So are you going to bother reading those books I name or are you just going to keep whining how noone spoon feeds you an explanation which is within the grasp of a 10 year old?
as I said a while ago Alphanumerico 'tis not my problem that you can't determine the mechanism that allows universal constants, and it's not my problem that you are stuck with a photonic causation model that is going to keep science in the dark ages for some time yet.So are you going to bother reading those books I name or are you just going to keep whining how noone spoon feeds you an explanation which is within the grasp of a 10 year old?
Sorry, but I just don't think you guys get it. Relativity assigns kinematic and dynamic variables to the system of interest, and then calculates how that system evolves over time, as seen from various inertial frames. Based on these calculations, we can then predict how various processes will affect our measuring devices, and where and when these things happen. Doesn't matter what sort of measuring device you use. For example, as a clock you could use a human being's aging process, a cuckoo clock, a stopwatch, a metronome... anything that reads time will be affected in the same way. If you don't like the philosophical concept of treating space and time as relative things, or don't like the idea that velocities are only relative and all inertial frames are equivalent, that's your prerogative. Unless you can demonstrate a mathematical inconsistency in relativity or a known phenomenon that completely disagrees with it, I don't think I have anything more I can discuss with you guys on this topic.
Nowhere in any of my equations have I made any reference to absolute motion or the need for it, and the acceleration history is irrelevant as well, only relative velocity matters here.
As far as evidence goes, like I said particle lifetime measurements at different velocities make a great example, and it's easy to show that the acceleration history is irrelevant here too. Please read carefully through my most recent description of how the experiment shows that only relative velocity counts. Since the Earth is orbiting the sun, I don't think there's any reason to think we might happen to be in an absolute frame of rest, but it doesn't matter whatsoever what time of year you do the experiment. So at this point I guess if your objections are philosophical, I can't get you to accept concepts you don't want to accept. If you have any mathematics you can use to demonstrate your points, that's all I'm willing to discuss for the remainder of this particular thread.
So are you going to bother reading those books I name or are you just going to keep whining how noone spoon feeds you an explanation which is within the grasp of a 10 year old?
There is nothing wrong with that POV in MHO, but it does not touch on the fundamental disagreement between QQ and accepted science.I think I know a happy middle ground for the two of you, although I'll admit I could definitely use more practice on the quantum field theory side of things. I believe quantum field theory would argue that at all times, the photon's wavefunction exists everywhere in the universe. The average value of its position would move through space at the speed of light, but there's nothing stopping the photon from making a random jump to the opposite end of the galaxy at any moment. Yet there is some debate as to whether the wavefunction implies that the photon itself exists everywhere, and some could argue that in fact the photon exists entirely outside the apparatus altogether until the measurements are made. I think QM would say that, unless we find a way to beat the uncertainty principle, this question is impossible for us to answer through experiment.
CptBork said:Originally Posted by geistkiesel
Do not some critics point out that Fizeau did not actually measure relativity?
IN AE's "Relativity" AE states regarding the Fizeay experiment, ," . . . The light plays the part of the man walking on the carriage . . ." In the man walking scenario the velocity of the man relative to the embankment was the velocity of the man relative to the carriage plus the velocity of the carriage relative to the embankment. Substituting light for the man without subtracting the velocity of the train assumes that light and the man are identical,seen from the carriage or the embankment both observers are aware of the 'speed of light independence' postulate. Earlier in the chapter (CH V) AE recognized light speed as independent of the speed of the source of the light hence the substitution,'light for man' was a gross error. ”
You mean the way Einstein added velocities?CptBork said:Not true at all. In relativity, velocities don't add the way you describe. If two spacecraft are each going at near lightspeed relative to Earth, in opposite directions, the spacecraft will still see each other travelling at less than lightspeed. So whether you use a man or a beam of light, it wouldn't matter. In the Fizeau experiment the light is travelling at somewhat less than c because it's carried in a refractory medium like water, so you can treat it like a fast-moving spaceship.'
AE starts out W = v + w, where W is the speed of the man wrt the embankment
,v is the speed wrt the embankment and w the speed of the man wrt the carriage.
AE substitutes the SOL c for W the SOL wrt the embankment and w the SOL wrt the carriage - AE substitutes light for the man walking, but earlier he recoignized that te SOL is ndependenbt of the speed of the source of light, this directly contrary to the speed of the man as seen by the embankment observer where W is the sum of v + w. The embankment observer sees the substitued 'SOL for the speed of the man' ad he measures this light w as equal to c. When he then rearranges w = c - v, and while stating that w is the OL wrt the carriage, the terms for c and v (in the 'c-v' expression) are both measured wrt the embankment, yet AE wants you to overlook the frame switch where w is said to be measured wrt the carriage and then claims this violates the princples of relativity - when it only violates the [princimple of inertial frame switching.
CptBork said:“ Originally Posted by geistkiesel
So, the thinking of astronauts and meteors somehow determine the laws of physics? ”
Har har har. It's pretty obvious what I was implying there.
Your 'universal constants' whining isn't even coherent, as special relativity is entirely consistent with the constants found in physics and when combined with quantum mechanics correctly predicts how such 'constants' as the fine structure constant vary with energy. And your unwillingness to look at evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist.as I said a while ago Alphanumerico 'tis not my problem that you can't determine the mechanism that allows universal constants, and it's not my problem that you are stuck with a photonic causation model that is going to keep science in the dark ages for some time yet.
What notes do you have? 20 years of work with nothing to show for it is all you have. You haven't read anything, you haven't worked through any thing, you haven't learnt anything. You've achieved nothing.So you work it out then and when you do we can compare notes...
You and Kent Hovind can go on a tour of Christian Science reading rooms.until then I keep my 100 bucks and I launch a web campaign when I get round to it and make some money out of your stupidity....
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2320131#post2320131You mean the way Einstein added velocities?
AE starts out W = v + w, where W is the speed of the man wrt the embankment
,v is the speed wrt the embankment and w the speed of the man wrt the carriage.
AE substitutes the SOL c for W the SOL wrt the embankment and w the SOL wrt the carriage - AE substitutes light for the man walking, but earlier he recoignized that te SOL is ndependenbt of the speed of the source of light, this directly contrary to the speed of the man as seen by the embankment observer where W is the sum of v + w. The embankment observer sees the substitued 'SOL for the speed of the man' ad he measures this light w as equal to c. When he then rearranges w = c - v, and while stating that w is the OL wrt the carriage, the terms for c and v (in the 'c-v' expression) are both measured wrt the embankment, yet AE wants you to overlook the frame switch where w is said to be measured wrt the carriage and then claims this violates the princples of relativity - when it only violates the [princimple of inertial frame switching.
Yes, but one important characteristic of light is not likely to be achieved by octopi as they seldom travel in straight lines for very long.... Or maybe invisible space octopuses grab the photon and teleport it to the detector, tweaking it to appear as if it travelled through space, so we humans never find out the actual truth and acquire the technology needed to stop these octopii once and for all. Either viewpoint agrees with experiment.
No, if the unicorns have to go from molecule to molecule, they have to change direction a lot and this would wear down their hoves normally so they have to don thick protective unicorn shoes, to counter this, when they go through dense substances and that is why they slow down.If light is to be transported in your frame the local carriers get the job - that (with the only one gait) expains why light has the same speed in all frames. But of course if they must run between the molecules of glass etc. that does slow them down. This explains the index of refraction effect.
Yes, but one important characteristic of light is not likely to be achieved by octopi as they seldom travel in straight lines for very long.
That is why when I advanced this same alternative many posts back, I told you and everyone that the carriers of the photon energy were tiny invisible unicorns. Everyone knows that they only run in straight lines, which race horse can only approximate, until the bounce off some fence etc. Unicorns are very fast but have only one gait. They also have a very strong labor union: If light is to be transported in your frame the local carriers get the job - that (with the only one gait) expains why light has the same speed in all frames. But of course if they must run between the molecules of glass etc. that does slow them down. This explains the index of refraction effect.
Thus your theory is not only WRONG but incomplete. What are you? :shrug: Some kind of idiot?
What makes you think I do not do that? Acutually, I have published many papers on string and bains; Of course like here I do not use my real name.... you're only fit to do string theory
Oh Yea! That is crazy! If the octipi are so strong and dominate, then tell me why it is called "LIGHT energy" - I have already explained that in footnote of prior post. Octpi live in water - Every one know that removes most of the effect of gravity - if your army of octipi were the carriers the energy would be called "HEAVY" energy - See my footnote of prior post for more details.... my octopii comprise an entire army! ...
With such an imagination, unconstrained by observable facts, I assume you too publish string papers.No, if the unicorns have to go from molecule to molecule, they have to change direction a lot and this would wear down their hoves normally so they have to don thick protective unicorn shoes, to counter this, when they go through dense substances and that is why they slow down. ...
Oh Yea! That is crazy! If the octipi are so strong and dominate, then tell me why it is called "LIGHT energy" - I have already explained that in footnote of prior post. Octpi live in water - Every one know that removes most of the effect of gravity - if your army of octipi were the carriers the energy would be called "HEAVY" energy - See my footnote of prior post for more details.
I think QQ will agree. I think QQ believes that the delay of light propagation is due to an "inertial effect" of matter. I.e. QQ states that we never see the photon by its self - only via matter.
QQ: Is that fair and reasonably accurate summary of your POV?
What this means immmediately is that an alternative causation model for the light effects IS Possible and that is the whole point of the exercise. That being to provide at least a small window of opportunity for a better and more comprehensive model that includes universal constants instead of making them theoretically impossble due to relative simultaneity issues.I agree entirely with your point. But it's impossible to detect the EM field without first putting some sort of detection apparatus up in the empty region of space. I think QQ would just claim then that adding the extra apparatus caused the experiment to change, so now the photon still exists wherever you measure it but "nowhere inbetween". It's a philosophical point and not worth arguing over in the slightest. Maybe the EM field really does travel between source and detector, or at least the expectation value of each photon's wave function does. Or maybe invisible space octopuses grab the photon and teleport it to the detector, tweaking it to appear as if it travelled through space, so we humans never find out the actual truth and acquire the technology needed to stop these octopii once and for all. Either viewpoint agrees with experiment.
Yes definitely lets join forces. We already agree on the basic principle as first stated above. I.e. "I'm right and your wrong." is the powerful argument that MacM and QQ etc use so hell, even MacM and QQ will join forces with us under that banner. Let get cracking team....But the fact is ... I'm right and you're wrong... So what do you say, Billy T? Want to join forces and overturn this ridiculous, self-entitled establishment once and for all?
ha...."in an octopussies garden in the shade"...Beatles..Here's some experimental proof!