Well, of the three teenagers I've asked they all knew about it - but then again they were sitting for us. Most of the parents I have spoken to knew about it. I suspect most teenagers wouldn't know about it - but then again, most teenagers don't know much of anything.
Runaway Global Warming
- Thread starter Facial
- Start date
One of the conspiracy theories that Physbang alludes to is regarding the Hubble Telescope debacle.
Con. Theory.
Hubble program gets rush funding finally and telescope is launched, 1990, with correctly manufactured pre-anomaly specification mirrors. Thus the initial results are blurred images. [blurring due to anomaly and not human error]
The solution at an enormous cost is to install remotely adjustable correcting lens that allow for the possibility of frequent re-adjustment to the resultant focus as the anomaly progresses.
Ground to pre-anomaly specification:
Adjusted remotely mirrors to post-anomaly requirement [ not pre-anomaly specification ]:
images c/o http://www.spacetelescope.org/about/history/aberration_problem/
The proof or evidence of the time anomaly, will be found if the Conspiracy theory holds true, in the recalibration records kept by the Hubble support team regarding the adjustments they are forced to perform to the adjustable focusing lenses [ mirrors] to accommodate changes in the anomaly that are beyond that which pre-anomaly theory would expect.
Con. Theory.
Hubble program gets rush funding finally and telescope is launched, 1990, with correctly manufactured pre-anomaly specification mirrors. Thus the initial results are blurred images. [blurring due to anomaly and not human error]
The solution at an enormous cost is to install remotely adjustable correcting lens that allow for the possibility of frequent re-adjustment to the resultant focus as the anomaly progresses.
Ground to pre-anomaly specification:
Adjusted remotely mirrors to post-anomaly requirement [ not pre-anomaly specification ]:
images c/o http://www.spacetelescope.org/about/history/aberration_problem/
The proof or evidence of the time anomaly, will be found if the Conspiracy theory holds true, in the recalibration records kept by the Hubble support team regarding the adjustments they are forced to perform to the adjustable focusing lenses [ mirrors] to accommodate changes in the anomaly that are beyond that which pre-anomaly theory would expect.
Last edited:
When looking at the data provided by Australian Bureau of Stats.
You will note that the RTR (reducing the risks) campaign kicked in around 1990. The RTR was primarily about addressing the risk of over heating of the infant even during cold weather also the reduction in passive smoking etc...
It is quite normal to expect that a baby that is demonstrating potential hyper thermia, be cared for and treated for such. So of course the incidence of morbidity drops.
It is also to be noted that there are no surviving SIDS babies where as there are living survivors of Asthma.
In this case (SIDS) as is with asthma treatment that involves dealing with over heating only proves my point that both conditions may have their genesis or point of origin in the general over heating of all matter.
Thus can be used to support the hypothesis that Global Warming is primarily due to planetary mass over heating [ hyper thermia ] and not directly to anthropogenic CO2 outputs.
Despite my post 390 and 395, you still don't understand: There is no distortion in the fast moving (wrt to you) object, or its frame or its contents. Thus no "mechanism needed" as everything there is as normal as it is here. When they observed us here our clocks are running much too slowly and all here is contracted along the direction of our motion seen by them. Likewise when we observe things there, we see them as contracted too and that their clocks are running slowly.
You are a SID case (simply idiotically dense). I have several times explained to your and even illustrated with calculations in an example how both time dilation of clock rates in other frames and length contraction of object in them is only our perception of them. The atomic decay or Timex clocks are working just fine (same as here). For example if they measure the half life muon or any isotope decay, print it in a book, put the book on a rocket ship and that ship comes to reset in our frame and we read it - the value is the same half life as we measure for muon decay. The earth has a great orbital velocity then changes direction 180 degrees each 6 months - switches to a quite different essentially inertial frame, yet the values printed in the "Hand book of Physics' are still valid!
Again: the laws of physic are NOT "frame dependent" but the same for all inertial frames even if moving with 95% of light wrt to on another. For example all meter sticks are the same number of a certain Hg line's wave lengths that once defined the meter's length, long.
In general physics is the same in all inertial frames and observations made by one frame of events or clock rates or lengths in the other frames are symmetric too. I.e. each see the others clock as running slower than his own and lengths of meter sticks there as shorter than his own. (when "longwise" in the direction of relative motion). I'll try one last time to penetrate you thick skull with facts, supported by SR and confirmed literally millions of times with not one exception.
There is nothing wrong with SR. It is your excessive arrogance that compels your to think you can fix what ain't broke and you great ignorance of physics that allows you to offer a series of non-sense ideas as the "fix." Stop that. I'm tired of shooting them down instead:
Imagine you are at an airshow and when a 20 meter long super sonic plane flies at 1000 m/sec, not far (10 m) above your hand-held, extremely high shutter speed, camera, which is pointed straight up and that the shutter is very briefly opened at the exact instant the light from the planes tail falls directly vertically into the camera lens. Now to make numbers not too small yet illustrate the point, I falsely assume the speed of light is only 5,000m/s .
So at that brief (say one nano-second instant when lens was opened at t= 0), the plane's tail was not at x= 0, the exactly over head point. It was at x = {light's vertical transit time 10/ 5000 = 0.002sec} {plane's speed, 1000m/sec} = x = 2 meters and then the nose was at x = 22m but light reflected by the nose at t= 0 had not arrived at the lens until after it had shut. Where was the nose when "nose light" entered the briefly open shutter? Well it too had to enter the lens at t = 0 when shutter was open, so that light had to leave the nose at some time I'll call -T when the nose was at location X < 22m.
The right angle triangle of nose at X and one vertical leg has legs of length X and 10 meters, length of the path that nose light must travel to the camera lens is SqRt(100 + X^2) meters, which for convenience, I'll just call "H" for Hypotenuse length and it starts this journey -T < 0 (before t=0) to arrive at the lens when the shutter is open. We know H/(-T) = 5,000m/second or (H/T)^2 = 25E6 or H^2 = 25E6T^2 and that light path length, H is also given by: H^2 = (100 + X^2) from the right triangle geometry, so:
T^2 = {4 + (X/5)^2}E(-6). Assume and test, X =15 as we know it must be less than 22. Then H would be: sqrt(100+225) = 18.028meters and T would be: sqrt(4+9)E^-3 = ~3.6056/ 1000 and the speed of light to travel that 18.028m in that time T would needs to be 1000(18.028/3.6056 = 5000m/sec and is, as assumed. (There is some is some circular logic here, but I'm trying to illustrate the point that the nose light which entered the camera did so before the nose got to x = 22m. (I don't have more time to waste on you.)
Thus the length of the plane as seen by the camera or any other instrument, including your eye, which is not moving with the moving frame, will be contracted for others in all other frames - no "mechanism" need to accomplish this. It is a universal effect: observations, camera images, etc. will always falsely conclude the moving object is contracted along the direction of motion. In this illustration the tail was at x = 2 meters and the nose at 18.028 m when the open shutter was capturing light from them - making a photograph measure of the plane's length as 16.028m, not its true 20m length.
Again the above is not fully correct, nor does it use any SR, it is only any attempt (and my last) to reign in your ego / arrogance and ability to create non-sense "solutions" to problems that don't really exist. Please stop "fixing what ain't broke." Instead learn the physics of the SR theory's many confirming experimental tests.
Last edited by a moderator:
let us see what you have written:
that:
and...
thus clearly stating that SRT length contraction is merely a perception and optical illusion and therefore not a true state of things. Based on your "no need for a mechanism", of course SRT length contraction is an illusion and no mechanism is required and the MUON decay supporting evidence is merely an illusion also.
Do you realize that you are also , by implication, declaring the invariance of light speed via a vacuum to be an illusion as well? [Which I actually happen to agree with
]So tell me, if I shut my eyes, do SRT predicted effects including the invariance of light speed just... uhm...disappear?
I was under the impression that physics was about finding that underlying mechanism and not simply wave you hands around exclaiming..."There is no mechanism. That's the way it is, get over it"
Last edited:
BTW There is an interesting thing to take a peek at with the MUON particle SRT explanation... but another thread perhaps!
No neither is an illusion as they are the real results of measurements in you frame. I even told one way the muon's travel distance contraction (or some other case of length contraction) has been MEASURED in footnote to post 395, which was this blue text:
to actually measure the magnitude of the contraction, you need (1) to know the half-life of the particle when basically at rest in your reference frame. Just for illustration assume it is 0.1 micro second, E(-7) sec. I.e. If traveling at 2.99E8 meters /second, (almost speed of light), half will decay in when they have traveled 29.9 meters in their reference frame. (how far you walk etc. is ALWAYS MESURED BY YOU, IN YOUR OWN REFERENCE FRAME)
and
(2) then you need to measure the flux density of these particles in a shower at various altitude separations (at least two)
Say we use ground level and at 10,000 meters. If the flux density at ground level is 50% as great as it is at 10,000 meters, that tells you that half have decayed while traveling 10,000 OF YOUR meters. (OR again 29.9 of THEIR meters)
Thus for these particles your 10,000 meters is contracted to only 29.9 meters in their inertial frame; or contracted by a factor or 10,000/29.9 = 334 times.
For additional clarity I now add that last 10,000 meter of air in our frame REALLY WAS ONLY 29.9M thick for the decaying particles. That is NOT and illusion. In the frame which is fast moving at us, when they have travel 29.9m half and only half have decayed while passing thru OUR 10,000 m thick air. - This is because physics is the same in all frames. - I.e. half those particle always die after 29.9m of near speed of light travel in any frame their source was stationary in. (Our, rest frame included as we measures that for their "half decay travel distance" too.) Physics is not "frame dependent."
That 29.9 m is measured always from their "release" or creation point, which is stationary in the measurement frame, even though their source's rest frame which is moving at us very fast. For easier understanding image the particle were not created by what we, in our frame call "cosmic rays," but were from the instantaneous and simultaneous decay of many radioisotopes which are also approaching earths surface at 2.99E8 meters/ sec. - I.e. the half of them not yet decayed will hit the earth surface 29.9m in front of the target that they came from. The fast moving target produced those prompt decay radioisotope as it was hit by an accelerator's beam.
Of course the layer of air half made it thru was 10,000 meters thick for us as it is stationary in our frame - no contraction. So how do we explain half the particles that decay with 0.1micro second half life make all the way thru 10,000 meters? Simple SR tells us that all the clocks in that fast moving frame are running slower than ours by, in this numerical illustration case, a factor of 334. So while our clocks show that it took 334x0.1 nano seconds for half to decay while other half made it thru 10,000m, their clocks have advanced only 0.1 nano seconds. I. e. the decaying particle don't just have the illusion that the 10,000meters is only 29.9 meters thick, The air layer thickness really is for them only 29.9m thick NOT 10,000 meter thick - it contracted to that for them, but not for us of course as it has no relative motion for us.
We know the air layer is really 10,000m thick and know those particles IN THER OWN FRAME will have half life of 0.1 nanoseconds, yet while half decay, OUR clocks advance 33.4 nanoseconds. I. e. compared to our clocks all their clock have experienced "time dilation." That bold "all" includes Timex watches and clocks that work by measuring how long (duration) half an unstable particle group can "live" or what is the speed/ duration of a chemical reaction etc.
As ALL the clocks in the moving frame run slower, even ones built on time for a chemical reaction to complete, it is in fact true their time its self is increasing more slowly than ours is (as measured by OUR clocks) They also know our clocks, our time itself, is moving into the future, (advancing) more slowly by the same factor as we know their clocks do, as the physic is symmetrically the same. (But I'm sure you don't believe that is true - It is a fact that "stretches" you ignorant beliefs too much. So I won't try to teach you more - just keep your ignorant bliss state. You believe it is IMPOSSIBLE for both to measure the others clocks as advancing more slowly than their own. Many hold false beliefs - why should you be an exception - Eh?)
Summary just as one side's "freedom fighter" is the other side's "terrorists," what one frame see or measures (understands most easily) as "length contraction" is the other frame's "time dilation."[/b]
Last edited by a moderator:
The issue we are debating is whether a physical mechanism has been, or even can be, theorized for something that you and most of the conventional scientific world have declared "real" and not "illusion".
First rebuttal; is that there is no need to describe a mechanism - it is what it is.
Second rebuttal; is that it is an illusion of perception.
Third rebuttal; is that it is not an illusion of perception and that no need exists to describe a mechanism for the so called measured miracle that is length contraction.
I suppose you are going to tell me that the physical mechanism behind length contraction doesn't exist and is perpetrated or facilitated "By the hands of God" ??
Perhaps it would be easier and more effective if conventional science just simply stated that length contraction phenomena is proof of God and be done with it...
Last edited:
No we did NOT "declare' it so. We MEASURED IT AS REAL. I have more than once explained how the measurement was made (one way via loss of number of particle in cosmic ray shower as the travel towards earth's surface - (Easy to get the Time Dilation of all clocks that are stationary in their reference frame form those sort of measurements.)
Another way to confirm SR by measurement uses short lived particles made by an accelerator beam pulse hitting a target and the short lived particles produced travel to more distant detector - so far from the stationary target source that they would not live long enough to reach the detector if the distance for them was not greatly contracted. There are literally many, many millions of such confirmations!
Last edited by a moderator:
granted, but you do not offer a mechanism for the phenomena that you have measured. True or False?
The question is not whether you have measured it or not.
The question is about what mechanism may facilitate such a phenomena that you believe you have measured.
Last edited:
perhaps if you actually knew what I believed and what I know, your post would mean something...as it is you obviously do not know what I believe...despite you writing that you do.
deleted as unnecessary
A novel question for you, as a matter of general interest [just now thought of it]
Is the measuring device you use to measure with a part of the MUON'S contracted and dilated universe or not?
What are the ramifications if the measuring device is a part of the MUON's contracted and dilated universe? Any?
Is the measuring device you use to measure with a part of the MUON'S contracted and dilated universe or not?
What are the ramifications if the measuring device is a part of the MUON's contracted and dilated universe? Any?
you sure! Gosh I could have sworn the barycenter is rotating around the large mass COG in the animation.
Your right..
so we have the COG of the large mass rotating around the barycenter...
how does that effect my point?
Your right..
so we have the COG of the large mass rotating around the barycenter...
how does that effect my point?
Last edited:
More in line with the threads topic this animated video was just recently shared on facebook.
True. Nor do I offer a mechanism for hydrogen atom being stable as that (and length contraction, time dilation, the "twin paradox" etc. of SR) as that is just the way nature is (no explanation humans can understand with their classical experience alone is possible).
For example the electron orbits around the proton in a very tiny circle, to speak classically, so the electron is highly accelerated and normally accelerated charges radiate away energy. If you apply this classical physics principle to the case of the hydrogen atom in the ground state, that electron should be spirling inward as it loses energy by radiation. I forget (but long ago calculated) how long it would take before that spiral converged to the proton, but is a very tiny faction of a second. Yet hydrogen atoms are 13+ billion years old. I just accept this fact don't try to invent a "mechanism" to explain it. It is just the way nature is.
All man's direct experiences conforms with what we call "classical physics" but not all nature does. One very tiny scale which we can learn about indirectly via instrument, nature is very starnge to our way of thinking. For example, when a photon comes to a half silvered sheet of glass, a "beam splitter," it does not some how decide to pass thru or be reflected as we would expect, given that all our expectations are based on our direct, classical physic expectations. Instead EACH photon does both! Yet if it falls on a surface (one of two) - one placed in the path of the "straight thru" direction and the other in the "reflected by beam splitter" path and these two surfaces are separated by many Km, the full energy of the photon will be INSTANTLY given to only one of the surfaces. For example to eject an electing from a metal surface a certain amount of energy is required (called the work function). We known (or can measure) the both the work function of say a copper surface and of the photo (which is inversely proportional to its wave length). In simple cases we can even calculate the photon energy.
For example, if that photon was produced by a hydrogen atom in an excited state relaxing to the ground state the photon's energy in the convenient electron volt scale is: E = 13.6{1 - (1/n)^2}
where "n" the "state number." (n=1 is the ground state, n=2 is the first excited state, etc. A very highly excited state, might be n=100 and that state is extremely weakly bound to the proton, quite large, and only possible in the very high vacuum of interstellar space, as almost any thing that disturbs it will "un-bind" the electron from the proton.) Compared to 1, (1/100)^2 can be called zero, so 1.36ev is the energy required to "ionize" a hydrogen atom (which is in the ground state, n=1). See footnote for more on the spectral lines of hydrogen atom.*
To return to the point: we can know that half the photon's energy can not eject an electron from the copper plate. I have no mechanism that explains how it happens in an "instant" much to short (when the two plates are Kms apart) for the photon when ejecting the electron to tell its self near the other plate: "Quick, faster than the speed of light give me ALL our energy." - That to I just accept as that is the way nature is. I.e. Nature does as nature does - is not waiting for humans to supply some descriptive mechanism for all of nature's acts. Nature was doing these "strange to humans" tricks, long before Earth even existed!
Fortunately for most of nature's acts on the classic scale we have been able to do that (create an "explanatory mechanism") and feel good about our achievements, but we have had to drop or revise some of the earlier mechanism we believed in. For example, sailing ships that did not return to port we now know that they did not ever fail to do so (as once believed to be possible why) because they foolishly went too far from land and fell off the edge of the earth. Some of these revision came at great personal cost" Bruno was burned at the stake for insisting that the sun did not go around the earth.
BTW, your GW video a few post later is very useful, but the more important factor telling how much GW methane does should be: "more than 100 times what the same weight of CO2 does," not 20 times as the 20 is the effect during the first 100 years after the CH4 release. We don't have a 100 years be going extinct if the present interference of man with the thermal balance of Earth continues (It seems to actually be greater interference each passing year). The 100+ times more is the effect in the next 10 years. - a period of much greater interest to humanity. All the points the video makes, and many more, I have been posting about for years. (at least 30 different positive feed-backs are now known that are greatly amplifying the effect CO2 has acting alone.) I am inclined to think that in all probably, considering the fact that the effect of prior CO2 etc. releases will not fully appear for 40 to 50 years plus economies are driven by the short-term desire to maximize profits, that we passed the "point of recovery possible" at least a decade ago, but we can't be sure about that, and I for one want to "go down fighting" as hard as I can - not for me, as I am old, but for my great grand children, not yet even born.
I regret the video, did not suggest a global switch to sugar cane alcohol fuel, which is cheaper per mile driven than gasoline without any subsidy, renewable, and much less polluting. Plus would create more than a million low skill jobs in tropical lands, improving the lives of the poor there. Then they could buy some first world products, creating still more high-tech better pay jobs too. At least the video, did correctly identify that vested financial interest are actively blocking this and many other changes needed to get the world on an sustainable and non- lethal way of life. I guess they could not name the worst offending "vested financial interest" - the oil companies.
* All the transition from higher states to the ground state, n= 1, are too energetic to be seen by humans. The least entergic is the n=2 to n=1 transition with with 13.6(0.75) ev. This set of UV lines is called the Lyman series. The transitions we humans can see have n =2 as the lower state. They are called the Balmer series. If I recall correctly the least energetic of them makes deep red color spectral lines. (the n=3 to n=2 transition). So that photon's energy is:
13.6 (1/4 - 1/9)ev.
Last edited by a moderator:
That you ask this question is insulting. You are offering an insane alternative to advanced theoretical physics and you don't even understand special relativity.
While I have sympathy to you because of your illness, you don't have to be insulting.
Yes in all frames it is moving in but not in the frame it is stationary and being used to make the measurements.
You seemed to find it strange that the center of mass of one system could be found revolving (the better term) about the center of mass of another - it's a common event, standard Newtonian physics. Whether or not that insight affects (the better term) your point I have no idea.quantum said: