Photon in an acceleration field

[Mazulu]

Well alrighty then. I have the solution to all your problems. The problem Mazulu is that you are on the wrong forum. You are hawking your ideas to the wrong people. You should be on the free energy, alternative energy, perpetual motion and UFO forums (etc). They are all going to want to help you get that energy beam contraption working. I guarantee it. They will eat that stuff up like plum pudding.

Or you could buy some spam advertising that could be on all the best websites. It could say something like, "Get free energy with this one weird loophole in physics." People love that crap. You are just preaching to the wrong audience. Go forth Mazulu, and find your destiny elsewhere.

Just give me the list of websites, I'll go now. It would be so much easier to explain this stuff to a receptive audience. Instead, I've got bloggers sniping at me about the postulates of relativity (which I thought were established as fact?). Heck, the GPS on my cellphone works, so GR and QM must describe nature very well.

You asked about,

Here is a question I would like you to answer. Do you get more energy out of the acceleration field than you use to make it? What about conservation laws?

At first glance, it looks like you can. But after thinking about it, conservation of energy has a strange relationship with gravity. There is also a thermodynamic loophole as well, but I simply can't grasp it right now. But yes, you can get energy from the quantum vacuum. The amount of gravity it causes is not noticeable (except for LIGO which might finally notice a gravity wave go by).

 

[AlexG]

Just give me the list of websites, I'll go now

unexplainedmysteries.com

Your aliens are probably posting there.

 

[Cheezle]

Instead, I've got bloggers sniping at me about the postulates of relativity (which I thought were established as fact?).

Well, arfa was correct. Your reply (first postulate of SR) was true, but the implication is that you don't understand. 'nuff said.

 

[Mazulu]

Well, arfa was correct. Your reply (first postulate of SR) was true, but the implication is that you don't understand. 'nuff said.

I understand enough to know that relativity works just fine without physicists whining about their math jargon being hijacked by reality. Math jargon would be of zero worth if it was not for the behavior of nature.

 

[Cheezle]

I understand enough to know that relativity works just fine without physicists whining about their math jargon being hijacked by reality. Math jargon would be of zero worth if it was not for the behavior of nature.

Not sure I understand what you are talking about. But, a reference frame is a description, just as arfa said.

 

[Mazulu]

unexplainedmysteries.com

Your aliens are probably posting there.

Surely you can do better.

 

[Mazulu]

Not sure I understand what you are talking about. But, a reference frame is a description, just as arfa said.

A description of what? Can you guess the right answer?

 

[Cheezle]

A description of what? Can you guess the right answer?

I guess not. I always distinguish between a description and the real thing. But you are probably right. I just don't live close to my coordinate axes and so never see them or even think about them. What do they look like anyway. Perhaps you could post a picture.

 

[arfa brane]

You're welcome to argue with the first postulate of special relativity: The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference.

I'm arguing that the laws of physics are the same in any frame of reference.
One of the reasons is that coordinates aren't special, they just identify positions, positions aren't material. So contrary to what you claimed, any means of identifying them can't be material.

Although there are numbers on letterboxes, the distance between letterboxes is just "space", right? So what's the distance between x[sub]1[/sub] and x[sub]2[/sub] in the string "x[sub]1[/sub] x[sub]2[/sub]"? What's it made of?

 

[Cheezle]

Just give me the list of websites, I'll go now.

I spent about 15 minutes and found the perfect new home for you.
http://www.gravitycontrol.org/forum/

They are very space alien friendly there too!

 

[Mazulu]

I'm arguing that the laws of physics are the same in any frame of reference.
One of the reasons is that coordinates aren't special, they just identify positions, positions aren't material. So contrary to what you claimed, any means of identifying them can't be material.

I see the problem. I looked up inertial reference frames in wiki. Inertial frames are defined as a frame of reference that describes time and space homogeneously, isotropically, and in a time-independent manner. So your argument is justified based upon accepted physics knowledge. I can't fault you for telling me what you were taught. I have to find fault with the methodology of the physics community. I have to fault them for ignoring the ontological foundations of physics. I have to fault the physics community for ignoring the mechanisms that make relativity work. Without an aether medium, there are experiments that physicists would never think to try. Without an aether medium, you can't see how the pieces fit together.

 

[FTLinmedium]

It is not prudent to drive off all disagreement; discussion, even inane discussion, is one of the things that makes and keeps forums alive. Sometimes strange views, wrong as they may be, can keep things interesting.

 

[origin]

Without an aether medium, you can't see how the pieces fit together.

Correction: You can't see how the pieces fit together. Your ability to understand a theory is not one of the requirements of a viable theory - sorry.

 

[Cheezle]

It is not prudent to drive off all disagreement; discussion, even inane discussion, is one of the things that makes and keeps forums alive. Sometimes strange views, wrong as they may be, can keep things interesting.

I agree FTLinmedium, the world takes all types to be interesting. I once had long discussions with a guy who believed he was Jesus Christ (I think, it was a subtle point). He was a pretty smart guy, just a little weird. He saw patterns and symbols in everything. It was interesting to hear his opinions on just about any subject. But Mazulu is a special case. Notice how every subject he discusses turns into his aether wave theory. This thread is one he started so that is ok. But he does this in all threads. He seems incapable of discussing the topic at hand other than to declare it null and void because of his aether wave theory. All he can talk about is his idea, or his aliens idea, I get them mixed up. And he does too for some reason.

He will enjoy that forum I suggested (I hope). His alien contact will be fully believed and welcomed there and the forum is about his favorite subject, gravity control. He will be the resident expert there too, since he can talk physics accurately enough to convince them that he knows what he is talking about. And that is what he wants I think. To be special and smart in everyone's eyes. After all the aliens chose him to deliver the good news of FTL drives via gravity beams and aether waves. They could have picked anyone but he was the best choice. hehe. I am just about done pestering him. I kind of feel sorry for him. He has something wrong with him. He must be a social misfit. He is irrational. He has no ability to focus on the discussion, and lives in a world of his own making. He can't stay on any topic but aether waves, and photon gravity beams. I find it annoying and others to too apparently.

 

[FTLinmedium]

You kind of have to admire his determination, though. I mean, how long has he been at this?

Oddly enough, I don't think he would like the forum you linked to- he'll probably look around and see a bunch of nodding heads, and think he's in a nut house. There's something that brings people like this to credible sites- and it's because they're seeking credible acceptance (even if they criticize it). I could be wrong, but I don't think being accepted by a bunch of nutters is going to satisfy him.

 

[Mazulu]

I'm arguing that the laws of physics are the same in any frame of reference.
One of the reasons is that coordinates aren't special, they just identify positions, positions aren't material. So contrary to what you claimed, any means of identifying them can't be material.

I see the problem. I looked up inertial reference frames in wiki. Inertial frames are defined as a frame of reference that describes time and space homogeneously, isotropically, and in a time-independent manner. So your argument is justified based upon accepted physics knowledge. I can't fault you for telling me what you were taught. I have to find fault with the methodology of the physics community. I have to fault them for ignoring the ontological foundations of physics. I have to fault the physics community for ignoring the mechanisms that make relativity work. Without an aether medium, there are experiments that physicists would never think to try. Without an aether medium, you can't see how the pieces fit together.

 

[AlexG]

but I don't think being accepted by a bunch of nutters is going to satisfy him.

Of course it will. He can't tell the differenence between a crank case and a credible poster.

 

[FTLinmedium]

Of course it will. He can't tell the differenence between a crank case and a credible poster.

I don't think that's the case. Most of these 'theorists' seem to be able to detect BS to a certain degree in others- they just have blind spots with regards to their own ideas or dogmas.

Case in point: Religious literalists will point out the obvious scientific flaws in the literalism of other religions, without being able to recognize those in their own myths or offering special pleading as an excuse (not to say anything about religion in general, mind you- just the extreme/literalist interpretations).

These people at this prospective forum will all have slightly different ideas- some of which may be in disagreement with his own; I think he'll find conflict there without the reward. I think he does know the difference between pitching his ideas to credible and knowledgeable professionals and pitching them to more gullible people. He'd have arguments with some, while some others of them will just accept everything and anything, but I don't think that would do it for him.

I may be completely wrong, though- I can't see inside his head. I just don't expect that he'd like it there, or that it would satisfy what he's after here.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

I see the problem.

You've been looking in a mirror?

I looked up inertial reference frames in wiki.

Comments like this make it all the more ridiculous when you then go on to say

I have to find fault with the methodology of the physics community. I have to fault them for ignoring the ontological foundations of physics. I have to fault the physics community for ignoring the mechanisms that make relativity work.

You don't know what one of the basic and core concepts in physics means yet you know what the physics community is or isn't doing, what they are or aren't thinking about? You have no idea what the physics community has done or is doing.

Inertial frames are defined as a frame of reference that describes time and space homogeneously, isotropically, and in a time-independent manner. So your argument is justified based upon accepted physics knowledge.

Knowledge which has experimental backing, unlike your claims.

Without an aether medium, there are experiments that physicists would never think to try. Without an aether medium, you can't see how the pieces fit together.

Except you have demonstrated you don't know how the pieces fit together. You're regularly making basic mistakes and then ignoring when they are pointed, while continuing to claim you have some insight others do not. There are obviously things you never think of, basic things, like what it means to provide a reasoned argument or be logically consistent. Until you can demonstrate anything you're saying has any basis in reality you're no more scientific than a crazy person yelling aliens told him the end is nigh. In your case they just supposedly told you something else.

 

[Mazulu]

You've been looking in a mirror? Comments like this make it all the more ridiculous when you then go on to say
You don't know what one of the basic and core concepts in physics means yet you know what the physics community is or isn't doing, what they are or aren't thinking about? You have no idea what the physics community has done or is doing. Knowledge which has experimental backing, unlike your claims. Except you have demonstrated you don't know how the pieces fit together. You're regularly making basic mistakes and then ignoring when they are pointed, while continuing to claim you have some insight others do not. There are obviously things you never think of, basic things, like what it means to provide a reasoned argument or be logically consistent. Until you can demonstrate anything you're saying has any basis in reality you're no more scientific than a crazy person yelling aliens told him the end is nigh. In your case they just supposedly told you something else.

This is utter garbage. You dispute my aether medium ideas with opinionated rubbish. Let's go over it again. Second postulate of relativity says: The speed of light in free space has the same value C in all inertial frames of reference.

How do you explain this? The way I explain it is that the aether is made of EM waves that obey $$c=\lambda f$$. I expect you to avoid a rational discussion about an aether medium. After all, this isn't a science community, this is Troll land. I'm done trying to explain this to trolls. See ya.