Three Experiments Challenging SRT

[Masterov]

I’d love to come up with a source that gives a simple, credible explanation of SRT and time dilation

Why do you think the universe should be simple?

Simple?
Simple - elective.
Science must be understood.
Any incomprehensibility are a mistical delusion.
A mystic has no place in science since a mystical are unpredictable.
Science for that and is there to help us to predict the course of events in the world around us.

SRT are the mystic.
SRT are not a science.

 

[przyk]

Yes, one of them is in the misattributed section and a variant of the "if you can't explain it to your grandmother .. " quote (the one you previously mentioned).

That's the one I was particularly concerned with, since it's the one I've seen being dug up and presented as fact over and over again on this forum.

Einstein or not, I believe rather strongly in the idea that "All of science is nothing more than the refinement of everyday thinking". Or are we saying that certain parts of science are beyond reproach, are the province of an elite group, and are incommensurable to everyday thinking (shades of the church circa few hundred years ago) ?

I don't know. The problem is that you've dug up a rather vague quote that could mean almost anything. What is "everyday reasoning"? Depending on how you interpret it there is some truth to it. For example in science we have a similar idea of "elegance" and we use the same kind of logic as anyone in any engineering/technical profession does, and the same type of logic that (I would hope) philosophers use. But on the other hand, science involves a kind of reasoning and attitude that did not gain prominence until only a few centuries ago, and even now it doesn't seem to be fully embraced by the population (given the affinity people still have for superstition and religion, evolution is still on trial, the number of pseudoscientific and woo threads that get started on forums like this, etc.). Additionally, science, and especially physics, requires a facility for abstract reasoning that, in my experience, many people don't have any patience for. So I'd say it looks very much like scientific reasoning is something that does not come naturally to most people and Einstein was probably being overly optimistic when he said that.

You might respond that you have to learn the science, but I haven't learnt the science of planetary motion, yet comprehend that the earth turns on it's axis, orbits the sun, etc. Similarly there would be a plethora of scientific / physics concepts that I comprehend in everyday terms, but do not comprehend, and would never hope to comprehend, the (say) hundred pages of equations thereof.

The reason planetary motion is easy for you is that it is simple behaviour that is easy to reconcile with your sense of intuition - i.e. what your already familiar with. There is no reason you should expect things to be so easy if you start considering physics that doesn't look like anything you're already familiar with.

That said, in my opinion relativity isn't very difficult to understand. I think the main problem with relativity is the way it is taught in layman presentations of the theory and in "easy Einstein" books. They focus on all the "weird" predictions that relativity makes, like time dilation, without really explaining the core of the theory. This does not resemble the way relativity is normally taught to students in relativity.

At its core, relativity is basically just a generalisation of the idea of rotational symmetry, extended to a "rotation like" symmetry in spacetime. In my opinion, it is a much better idea to try to learn and understand relativity that way and what that means, and only then learn how to derive the more talked about predictions of relativity, like time dilation.

I tell you what - I’d love to come up with a source that gives a simple, credible explanation of SRT and time dilation, and that answers all the ‘simplistic’ questions that might arise in a curious, though non - scientific person’s head. Do you know of any ?

I don't know if what you're asking for exists. The problem is that the core of relativity is a rather mathematical idea: the idea that all the laws of physics possess a "rotation like" symmetry in space and time, described by the Lorentz transformation. In order to understand relativity, you have to be willing to try to understand what that means, and to learn by a few examples what it means for a physical theory to be "Lorentz invariant". The best analogue you might be familiar with is the idea of rotational symmetry in physics: the idea that all the laws of physics possess rotation as a symmetry, which is the reason there are no "preferred" x, y, and z directions in space.

I'll tell you what, since I'm curious to see how this would play out: how about we discuss rotational symmetry (which you should already be intuitively familiar with) and exactly what that means for physics. Once you've fully grasped that, relativity is really just the same thing except with Lorentz transformations instead of rotations.

 

[Masterov]

Me blamed a lot of times what I do not understand SRT.

I repeat again: I do not understand SRT!

You understand SRT?
You able to explain the logic collisions, which follow from this theory?

All of my opponents, who blamed me that I do not understand SRT, (as it turned out) do not understand SRT too (explained by logic collisions they can not).

You can argue as much as you understood SRT, but if you can not explain the logic collisions, which follow from the theory, then your understanding is a gross exaggeration.
===================================

Меня обвиняли много раз, что я не понимаю SRT.

Я повторяю еще раз: я не понимаю SRT!

А Вы понимаете SRT?
Вы в состоянии объяснить логические колизии, которые следуют из этой теории?

Все из моих оппоненты, которые обвиняли меня, что я не понимаю SRT, (как оказалось) не понимают SRT тоже (объяснить логикие колизии они не могут).

Можно с пеной у рта утверждать, что вы поняли SRT, но если вы не можете объяснить логикие колизии, которые следуют из теории, то ваше понимание является явным преувеличением.

 

[origin]

Way to show your own ignorance, origin. Glass houses.

No it is not ignorance it is just I get annoyed with your line after line of /this and /that with some buzz words thrown in to sound like you know what you are talking about - it ends up just being gibberish. This is a case in point.

Hi everyone. About sunspots etc, some observations:

- magnetic field contortions (due to sun rotation/coriolis effects) and the plasma flows which are also redirected accordingly will result in localised (upper layer) 'pinch-offs' and 'fusion events' over and above those going on deeper under the usual gravity-containment pressure mediated fusion event from which the heat migrates upwards more slowly and evenly than is observed to happen at the surface layer events which sometimes are violent and energetic enough 'locally' to overwhelm the gravity/magnetic containment in those upper layers (hence Coronal Mass Ejections and Sunspot whirlwinds/vortices/tsunamis/waves observed).

This is mostly unevidneced conjecture about what is going on to produce sunspots. The paragraph above is mish mash of convoluted buzz words that is trying to say simply a localized magnetic field is the source of the sunspots.

- Sunspots are not 'cold' or 'hot', but merely that their energy flows are more/less along/perpendicular to those containment field lines. Also, it depends on which wavelength the observation is made in. Spots that look 'cold' in visible/infrared wavelengths may be 'hot' in X-ray/gamma wavelengths.

This is just plain wrong - the plasma in the sunspots are cooler than the surrounding plasma.

- If the surrounding surface layers/events (whirlwinds/vortices/tsunamis/connections etc) is ALSO included in the measurement/observation, the whole 'local SPOT system' is always much the same 'temperature' overall the connected 'ingoing and outgoing' whorls which define the SUN 'spots' in connected flow/magnetically connected PAIRS.

Sunspots are usually conected magnetically, but the sunspots are still cooler.

- Whereas any 'spots' on planets like Jupiter from comet collisions will be SINGULAR events/spots and not 'connected in pairs' like those spots on the Sun. Naturally, the number of 'singular event' spots on Jupiter will depend on the number of 'fragments' hitting any one location. These are not 'paired', but merely scattered' according to actual individual piecemeal 'events' when a comet 'fragments' before impact.

This is correct, at least for the only documented case of a comet hitting a gas giant.

I trust this helps to distinguish between planetary 'impact-spots' and solar 'sunspots' (which latter may be more or less in number according to the harmonic 'recovery times' in the sun's magnetic field contortions since the last 'pinch-off/reconnections events....which seems to be approximately 11 years generally, except for the additional contributions from rare events where the occasional 'convection hot spot' perturbation from deeper layers intrudes into the upper layers activities as described).

Harmonic recovery time? Convection hot spot pertabations? Why do you always throw in these silly half-assed explanations loaded with buzz words?

 

[RealityCheck]

No it is not ignorance it is just I get annoyed with your line after line of /this and /that with some buzz words thrown in to sound like you know what you are talking about - it ends up just being gibberish. This is a case in point.

Science doesn't care about your annoyance due to your own ignorance. Anyone who has bothered to be well read on the relevant phenomena alluded to will understand immediately what was being put across. If you haven't bothered to be informed on the relevant subject you have no-one else to blame for what you think is 'gibberish' because of your own laziness and your propensity for opening your mouth about something you obviously haven't seen described in the scientific news/literature in just those terms for the general reader. Get off your pedantic/trolling high horse and just try to understand in context like any genuine person would before calling something 'gibberish' without first bothering to ask for clarification if you didn't know what was meant.

This is mostly unevidneced conjecture about what is going on to produce sunspots. The paragraph above is mish mash of convoluted buzz words that is trying to say simply a localized magnetic field is the source of the sunspots.

Not at all. See, that again demonstrates your ignorance of the greater phenomena; or else it demonstrates you have a trolling agenda to strawman/misunderstand in order to justify personal disparagement where none is warranted.

The sun has a magnetic field-line pattern which gets distorted over time due to rotation etc. of the parent body/generator system producing that field pattern. The lines contort and twist etc and loop and pinch off in 'reconnection' events which create localised heating of the plasma and sometimes result in localised hydrogen fusion of the trapped plasma therein. When the reconnection event is complete, the pinched off 'energy release from fusion and from radiation of the disintegrating mag-field loop HEATS THE CORONAL ATMOSPHERE way above the mean solar surface temperatures below.

That is why the corona can be more 'hot' than the sun's surface itself. Understand that?

All over the surface the magnetic field/plasma patterns change and create loop flows which appear as 'poles' of sunspots where these lopps pierce the surface of the sun. The parts of the loop below the surfcace are not visible directly, only the ARCS above the surface are detectable, and these twist etc as they come up through the surface and down again in the 'paired' spot indicating where the loop continues back under the surface.

When the distortions/perturbations get too great over time, these pinch-offs and plasma Coronal Mass Ejections may occur as well as the local heating I mentioned earlier.

The 'localised' phenomena is part of the overall solar field patterns mentioned. These become quiescent immediately after enough pinch-offs and reconnections and ejection events have occurred to expel most of the contortions/imbalances built up over time. Hence the recovery and hence the new cycle of perturbation/contortion buildup (11 yrs on average) when the re-balancing/shedding cycle erupts into paired spots again.

Honestly, you appear to revel in making snide remarks even about subject matter you are patently ignorant of even at the most basic layman level. Resist that temptation.

This is just plain wrong - the plasma in the sunspots are cooler than the surrounding plasma.

That's because some of the energy is not intercepted by the observing satellite/telescope because the energy is still trapped within the magnetic field loop-lines and plasma-flow-lines, and won't be until the loop breaks and the energy is releaed. The various wavelengths also show that something looking 'cooler' in one wavelength may look 'hot' in another'. Really, do read up at least a little bit before making sweeping statements like that and ignoring all the observational ranges and inherent phenomena/energies involved irrespective of observable/radiated in the our direction or not.

Sunspots are usually conected magnetically, but the sunspots are still cooler.

Please refer to above.

This is correct, at least for the only documented case of a comet hitting a gas giant.

Of course it's correct. No-one here need your 'imprimatur' to go and confirm it for themselves.

Harmonic recovery time? Convection hot spot pertabations? Why do you always throw in these silly half-assed explanations loaded with buzz words?

The word is 'perturbations', which is what I wrote. And what you may find silly and halfassed etc is neither here nor there if you are patently ignorant of that which you speak and cannot even read fairly what is written instead of taking pedantic/snide potshots at things you aren't read up on. Your opinions are sounding more irrelevant and motivated by ignorance and personal trolling attitude rather than fair discourse/understanding. In future, less of your kneejerking halfassed opinion and annoyances from personal ego/agenda, and more proper objective/informed debate of the science and discussion in full context. Read up fully on a subject before opening your mouth and attempting to poo-poo what others post; for it might be you (as in this case) who is misunderstanding or just not fully up to date on the facts and the greater picture and being ignorant/annoyed thereby. It will help everyone. Thanks.

 

[Lakon]

That's the one I was particularly concerned with, since it's the one I've seen being dug up and presented as fact over and over again on this forum.




I don't know. The problem is that you've dug up a rather vague quote that could mean almost anything. What is "everyday reasoning"? Depending on how you interpret it there is some truth to it. For example in science we have a similar idea of "elegance" and we use the same kind of logic as anyone in any engineering/technical profession does, and the same type of logic that (I would hope) philosophers use. But on the other hand, science involves a kind of reasoning and attitude that did not gain prominence until only a few centuries ago, and even now it doesn't seem to be fully embraced by the population (given the affinity people still have for superstition and religion, evolution is still on trial, the number of pseudoscientific and woo threads that get started on forums like this, etc.). Additionally, science, and especially physics, requires a facility for abstract reasoning that, in my experience, many people don't have any patience for. So I'd say it looks very much like scientific reasoning is something that does not come naturally to most people and Einstein was probably being overly optimistic when he said that.

All well and good, but abstract reasoning in not the province of science only.

The reason planetary motion is easy for you is that it is simple behaviour that is easy to reconcile with your sense of intuition - i.e. what your already familiar with. There is no reason you should expect things to be so easy if you start considering physics that doesn't look like anything you're already familiar with.

I'm not sure I agree with this. Sure, the familiar is easy. But I have little difficulty in reconciling unfamiliar concepts, particularly when the level of interest is high. That is, except for time dilation.

That said, in my opinion relativity isn't very difficult to understand. I think the main problem with relativity is the way it is taught in layman presentations of the theory and in "easy Einstein" books. They focus on all the "weird" predictions that relativity makes, like time dilation, without really explaining the core of the theory. This does not resemble the way relativity is normally taught to students in relativity.

At its core, relativity is basically just a generalisation of the idea of rotational symmetry, extended to a "rotation like" symmetry in spacetime. In my opinion, it is a much better idea to try to learn and understand relativity that way and what that means, and only then learn how to derive the more talked about predictions of relativity, like time dilation.

I don't know if what you're asking for exists. The problem is that the core of relativity is a rather mathematical idea: the idea that all the laws of physics possess a "rotation like" symmetry in space and time, described by the Lorentz transformation. In order to understand relativity, you have to be willing to try to understand what that means, and to learn by a few examples what it means for a physical theory to be "Lorentz invariant". The best analogue you might be familiar with is the idea of rotational symmetry in physics: the idea that all the laws of physics possess rotation as a symmetry, which is the reason there are no "preferred" x, y, and z directions in space.

I'll tell you what, since I'm curious to see how this would play out: how about we discuss rotational symmetry (which you should already be intuitively familiar with) and exactly what that means for physics. Once you've fully grasped that, relativity is really just the same thing except with Lorentz transformations instead of rotations.

Sounds like a plan (your last para.) !

Rotational symmetry - say as in a swastika rotating round it's centre - yes, I understand this.

Now, "all the laws of physics possess rotation as a symmetry" is a totally new concept to me - put in those terms anyway, though I can't discount the possibility that I am probably aware of this or similar ideas in different words. Anyhow, let me check it out for a day or two, and we'll talk more. That is, unless you have a source you want to point me to, or further explainations - both would be welcome.

Thanks for taking the time and making the effort.

 

[Lakon]

Why do you think the universe should be simple?

Why should I think it should be complex ? In any case, your 'simple' is my 'complex' and vica versa.

 

[RealityCheck]

...
...

Because coordinates are not real -- they are man-made inventions to describe geometry in the language of number and algebra.

So, there is co-ordinate time and proper time.

Since you say emphatically and unambiguously that co-ordinates are "not real", then by implication co-ordinate-time is also "not real"?

While proper time is a direct derivation of the proper physical processes which are actually occurring in the proper frame, the co-ordinate time is purely part of an abstract non-physical analytical/observational frame construct that is "not real"?

Is that what you meant to imply? Ie, that the only 'real' (proper) time is a 'dependent dimension' (not something fundamental in its own right) derived from proper frame processes; while the non-real (co-ordinate/mathematical) time is an 'abstract dimension' purely introduced as a convenient fiction in the use of non-real co-ordinate frame SR/GR perspectives/interpretations of the actual physical proper frame processes?

If not, can you please elaborate further what you meant to imply about time's reality/dimension etc in that comment about co-ordinates being "not real"?

Thanks in advance. Back in a couple days or sooner if I can to see elucidation.

 

[rpenner]

So, there is co-ordinate time and proper time.

Correct -- every inertial standard of rest implies a different way of assigning coordinate time to events. Every slower-than-light world line implies a way to assign a particular proper time to events along that worldline.

Since you say emphatically and unambiguously that co-ordinates are "not real", then by implication co-ordinate-time is also "not real"?

Correct. It's just the extent of a world line in a particular direction. Different choice of direction implies a different elapsed coordinate time, i.e. time dilation.

While proper time is a direct derivation of the proper physical processes which are actually occurring in the proper frame,

No that's a proper clock -- a physical way to measure proper time. Actual proper time does not depend on the existence of those physical processes, but you are almost on the right track.

the co-ordinate time is purely part of an abstract non-physical analytical/observational frame construct that is "not real"?

All coordinate systems are "not real" in this sense. They are man-made systems to label points in space-time so one may use the language of algebra to conduct geometry.

Is that what you meant to imply? Ie, that the only 'real' (proper) time

I never said there was one proper time. However, given a particular slower-than-light world line, that line allows us to speak of proper time along its extension. If you have two slower than light world-lines meeting in two places then that allows the possibility that the proper time between the two intersections is dependent on which path is used -- this is realized to the maximal extent when only one of the two world-lines is inertial as in the common expression of the twin so-called paradox.

is a 'dependent dimension' (not something fundamental in its own right) derived from proper frame processes;

You keep on saying processes. Coordinate frames (being imaginary) don't have any processes.

while the non-real (co-ordinate/mathematical) time is an 'abstract dimension' purely introduced as a convenient fiction in the use of non-real co-ordinate frame SR/GR perspectives/interpretations of the actual physical proper frame processes?

Minus the bafflegab, that's largely the point I have been making. You seem to say it less clearly the more you write.
Also, so far, you have ignored that some coordinate systems are better than others. Inertial Cartesian coordinates are particularly beautiful to work with in the gravityless SR because Newton's law of inertia becomes the law of straight lines.

In GR, you are free to use any smooth coordinates you want to so long as they map the necessary region of the space-time manifold to $$\mathbb{R}^4$$ in a one-to-one manner. But even here there are special coordinates that cause geodesics through a point in the space-time manifold to be mapped to straight-ish lines through the origin in $$\mathbb{R}^4$$. (A consequence of all manifolds being locally flat.)

 

[Masterov]

the co-ordinate time is purely part of an abstract non-physical analytical/observational frame construct that is "not real"?

All coordinate systems are "not real" in this sense. They are man-made systems to label points in space-time so one may use the language of algebra to conduct geometry.

Delirium, ravings, gibberish...

SRT are a mysticism, but it no mean that all in physics are a mysticism.
-----------------------------
We see stars and galaxies in a visual coordinates.
But all this has a real-world coordinates too.
The real-world coordinates of those stars and galaxies exist at any given time.

Real coordinates can be calculated by double integration (in time) of the acceleration.
And the acceleration can be measured using the load on the spring (for example).
Acceleration has absolute value: in all inertial frames is the same.
========================

Звёзды и галактики мы видим в визуальных координатах.
Но все это имеет и реальные координаты.
Реальные координаты те, которые звёзды и галактики имеют в данный момент времени.

Реальные координаты можно вычислить двойным интегрированием ускорения по времени.
А ускорение можно измерить, используя груз на пружине (к примеру).
Ускорение абсолютная величина: во всех инерциальных системах отсчёта ускорение является одинаковым.

 

[Masterov]

Is that what you meant to imply? Ie, that the only 'real' (proper) time

I never said there was one proper time. However, given a particular slower-than-light world line, that line allows us to speak of proper time along its extension. If you have two slower than light world-lines meeting in two places then that allows the possibility that the proper time between the two intersections is dependent on which path is used -- this is realized to the maximal extent when only one of the two world-lines is inertial as in the common expression of the twin so-called paradox.

Again this delusion about time dilation.

Assume that the time dilation is real.

What can slow down time?

Slowing down time can be consequence of availability of the relative velocity or acceleration.

The relative speed of both twins are identical, but the slowing of time can only be one of them, therefore speed can not cause time dilation.

Assume that the acceleration are cause of the time dilation.
But the acceleration has antipodes, which will speed up the time.
A braking can not cause the acceleration of time, since inhibition is not different from the acceleration.
Braking and acceleration are the same physical process.
Therefore, there is nothing to could speed up the time to go back in time to the original state.
If the acceleration will do the time dilation, then there is nothing that will bring back the time of its normal, initial state.

Obstinacy in faith in SRT-preachers are causes bad feelings.
(These people consider themselves scientists!)
====================

Допустим, что замедление времени действительно существует.

Что может вызвать замедление времени?

Замедление времени может вызвать относительная скорость или ускорение.

Поскольку относительные скорости обоих близнецов одинаковые, а замедление времени может быть только у одного из них, то скорость не может вызывать замедление времени.

Допустим, что ускорение замедляет время.
Но ускорение не имеет антипода, который ускорит время.
Торможение не может вызывать ускорение времени, поскольку торможение ничем не отличается от ускорения.
Торможение и ускорение являются одним и тем же физическим процессом.
Поэтому нет ничего, чтобы могло ускорить время, чтобы вернуть время в исходное состояние.
Если ускорение замедлит время, то нет ничего, что вернёт времени его прежнее состояние.

Упёртость в вере в SRT её проповедников вызывает нехорошие чувства.
(Эти люди считают себя учёными!)

 

[przyk]

All well and good, but abstract reasoning in not the province of science only.

No, it's also the province of engineering, philosophy, and computer science, for example. But my general experience is that it's still a type of reasoning that many, maybe most, people have little patience for. Accordingly, most people don't become scientists, engineers, philosophers, or computer scientists.

I'm not sure I agree with this. Sure, the familiar is easy. But I have little difficulty in reconciling unfamiliar concepts, particularly when the level of interest is high. That is, except for time dilation.

Have you tried quantum physics? That is way more difficult to reconcile with everyday intuition than relativity. As far as I know it isn't possible at all. The only way to learn quantum physics is the hard way: study the math and do lots of calculations. Then after a year or two you might start to develop an intuition for quantum physics on its own terms, even if you can't relate it well to anything you already know.

Now, "all the laws of physics possess rotation as a symmetry" is a totally new concept to me - put in those terms anyway, though I can't discount the possibility that I am probably aware of this or similar ideas in different words.

Rotational symmetry is an important principle in physics that, to most people, is probably so obvious that they take it for granted. You see consequences of it every day all around you in your day to day life.

I'll explain via an example. Take any physical object around you: a chair, a mug, a DVD case, the computer you're using, whatever. Let's say it's a metal chair for the sake of argument. Well, from the point of view of physics, that chair is really a collection of atoms that are bound near one another in a lattice configuration by physical forces (mostly electric forces, but that's a detail) that are described by physical laws (mostly electromagnetism, but that's a detail). Not every arrangement of atoms like that is possible: the laws of physics that describe how particles like atoms interact predict that they will like to be at certain equilibrium distances from one another. If you try to stretch out the chair in all directions, so you end up with the same chair but twice as big and with all the atoms spaced out twice as far from each other, then it won't work: the chair will either resist or break, or (since its made of metal) deform in some way.

But you know from everyday life that if the chair in front of you is possible, then another configuration is also possible: the same chair rotated by any angle. You know from everyday life that you can take any solid object and rotate it, and it'll remain stable in its new orientation. It won't, say, deform or crumble apart or anything. It might seem obvious to point that out, but it is actually quite a profound observation and indicates a symmetry in the laws of physics with respect to rotation. We don't know any fundamental reason things necessarily should work that way. It could have been the case that physics didn't work that way, and physical structures would be sensitive to an "absolute" orientation in space for example.

From a mathematical point of view, if we study the laws of physics and we look at which stable configurations of atoms are possible and which aren't, we would say that the chair I talked about and the arrangement of atoms that make it up is a "solution" to the relevant laws of physics (i.e. it is a solution to certain mathematical equations that describe those physical laws), but the same chair twice as big, made of the same atoms spaced twice as far from each other, is not a solution to the same laws of physics. In this language, the principle of rotational symmetry in physics is this: suppose you are given a solution to some laws of physics - i.e. a description of a system evolving a certain way that is allowed by the laws of physics. Then it is a property of the laws of physics that any rotation of that solution is still an allowed solution.

Does any of that help?

 

[origin]

The sun has a magnetic field-line pattern which gets distorted over time due to rotation etc. of the parent body/generator system producing that field pattern. The lines contort and twist etc and loop and pinch off in 'reconnection' events which create localised heating of the plasma and sometimes result in localised hydrogen fusion of the trapped plasma therein. When the reconnection event is complete, the pinched off 'energy release from fusion and from radiation of the disintegrating mag-field loop HEATS THE CORONAL ATMOSPHERE way above the mean solar surface temperatures below.

That is why the corona can be more 'hot' than the sun's surface itself. Understand that?

This has absolutely nothing to do with sunspots. Why are you talking about this?

The 'localised' phenomena is part of the overall solar field patterns mentioned. These become quiescent immediately after enough pinch-offs and reconnections and ejection events have occurred to expel most of the contortions/imbalances built up over time. Hence the recovery and hence the new cycle of perturbation/contortion buildup (11 yrs on average) when the re-balancing/shedding cycle erupts into paired spots again.

This is more of your specutlation/garbage. You just cannot resist the temtation of going of into left field. You state this like it is fact where is your evidence that this is what is going on to develope the 11 year cycle?

Honestly, you appear to revel in making snide remarks even about subject matter you are patently ignorant of even at the most basic layman level. Resist that temptation.

I get annoyed with your posts because you have pieces that are accurate in your posts but then guess/makeup junk that makes your post goofy.

That's because some of the energy is not intercepted by the observing satellite/telescope because the energy is still trapped within the magnetic field loop-lines and plasma-flow-lines, and won't be until the loop breaks and the energy is releaed. The various wavelengths also show that something looking 'cooler' in one wavelength may look 'hot' in another'. Really, do read up at least a little bit before making sweeping statements like that and ignoring all the observational ranges and inherent phenomena/energies involved irrespective of observable/radiated in the our direction or not.

So like I said, you are wrong sunspots, are cooler. By the way, do you have a source that indicates sunspots are hotter when viewed in a certain wavelength or is this just more stuff you made up?

 

[Lakon]

No, it's also the province of engineering, philosophy, and computer science, for example. But my general experience is that it's still a type of reasoning that many, maybe most, people have little patience for. Accordingly, most people don't become scientists, engineers, philosophers, or computer scientists.




Have you tried quantum physics? That is way more difficult to reconcile with everyday intuition than relativity. As far as I know it isn't possible at all. The only way to learn quantum physics is the hard way: study the math and do lots of calculations. Then after a year or two you might start to develop an intuition for quantum physics on its own terms, even if you can't relate it well to anything you already know.




Rotational symmetry is an important principle in physics that, to most people, is probably so obvious that they take it for granted. You see consequences of it every day all around you in your day to day life.

I'll explain via an example. Take any physical object around you: a chair, a mug, a DVD case, the computer you're using, whatever. Let's say it's a metal chair for the sake of argument. Well, from the point of view of physics, that chair is really a collection of atoms that are bound near one another in a lattice configuration by physical forces (mostly electric forces, but that's a detail) that are described by physical laws (mostly electromagnetism, but that's a detail). Not every arrangement of atoms like that is possible: the laws of physics that describe how particles like atoms interact predict that they will like to be at certain equilibrium distances from one another. If you try to stretch out the chair in all directions, so you end up with the same chair but twice as big and with all the atoms spaced out twice as far from each other, then it won't work: the chair will either resist or break, or (since its made of metal) deform in some way.

But you know from everyday life that if the chair in front of you is possible, then another configuration is also possible: the same chair rotated by any angle. You know from everyday life that you can take any solid object and rotate it, and it'll remain stable in its new orientation. It won't, say, deform or crumble apart or anything. It might seem obvious to point that out, but it is actually quite a profound observation and indicates a symmetry in the laws of physics with respect to rotation. We don't know any fundamental reason things necessarily should work that way. It could have been the case that physics didn't work that way, and physical structures would be sensitive to an "absolute" orientation in space for example.

From a mathematical point of view, if we study the laws of physics and we look at which stable configurations of atoms are possible and which aren't, we would say that the chair I talked about and the arrangement of atoms that make it up is a "solution" to the relevant laws of physics (i.e. it is a solution to certain mathematical equations that describe those physical laws), but the same chair twice as big, made of the same atoms spaced twice as far from each other, is not a solution to the same laws of physics. In this language, the principle of rotational symmetry in physics is this: suppose you are given a solution to some laws of physics - i.e. a description of a system evolving a certain way that is allowed by the laws of physics. Then it is a property of the laws of physics that any rotation of that solution is still an allowed solution.

Does any of that help?

I had prepared the following prior to seeing the above. I will post it in anyway, but let me read and contemplate your above examples, and I'll come back soon.

Thanks again.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi przyk; I've done some research, and have come up with, in summary;

Translational symmetry: the laws of physics are the same everywhere and at all times
Rotational symmetry: the laws of physics don’t depend on how we orient our coordinates
Boost symmetry: the laws of physics don’t depend on what inertial frame we’re in. In other words, the laws of physics for someone standing still are the same as for those who are moving at a constant velocity.

(from a web page called 'quantum diaries', though I've lost the link).

None of these concepts are difficult to get my mind around. In fact, they seem neccessary and natural.
As you specifically mention rotational symmetry, I've read up a liitle more on that. No problem so far.

 

[OnlyMe]

So like I said, you are wrong sunspots, are cooler. By the way, do you have a source that indicates sunspots are hotter when viewed in a certain wavelength or is this just more stuff you made up?

SunPots as seen in visible light and x ray

In the above link, both visible light and x ray photos of sunspots, do show that in the x ray range sunspots do appear hotter than the surrounding areas.

While the link says nothing about the absolute temperature, it does suggest that when limiting observation to a narrow EM range, the temperature within that narrow range may be different, than the temperature as measured across the full spectrum.

Even taking this into account, when talking about the temperature of sunspots without any EM range qualification, one must assume the discussion is about the total or absolute temperature across the full EM spectrum, in which case Origin is correct. The x ray range of the EM spectrum contributes only a small fraction of the total heat, of a sunspot. Generally, the reduction of EM radiation in other areas of the spectrum, is greater than the increase in the x ray spectrum.

Pay attention to the text that accompanies the photos and you find that things become even more complex. The visible light and x rays don't begin from the same processes.

 

[Masterov]

The only way to learn quantum physics is the hard way: study the math and do lots of calculations. Then after a year or two you might start to develop an intuition for quantum physics on its own terms, even if you can't relate it well to anything you already know.

If you go this route, then your brain will be mutilated.
You cease to sufficiently perceive the world around us.

Mathematics, unfortunately, can operate not only logically reconciled reasoning, but also easily handles errors.

Mathematics is the language in which we describe the causal connection.
Mathematics allows us to deduce from these causation other causal relationships that are not obvious.

In the language of mathematics (unfortunately) can write stupid too.
And mathematics will allow you to manipulate this nonsense in the context of a math laws.

In mathematical terms SRT not contradictory, but from the point of view of physics, SRT is blatant nonsense.
I demonstrated it, and my opponents have nothing to object.

SRT is not a scientific theory, because it is logically inconsistent theory.
SRT is a PR-project.
===============

Если вы пойдёте по этому пути, то ваш мозг будет искалечен.
Вы перестанете адекватно воспринимать окружающий мир.

Математика, к сожалению, может оперировать не только логически выверенными рассуждениями, но легко оперирует заблуждениями тоже.

Математика является языком, на котором можно описать причинно следственные связи.
Математика позволяет нам выводить из этих причинно следственных связей другие причинно следственные связи, которые неочевидны.

На языке математике (увы) можно записать глупость тоже.
И математика позволит вам манипулировать этой глупостью в рамках математических операций и законов.

С точки зрения математики SRT не противоречива, но сточки зрения физики SRT является откровенной чушью.
Я это наглядно продемонстрировал, и моим оппонентам возразить нечего.

SRT не является научной теорией, поскольку является логически противоречивой теорией.
SRT является PR-проектом.

 

[przyk]

Translational symmetry:[/B] the laws of physics are the same everywhere and at all times
Rotational symmetry: the laws of physics don’t depend on how we orient our coordinates
Boost symmetry: the laws of physics don’t depend on what inertial frame we’re in. In other words, the laws of physics for someone standing still are the same as for those who are moving at a constant velocity.

That's the gist of it. What I posted above is just a more detailed explanation of what rotational symmetry means: if you know that a certain system is a solution of the laws of physics, then you also know that a rotation of it is also a solution. The only difference is that I was talking about an actual rotation of a physical object, while your summary just talks about a rotation of the coordinate system. Of course, these are linked - see Wikipedia's explanation on active and passive transformations. If the laws of physics have a certain passive symmetry, they also have the corresponding active symmetry.

None of these concepts are difficult to get my mind around. In fact, they seem neccessary and natural.
As you specifically mention rotational symmetry, I've read up a liitle more on that. No problem so far.

I only focused on rotational symmetry because rotations are the transformation you will know about that most resemble Lorentz boosts. I don't know if you've seen what a rotation looks like mathematically. In case you haven't, a rotation of, say, just the x and y coordinates would normally be expressed something like this:

$$
\begin{eqnarray}
x' &=& \cos(\theta) x \,-\, \sin(\theta) y \\
y' &=& \sin(\theta) x \,+\, \cos(\theta) y \,.
\end{eqnarray}
$$​

By comparison, a Lorentz boost along the x axis can be expressed as:

$$
\begin{eqnarray}
ct' &=& \cosh(\phi) ct \,-\, \sinh(\phi) x \\
x' &=& -\, \sinh(\phi) ct \,+\, \cosh(\phi) x \,.
\end{eqnarray}
$$​

The Lorentz boost takes this form when it is expressed in terms of an "angle like" parameter $$\phi$$ called the "rapidity".

So the Lorentz boost is a transformation that mixes up the x and t coordinates similar to the way a rotation like the one I wrote above mixes up the x and y coordinates. Basically, the point of relativity is that we've discovered that the Lorentz boost is a symmetry in physics in just the same way that rotation is a symmetry. Because of that, we consider Lorentz transformations to be the "correct" relation between the coordinates of inertial reference frames.

 

[Masterov]

The only difference is that I was talking about an actual rotation of a physical object...

Actual rotation of a physical object?

No.

You talking about visual effects which are consequence of propeties of electromagnetic waves.

Lorentz transformations describe the visual coordinates of stars and distant galaxies, for example.
The actual coordinates of the stars and galaxies and their visual coordinates are different.

 

[przyk]

Actual rotation of a physical object?

No.

You talking about visual effects which are consequence of propeties of electromagnetic waves.

Lorentz transformations describe the visual coordinates of stars and distant galaxies, for example.
The actual coordinates of the stars and galaxies and their visual coordinates are different.

You will never understand relativity if you keep preaching like this and never take it for what it is. Lorentz transformations are not "visual" transformations in relativity.

If you look at an object moving very fast away from you, then according to SRT:

Physical time dilation factor: $$\frac{1}{\sqrt{1 \,-\, v^{2}/c^{2}}$$ (predicted by the Lorentz transformation).

Apparent (visual) time dilation factor: $$\sqrt{\frac{1 \,+\, v/c}{1 \,-\, v/c}$$ (due to the relativistic Doppler effect).

 

[LiverOil]

I just got the following really weird message from Masterov.

Masterov: do not contact me again. I believe you are a crank and do not wish be associated with you. Your ill-advised attempts to "embarrass" physicists are juvenile, egotistical, and laughable.

AlphaNumeric: my last reply probably got lost in the noise, I was asking you which of the (cool) European space agency projects you worked on when Masterov tried to evangelise me.

--
I wonder if this movement is strong enough to reshape the entire Romulan political landscape.

No, I have had other things to do with my time. I just finished a project for the European Space Agency. They consider me a good enough scientist to be worth paying.

Oh cool, I never knew there was an European space agency. Why haven't they gone to the moon or mars? And why do they pay a physicist to do work for them?

--
And if you had lived my life, you would understand my responsibility to the Federation.

You are not a physicist.
And you have not a very high opinion of a physicists.
(I understand you correctly?)

I - a physicist, but I share your opinion about my former colleagues.

I'm going to give you one tricky (ticklish) question you might ask physicists so that their faces will be red with shame.
This question is contained in school textbooks of physics and this question is formulated as follows: "Why wind blow?".
Modern physics has not complete and correct answer to this question, to the great shame of the scientists. You can verify this yourself if you ask this question to physicists.

If your physicist will talk about the laws of thermodynamics, then stop him and say: "The laws of thermodynamics are considering a closed vessel, a volume of which is limited, and the atmosphere is not bounded above, the volume of the vessel is unknown, so thermodynamics formulas can not be used".

You may be very surprised by the fact that the answer to the question "Why is the wind?" do not know a physicists who predict the weather. That's why they have such a poor prognosis. It is for this reason physics can not explain the nature of tornadoes.

Sincerely, Masterov.
Please forgive me my poor English language.

PS Please send me the questions and answers physicists, and I will happy to help you paint faces of physicist to red.