the belgian flap 1989 - the skeptical analysis (1)
- Thread starter spookz
- Start date
- Status
I can see that I worded this comment wrong.
How's this Q,
These physical laws you stand by are based only on our UNDERSTANDING of these physical laws.
You say that Light speed is impossible to overcome for an object.... well, maybe today with our prehistoric methods. But there are no laws that say it can't be overcome in the future.
You say that Light speed is impossible to overcome for an object.... well, maybe today with our prehistoric methods. But there are no laws that say it can't be overcome in the future.
You just don’t get it. The universe, NOT us, governs the physical laws. Some of those laws are physical limitations placed on the universe while others are physical constants.
The universe isn’t some traffic court in which you come in to plead a speeding ticket.
You just don’t get it. The universe, NOT us, governs the physical laws. Some of those laws are physical limitations placed on the universe while others are physical constants.
The universe isn’t some traffic court in which you come in to plead a speeding ticket.
No, It is you who doesn't get it.
We are not a civilized world. Our number one pasttime is WAR. Yet you assume we already have all the answers.
What I'm questioning is our understanding of the rules that govern the Universe. NOT THE ABSOLUTE PHYSICAL LAWS!
Q, we know very little about the Universe, yet you continue to make absolutes about it based on our miniscule knowledged.
Q, we know very little about the Universe, yet you continue to make absolutes about it based on our miniscule knowledged.
Actually, it’s clear you don’t know what you’re talking about nor do you know anything about the physics you’re so willing to denounce.
Actually, it’s clear you don’t know what you’re talking about nor do you know anything about the physics you’re so willing to denounce.
Please enlighten me then Q.
Tell me about all the indesputed facts we have on our Universe.
You must be one of those who believe all those stars were put up into the sky for our amusement. We are the only rock with life on it in this vast universe.
A Billion Galaxies.
With Each Galaxy containing a Billion Stars, most just like our own sun.
With more and more information we accumulate, we're finding that planetary systems around these stars are the norm rather than the exception.
YET, we're all alone! :bugeye:
/we know very little about the Universe, yet you continue to make absolutes about it based on our miniscule knowledged.
it seems to me that you don't know enough about what "we" know about the universe to really make that statement.
in a sense you're right, but what is unknown is unknown, so you can't say how miniscule or how expansive our knowledge is. could be that Q is right. maybe not. hard to say, given that it is unknown eh?
it seems to me that you don't know enough about what "we" know about the universe to really make that statement.
in a sense you're right, but what is unknown is unknown, so you can't say how miniscule or how expansive our knowledge is. could be that Q is right. maybe not. hard to say, given that it is unknown eh?
/we know very little about the Universe, yet you continue to make absolutes about it based on our miniscule knowledged.
it seems to me that you don't know enough about what "we" know about the universe to really make that statement.
in a sense you're right, but what is unknown is unknown, so you can't say how miniscule or how expansive our knowledge is. could be that Q is right. maybe not. hard to say, given that it is unknown eh?
it is important to note however, that Q's assertions (einsteins stuff, like e=mc^2) has experimental evidence backing it up. do you have any verifiable experimental evidence to support your assertion of "how much we know about the universe"?
it seems to me that you don't know enough about what "we" know about the universe to really make that statement.
in a sense you're right, but what is unknown is unknown, so you can't say how miniscule or how expansive our knowledge is. could be that Q is right. maybe not. hard to say, given that it is unknown eh?
it is important to note however, that Q's assertions (einsteins stuff, like e=mc^2) has experimental evidence backing it up. do you have any verifiable experimental evidence to support your assertion of "how much we know about the universe"?
Last edited:
could be that Q is right. maybe not. hard to say, given that it is unknown eh?
he might be right , he might be wrong
it is important to note however, that Q's assertions (einsteins stuff, like e=mc^2) has experimental evidence backing it up.
now he is right
could you list these "assertions" please? i looked around in thread but am not sure too what you refer to
he might be right , he might be wrong
it is important to note however, that Q's assertions (einsteins stuff, like e=mc^2) has experimental evidence backing it up.
now he is right
could you list these "assertions" please? i looked around in thread but am not sure too what you refer to
/he might be right , he might be wrong
agreed.
/it is important to note however, that Q's assertions (einsteins stuff, like e=mc^2) has experimental evidence backing it up.
/now he is right
experimental evidence may not be inclusive of all possibilities. however, there it is demonstrated valid within a commonly accepted context. why do you assume that this means I say "he is right"?
/could you list these "assertions" please? i looked around in thread but am not sure too what you refer to
mainly that the effects of relativistic mass can be verified, so his statement (paraphrasing)"an object of positive mass cannot travel the speed of light, which is based on the concept of relativisitic mass, has testable, reproducable merit.
agreed.
/it is important to note however, that Q's assertions (einsteins stuff, like e=mc^2) has experimental evidence backing it up.
/now he is right
experimental evidence may not be inclusive of all possibilities. however, there it is demonstrated valid within a commonly accepted context. why do you assume that this means I say "he is right"?
/could you list these "assertions" please? i looked around in thread but am not sure too what you refer to
mainly that the effects of relativistic mass can be verified, so his statement (paraphrasing)"an object of positive mass cannot travel the speed of light, which is based on the concept of relativisitic mass, has testable, reproducable merit.
This is article concerning the confusion between invariant mass
and relativistic mass that I read months ago. It is very informative.
""Ouch! The concept of `relativistic mass' is subject to misunderstanding. That's why we don't use it. First, it applies the name mass--belonging to the magnitude of a four-vector--to a very different concept, the time component of a four-vector. Second, it makes increase of energy of an object with velocity or momentum appear to be connected with some change in internal structure of the object. In reality, the increase of energy with velocity originates not in the object but in the geometric properties of space-time itself."
In the final analysis the issue is a debate over whether or not relativistic mass should be used, and is a matter of semantics and teaching methods. The concept of relativistic mass is not wrong: it can have its uses in special relativity at an elementary level. This debate surfaced in Physics Today in 1989 when Lev Okun wrote an article urging that relativistic mass should no longer be taught (42 #6, June 1989, pg 31). Wolfgang Rindler responded with a letter to the editors to defend its continued use. (43 #5, May 1990, pg 13).
The experience of answering confused questions in the news groups suggests that the use of relativistic mass in popular books and elementary texts is not helpful. The fact that relativistic mass is virtually never used in contemporary scientific research literature is a strong argument against teaching it to students who will go on to more advanced levels. Invariant mass proves to be more fundamental in Minkowski's geometric approach to special relativity, and relativistic mass is of no use at all in general relativity. It is possible to avoid relativistic mass from the outset by talking of energy instead. Judging by usage in modern text books, the consensus is that relativistic mass is an outdated concept which is best avoided. There are people who still want to use relativistic mass, and it is not easy to settle an argument over semantic issues because there is no absolute right or wrong; just conventions of terminology. There will always be those who post questions using terms in which mass increases with velocity. It is unhelpful to just tell them that what they read or heard on cable TV is wrong, but it might reduce confusion for them in the longer term if they can be persuaded to think in terms of invariant mass instead of relativistic mass."
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/mass.html
and relativistic mass that I read months ago. It is very informative.
""Ouch! The concept of `relativistic mass' is subject to misunderstanding. That's why we don't use it. First, it applies the name mass--belonging to the magnitude of a four-vector--to a very different concept, the time component of a four-vector. Second, it makes increase of energy of an object with velocity or momentum appear to be connected with some change in internal structure of the object. In reality, the increase of energy with velocity originates not in the object but in the geometric properties of space-time itself."
In the final analysis the issue is a debate over whether or not relativistic mass should be used, and is a matter of semantics and teaching methods. The concept of relativistic mass is not wrong: it can have its uses in special relativity at an elementary level. This debate surfaced in Physics Today in 1989 when Lev Okun wrote an article urging that relativistic mass should no longer be taught (42 #6, June 1989, pg 31). Wolfgang Rindler responded with a letter to the editors to defend its continued use. (43 #5, May 1990, pg 13).
The experience of answering confused questions in the news groups suggests that the use of relativistic mass in popular books and elementary texts is not helpful. The fact that relativistic mass is virtually never used in contemporary scientific research literature is a strong argument against teaching it to students who will go on to more advanced levels. Invariant mass proves to be more fundamental in Minkowski's geometric approach to special relativity, and relativistic mass is of no use at all in general relativity. It is possible to avoid relativistic mass from the outset by talking of energy instead. Judging by usage in modern text books, the consensus is that relativistic mass is an outdated concept which is best avoided. There are people who still want to use relativistic mass, and it is not easy to settle an argument over semantic issues because there is no absolute right or wrong; just conventions of terminology. There will always be those who post questions using terms in which mass increases with velocity. It is unhelpful to just tell them that what they read or heard on cable TV is wrong, but it might reduce confusion for them in the longer term if they can be persuaded to think in terms of invariant mass instead of relativistic mass."
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/mass.html
Last edited:
such arrogance and deliberate refusal to consider article. looky here....
In fact objects do not have any increased tendency to form black holes due to their extra energy of motion. In a frame of reference stationary with respect to the object, it has only rest mass energy and will not form a black hole unless its rest mass is sufficient. If it is not a black hole in one reference frame, then it cannot be a black hole in any other reference frame.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/BlackHoles/black_fast.html
now which is worse wessie? not knowing shit and allowing smarter folk to educate or blabbing nonsense? at least q was sufficiently vague enough to have the opportunity to wriggle around.
i still want to know how the universe governs physical laws. should it not be the other way around? ie: physical laws govern the universe? (yes you q)
at least q was sufficiently vague enough to have the opportunity to wriggle around.
I was not vague nor was I wriggling around – I gave you 3 specific examples of laws allegedly broken from the so-called ‘valid’ report. So far, I’ve yet to see an explanation.
should it not be the other way around? ie: physical laws govern the universe?
You assert that the laws were conceived before the existence of the universe.
I was not vague nor was I wriggling around – I gave you 3 specific examples of laws allegedly broken from the so-called ‘valid’ report. So far, I’ve yet to see an explanation.
should it not be the other way around? ie: physical laws govern the universe?
You assert that the laws were conceived before the existence of the universe.
/such arrogance and deliberate refusal to consider article. looky here....
LOL. I read what he quoted of it and it didn't have any bearing on what I've seen said here. If you think it does spooky, please point out where.
/In fact objects do not have any increased tendency to form black holes due to their extra energy of motion. In a frame of reference stationary with respect to the object, it has only rest mass energy and will not form a black hole unless its rest mass is sufficient. If it is not a black hole in one reference frame, then it cannot be a black hole in any other reference frame.
I don't remember anyone saying a black hole is gonna form from relativistic mass. The issue is energy. As you push an object faster and faster it requires more and more energy to push it faster, you could say that the reason that more energy is requires is because of "relativistic mass". As you approach the speed of light the energy required to increase your velocity approaches infinity. Since infinity is not attainable, a massive object cannot travel the speed of light. That was Q's point in a nutshell, and there is plenty of evidence to support it. Of course, anything that you cannot do cannot be proven as un-doable. Please correct me if you are able.
/now which is worse wessie? not knowing shit and allowing smarter folk to educate or blabbing nonsense?
tell me why you think those are the only two possibilities.
/at least q was sufficiently vague enough to have the opportunity to wriggle around.
LOL. I might agree with Q's statement had I read the article. I still don't see the relevance. It seems to me that it was brought up in reference to my quoting the term in my post to you. I said something about it to see if I understood his point for bringing it up. Can you follow that spooky? Am I moving too fast for you?
LOL. I read what he quoted of it and it didn't have any bearing on what I've seen said here. If you think it does spooky, please point out where.
/In fact objects do not have any increased tendency to form black holes due to their extra energy of motion. In a frame of reference stationary with respect to the object, it has only rest mass energy and will not form a black hole unless its rest mass is sufficient. If it is not a black hole in one reference frame, then it cannot be a black hole in any other reference frame.
I don't remember anyone saying a black hole is gonna form from relativistic mass. The issue is energy. As you push an object faster and faster it requires more and more energy to push it faster, you could say that the reason that more energy is requires is because of "relativistic mass". As you approach the speed of light the energy required to increase your velocity approaches infinity. Since infinity is not attainable, a massive object cannot travel the speed of light. That was Q's point in a nutshell, and there is plenty of evidence to support it. Of course, anything that you cannot do cannot be proven as un-doable. Please correct me if you are able.
/now which is worse wessie? not knowing shit and allowing smarter folk to educate or blabbing nonsense?
tell me why you think those are the only two possibilities.
/at least q was sufficiently vague enough to have the opportunity to wriggle around.
LOL. I might agree with Q's statement had I read the article. I still don't see the relevance. It seems to me that it was brought up in reference to my quoting the term in my post to you. I said something about it to see if I understood his point for bringing it up. Can you follow that spooky? Am I moving too fast for you?
- Status