Your stupidity is not a scientific arguement. You have only shown you
> have no clue what relativity is. You have presented no evidence of any
> problems just your dislikes. Those do not get you anywhere in science.
> CS maybe but not science.
You guys are skipping calculus and jumping straight to pride and glory by
following Einstein's, his miracles and propheties. I proved 99% of what I
said and bring on your particle accelerator measurements because your
equations can be easily replace since time dilation will affect acceleration
as much as "increasing" the mass.
doug
Phil Bouchard wrote:
> "doug" <x...@xx.com> wrote in message
> news:0IOdneWIncg3h17U...@posted.docknet...
>
> [...]
>
>
>>Your stupidity is not a scientific arguement. You have only shown you
>>have no clue what relativity is. You have presented no evidence of any
>>problems just your dislikes. Those do not get you anywhere in science.
>>CS maybe but not science.
>
>
> You guys are skipping calculus and jumping straight to pride and glory by
> following Einstein's, his miracles and propheties. I proved 99% of what I
> said
Where did you do this? Not here certainly.
and bring on your particle accelerator measurements because your
> equations can be easily replace since time dilation will affect acceleration
> as much as "increasing" the mass.
This statement shows that you have had only the comic book introduction
to relativity. But we knew that already.
>
>
Greg Neill
What color is the sky in your world, Phil? You seem to
have done a lot of things there that never happened here
in the real world.
Eric Gisse
Why don't you take a minute from telling us all about how the field we
have studied for years is wrong and explain why you suddenly stopped
doing CS stuff and started off against physics.
If you had any aptitude [or interest] you would have gone into the
field. Are you bored, Phil?