Three Experiments Challenging SRT

[Quantum Quack]

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.

looks like bait and switch tactics to me....publishing a private PM as well with an obvious purpose in mind...


Liver Oil, what is your ambition in posting a private PM?
[notes the association between Liver Oil and Alphanumeric...]

 

[Lakon]

przyk; thanks for your post #877.

I'm 'off the air' for the next day or two and will not be able to give this the attention it deserves. Rest assured I am keen to continue however, and will do so in due course. I've downloaded the wiki page you linked, and will study that too.

Cheers.

 

[RealityCheck]

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

You got to be kidding!

I was answering your previous 'bounded view' where you said that local magnetic fields are responsible for sunspots. I am tying to point out to you that the sun is a whole system/process, not just disparate systems at localised positions/processes. The sunspots are part of the overall pattern/dynamics. Hence the solar sunspot 'cycle period' of 11 yrs. Remember?

So, the local sunspot PAIRINGS are like the NORTH and SOUTH polar regions in a HORSESHOE like magnet (analogy) where the VISIBLE ARC SEGMENT of the overall 'LOOP' is completed through 'space' (here, coronal regions). In the case of the sunspot PAIRED phenomena, one 'pole' is where the field lines come out (north pole analogy) and the other is where the field lines/flows go in (South pole analogy). Sometimes there may be one major 'north pole' spot and two or more smaller 'south pole' spots surrounding and connected to it via the corresponding number of arcs. This layer/regions is where the sunspots/arcs are observed, because the energy is directed along the field lines and not all outside to the observer/satellite camera. The turbulent layers f the sun extend from subsurface layers into the corona. These magentic 'loops' twist and break and when the magnetic fields reconnect they pinch off the energy/matter which leaves the immediate regions and is detected. The absolute temps are what they are according to te actual energy/flows invoved. What WE detect is only what we CAN detect that LEAKS OUT of these plasma/magnetic loop features WHILE they ARE still SPOTS (and not after they disappear after reconnection).

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?

Just read the literature and see the cyclic nature of the build-up of twists and turns in the sun's field pattern over time as the rotation/coriolis etc effects eventually build up to the tangled filed lines etc which must 'give' at some critical point, and so re-establish the 'lower energy' pattern before they are disturbed again over the next cycle 'buildup' period.


For goodness sake, read the literature.

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.

Goofy to you because you are not aware of the information/phenomena being conveyed. Try reading up on a subject before kneejerking form incomplete information/comprehension base.

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?

The sunspots APPEAR cooler, they are NOT cooler. The paired-sunspot 'poles' are part of the overall LOOP flows/lines, so as a system of PAIRS PLUS CONNECTING LOOPLINES, they are NOT 'cooler', but appear cooler when treated as isolated/bounded phenomena/radiators. They are not; since while they ARE spots, the energy in that temporary loop phenomena is STILL moving/trapped ALONG (not radiating out) rather than ACROSS the field lines/loop (and only a relatively small amount of the total energy will LEAK OUT and observable; until the loop disintegrates, when the full measure of energy is then released/observed as a solar flare/ejection event).


So, calm down and do a full picture reading of the relevant literature and latest observations/discoveries. Cheers!

 

[RealityCheck]

Hi rpenner. Thanks for your reply.

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.

Thanks. We agree (though I suspect we come at that agreement from different perspectives/reasons).

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.

Again, thanks. Again, perhaps from difrerent directions.

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. 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.

Not at all. The 'proper time' is directly related to/derived from the proper processes however they may vary under varying conditions. The proper processes/cycles are of the proper energy-space features in a proper dynamics of their own parameters/contents/flows. At no time is the proper process a 'time' process' unless we introduce that 'derived' parameter FROM those observed processes. The 'clock processes' of processing matter-energy does exist; the 'time' derived from he analysis of the dynamics/processes is just that: derived, not fundamental/proper to the processes irrespective of the rate at which the environment/frame velocities etc dictate they proceed at compared to processes in other enviromnents.

The 'dilation' of time is a further comparison-derived value of a comparison-derived differential between the two processes under study/comparison.

So unless you admit an ABSOLUTE energy-space THIRD FACTOR present in all processes whatever their frame/rate/location etc, then the processes are the determinants of what 'times' and 'dilations' that are 'derived' from observations/comparisons of those processes.

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.

You keep on saying processes. Coordinate frames (being imaginary) don't have any processes. Minus the bafflegab, that's largely the point I have been making. You seem to say it less clearly the more you write.

Less clearly because the existing 'explanation' is being scrutinized under a new perspective which is not quite in synch with the view you assume is the right view. So naturally any novel perspective will seem bafflegab if the current orthodoxy hasn't the lexicon/concepts to convey this new perspective in the way you would prefer.


Anyway, we already agree that co-ordinate frames are not real, so I haven't changed that view; but it is you that seem to imply that just because co-ordinate frames are not real then processes are not real either. Perhaps you should separate the two. Processes are fundamental and real irrespective of the views from non-real co-ordinates or otherwise. The frame does not change the fact that processes per se exist.

It is the interpretations from SR only based on non-real frames/co-ordinates; the processes are not subject to such interpretations. They exist and have a rate of their own depending on the energy-space environmental factors and flows in a dynamics of their own, irrespective of whatever frames we use. That is the point. Time is derived from these fundamentals. Time 'dilation' is derived by comparisons between processes in same conditions and between frames under man-made non-real co-ordinate constructs.

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.

All co-ordinates are equal in the sense they are "not real" in the sense you admit. As such, they are not the arbiters of anything except what our theory interprets given that non-reality analysis.

Everything else flows from that:

- There is proper process; from which we derive proper time.

- There is proper process 'acceleration/decleration' factor from which we may further derive an 'imaginary' time 'dilation' factor for convenience in analysis/interpretations in non-real SR 'geometric/mathematical' construct.

That's all that can be taken from what you and I agree on and from what you maintain as SR non-real co-ordinates construct/perspective.

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.)

But since co-ordinates are not real as you and I agreed, then all that is a limited non-real perspective regardless of extension of geometry from euclidian to Einsteinian etc. The fact remains that non-real persectives may be useful, but they 'explain' nothing regarding the PROPER and FUNDAMENTAL aspects which are yet to be treated in a less non-real way by future extension/improvement/completion of current 'non-reality' based theory.

Really, thanks for your reply, rpenner. It was helpful and constructive to objective scientific discourse of pioneering revisions of what are the uses and limitations of non-real geometric perspectives of the reality. Cheers.

 

[Masterov]

I just got the following really weird message from Masterov.

Just got?
I wrote my letter for you last week.
But because the response from you was not, I forgot you.

Masterov: do not contact me again.

You have no reason to think I'm obsessive.

I believe you are a crank and do not wish be associated with you.

I forgot about you already.
And if you had not reminded me of myself, then I have not thought about you now?

Your ill-advised attempts to "embarrass" physicists are juvenile, egotistical, and laughable.

Try to answer my questions ("Why wind blow?" for begin), and we'll laugh together.

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 tried to evangelise?
But I did not read the Gospel.
All the more, I could not evangelise.
I do not profess any religion.
You are confusing me with someone else.
-------------------------

PS If you do not remind me of you in the future, I do forget you again.

 

[Masterov]

When a comet fall to Sun are calorification in a wide range of frequencies and is localized heating to temperatures in excess of 6000K.
Therefore, in sunspots can be observed temperature much higher than 6000K.
But the energy that is released (when a comet fall to Sun) is not enough to ionize the entire mass of the comet and heat it to 6000K.
Therefore sunspots (on average) cold, but locally are very hot.
As observed in sunspots.
================================

При падении кометы имеет место выделение энергии в широком спектре частот и происходит локальный нагрев до температур, которые превышают 6000K.
Поэтому в солнечных пятнах могут наблюдаться температуры значительно превышающие 6000K.
Но той энергии, которая выделяется при падении кометы, не достаточно, чтобы ионизировать всю массу кометы и нагреть её до 6000K.
Поэтому солнечные пятна холодные в среднем, но локально очень горячие.

Что и наблюдается в солнечных пятнах.

 

[rpenner]

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"?

Time is obvious -- but time is also personal. Equally personal is ones state of motion. So, I say that one may assert without contraction: time is a direction (alternately, a dimension) chosen by ones personal state of motion. This is the physical consequence of the generalized Galilean transform when K = c⁻².
In that not everyone's choice of time is parallel in any coordinate space, there is no reality to the concept of absolute time.
In that one may choose between alternate directions of time via changing ones state of motion, time is an inseparable part of space-time.

This is what Minkowski sought to convey to his audience in his 1908 address "Raum und Zeit".

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Space_and_Time_(1920_edition)

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.

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.

Thanks. We agree (though I suspect we come at that agreement from different perspectives/reasons).

That's the two things the generalized Galilean transform when K = c⁻² (i.e. the Lorentz transform) does: it relabels the coordinates of events and it changes the standard of rest.
But neither change affects space time or the physics that happen in space time -- thus neither coordinates nor choice of standard of rest are real things.

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.

Again, thanks. Again, perhaps from difrerent directions.

Given two events along an inertial world line, one has a measure in any given coordinate system of a certain amount of elapsed coordinate time, $$\Delta t$$, and also a certain amount of change in spatial coordinates, $$\Delta \vec{x}$$. One is free to find any other inertial coordinate system where $$\Delta t' \geq \sqrt{(\Delta t)^2 - c^{-2} (\Delta \vec{x})^2}$$ and $$\left| \Delta \vec{x}' \right| \geq 0$$ such that $$c^{2} (\Delta t')^2 - (\Delta \vec{x}')^2 = c^{2} (\Delta t)^2 - (\Delta \vec{x})^2$$.

So that's quite a bit of freedom (but not total) one has to choose coordinate time for a given pair of events.

In the same way my analogy with coordinates for a sheet of paper, one has freedom to choose the x-axis to point in any direction.

Imagine a large, irregular sheet of paper. Alice and Bob each pick a different point as the origin of a 2-dimensional Euclidean coordinate system. Each coordinate system labels each point of the paper with two coordinates. A formula lets us convert Alice's coordinates (x,y) to Bob's coordinates (x',y').
$$\begin{pmatrix} x' \\ y' \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 + m^2}} & \frac{-m}{\sqrt{1 + m^2}} \\ \frac{m}{\sqrt{1 + m^2}} & \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 + m^2}} \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} x \\ y \end{pmatrix} + \begin{pmatrix} \chi \\ \upsilon \end{pmatrix}$$
And coordinate differences transform like:
$$\begin{pmatrix} \Delta x' \\ \Delta y' \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 + m^2}} & \frac{-m}{\sqrt{1 + m^2}} \\ \frac{m}{\sqrt{1 + m^2}} & \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 + m^2}} \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} \Delta x \\ \Delta y \end{pmatrix}$$
or back the other way
$$\begin{pmatrix} \Delta x \\ \Delta y \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 + m^2}} & \frac{m}{\sqrt{1 + m^2}} \\ \frac{-m}{\sqrt{1 + m^2}} & \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 + m^2}} \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} \Delta x' \\ \Delta y' \end{pmatrix}$$

Naturally, if Alice measures out $$\begin{pmatrix} \Delta x \\ \Delta y \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} 1 \\ 0 \end{pmatrix}$$, Bob measures this same line as $$\begin{pmatrix} \Delta x' \\ \Delta y' \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 + m^2}} \\ \frac{m}{\sqrt{1 + m^2}} \end{pmatrix}$$.
And if Bob measures out $$\begin{pmatrix} \Delta x' \\ \Delta y' \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} 1 \\ 0 \end{pmatrix}$$, Alice measures this same line as $$\begin{pmatrix} \Delta x \\ \Delta y \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 + m^2}} \\ \frac{-m}{\sqrt{1 + m^2}} \end{pmatrix}$$.

This does not mean that Alice and Bob both have a x-dilation of $$\frac{1}{\sqrt{1 + m^2}}$$ with respect to each other -- that is just a small part of the whole story. It is a piece so small as to be a gross distortion if substituted for a complete understanding. The whole story includes

• $$\sqrt{(\Delta x)^2 + (\Delta y)^2} = \sqrt{(\Delta x')^2 + (\Delta y')^2}$$ for all straight lines,
• that in terms of this invariant the straight line between two points has the lowest total of any path connecting the points ,
• the relation is a rotation
• what is rotated can be rotated back, and
• this is a relative rotation not connected with any absolute coordinate system, but only the choices made by Alice and Bob.

$$\begin{pmatrix} \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 + m^2}} & \frac{-m}{\sqrt{1 + m^2}} \\ \frac{m}{\sqrt{1 + m^2}} & \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 + m^2}} \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} \cos \; \tan^{\tiny -1} m & - \sin \; \tan^{\tiny -1} m \\ \sin \; \tan^{\tiny -1} m & \cos \; \tan^{\tiny -1} m \end{pmatrix}$$
$$ \begin{pmatrix} \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 + m^2}} & \frac{m}{\sqrt{1 + m^2}} \\ \frac{-m}{\sqrt{1 + m^2}} & \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 + m^2}} \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 + m^2}} & \frac{-m}{\sqrt{1 + m^2}} \\ \frac{m}{\sqrt{1 + m^2}} & \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 + m^2}} \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} \frac{1 + (m)(m)}{1 + m^2} & \frac{m -m}{1 + m^2} \\ \frac{m - m}{1 + m^2} & \frac{(-m)(-m) + 1}{1 + m^2} \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix} $$

The whole story of [special] relativity includes

• $$\sqrt{(c \Delta t)^2 - (\Delta x)^2 - (\Delta y)^2 - (\Delta z)^2} = \sqrt{(c \Delta t')^2 - (\Delta x')^2- (\Delta y')^2- (\Delta z')^2}$$ for all inertial paths,
• that in terms of this invariant the inertial path between two events has the highest total of any path connecting the events ,
• the relation is a hyperbolic rotation
• what is hyperbolic rotated can be hyperbolic rotated back, and
• this is a relative hyperbolic rotation not connected with any absolute coordinate system, but only the choices made by Alice and Bob.

$$\begin{pmatrix} \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - \beta^2}} & \frac{\beta}{\sqrt{1 - \beta^2}} \\ \frac{\beta}{\sqrt{1 - \beta^2}} & \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - \beta^2}} \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} \cosh \; \tanh^{\tiny -1} \beta & \sinh \; \tanh^{\tiny -1} \beta \\ \sinh \; \tanh^{\tiny -1} \beta & \cosh \; \tanh^{\tiny -1} \beta \end{pmatrix}$$

Which is an essential part to get if you want to differentiate between the structure of coordinate system and the structure of a geometry. When physics uses mathematical models, it is saying that the structure of the mathematical model precisely models the observable structure of some aspect of reality. It is not a statement of mechanical underpinnings, but to the the extent that there may be underpinnings they replicate the behavior of the mathematical model. Euclidean geometry is a good model for the surface of paper provided we don't look close enough to see the texture of the paper or the thickness of the dots we put on it. Hyperbolic geometry, so experiments that favor K = c⁻² over K = 0 tell us, is a good model for space-time.

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.

Not at all. The 'proper time' is directly related to/derived from the proper processes however they may vary under varying conditions. The proper processes/cycles are of the proper energy-space features in a proper dynamics of their own parameters/contents/flows. At no time is the proper process a 'time' process' unless we introduce that 'derived' parameter FROM those observed processes. The 'clock processes' of processing matter-energy does exist; the 'time' derived from he analysis of the dynamics/processes is just that: derived, not fundamental/proper to the processes irrespective of the rate at which the environment/frame velocities etc dictate they proceed at compared to processes in other enviromnents.

The 'dilation' of time is a further comparison-derived value of a comparison-derived differential between the two processes under study/comparison.

So unless you admit an ABSOLUTE energy-space THIRD FACTOR present in all processes whatever their frame/rate/location etc, then the processes are the determinants of what 'times' and 'dilations' that are 'derived' from observations/comparisons of those processes.

You have asserted many different things, but have not modelled them so have no way to communicate their physicality.
First of all you need to define what you mean by a proper frame and explain how it can have any physical processes, and which of those physical processes are "proper" and then explain how to derive what you call proper time. Next you must fully document how and what conditions vary the "proper" processes and which processes are cycles. Then let's hear you separate energy-space features and dynamics into those that are proper and improper. Having defined these terms and I suspect others, you need to demonstrate that they are physically reasonable in that they at least correspond in detail and precision to the physics your listeners know.
Then having demonstrates that your world-view is physically motivates, you may build a logical argument that some sort of "absolute energy-space" is needed.

But you haven't argued for any of this, you have only asserted statements about relations between undefined entities and asserted that I have some sort of admission due you. This is argumentum ex culo, or bafflegab to be polite.

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.

Less clearly because the existing 'explanation' is being scrutinized under a new perspective which is not quite in synch with the view you assume is the right view. So naturally any novel perspective will seem bafflegab if the current orthodoxy hasn't the lexicon/concepts to convey this new perspective in the way you would prefer.

New lexicon, undefined and unpublished in the scientific literature, with no demonstrated value is bafflegab.

Anyway, we already agree that co-ordinate frames are not real, so I haven't changed that view; but it is you that seem to imply that just because co-ordinate frames are not real then processes are not real either.

Processes of unreal things are unreal. You asserted above that "proper frames" have "proper processes" but that doesn't define either frame or process or proper. Bafflegab.

Perhaps you should separate the two. Processes are fundamental and real irrespective of the views from non-real co-ordinates or otherwise. The frame does not change the fact that processes per se exist.

Neither can the frame (in standard physics a synonym for a choice of inertial coordinate system) render processes "proper" or "improper" with any real meaning. It's your bafflegab, it's your responsibility. But if you drop the "proper" there are a large number of processes, electromagnetic, weak, and strong and gravitational, which can with high precision track (i.e. act as clocks) the elapsed proper time of any object for which they are co-moving. And as elapsed coordinate time equals elapsed coordinate time for an inertial object which is not moving in that coordinate system, these physical clocks can be used as arguments that an inertial coordinate system can give precise times to events even in vacuum where none of these clocks actually exists. That clocks of such wildly different physical laws respect the same sense of time indicates that time is somehow more fundamental than each of them. That the clocks would report the time if they existed indicates that space-time has a mathematical structure (a symmetry) which is not tied to the existence of clocks.

This is why I think geometry is the best way to address this structure of space-time. If the symmetry is ever found to be flawed, then it might be high time to dig deeper, but until you find a flaw in a bearing it is a perfect sphere and until you find a flaw in Lorentz symmetry, the geometry of space-time is perfectly Lorentzian.

It is the interpretations from SR only based on non-real frames/co-ordinates; the processes are not subject to such interpretations. They exist and have a rate of their own depending on the energy-space environmental factors and flows in a dynamics of their own, irrespective of whatever frames we use. That is the point. Time is derived from these fundamentals. Time 'dilation' is derived by comparisons between processes in same conditions and between frames under man-made non-real co-ordinate constructs.

Incorrect. And with "energy-space environmental factors" you fall back into bafflegab thicker than quantum woo.

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.

All co-ordinates are equal in the sense they are "not real" in the sense you admit. As such, they are not the arbiters of anything except what our theory interprets given that non-reality analysis.

Everything else flows from that:

- There is proper process; from which we derive proper time.

- There is proper process 'acceleration/decleration' factor from which we may further derive an 'imaginary' time 'dilation' factor for convenience in analysis/interpretations in non-real SR 'geometric/mathematical' construct.

That's all that can be taken from what you and I agree on and from what you maintain as SR non-real co-ordinates construct/perspective.

Empty assertions and non sequiturs.

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.)

But since co-ordinates are not real as you and I agreed, then all that is a limited non-real perspective regardless of extension of geometry from euclidian to Einsteinian etc. The fact remains that non-real persectives may be useful, but they 'explain' nothing regarding the PROPER and FUNDAMENTAL aspects which are yet to be treated in a less non-real way by future extension/improvement/completion of current 'non-reality' based theory.

Really, thanks for your reply, rpenner. It was helpful and constructive to objective scientific discourse of pioneering revisions of what are the uses and limitations of non-real geometric perspectives of the reality. Cheers.

Coordinates aren't geometric perspectives -- they are algebraic perspectives until you interpret them geometrically, as in algebraic geometry.

 

[LiverOil]

looks like bait and switch tactics to me....publishing a private PM as well with an obvious purpose in mind...
Liver Oil, what is your ambition in posting a private PM?
[notes the association between Liver Oil and Alphanumeric...]

Bait and switch? I know of the concept, but I am completely lost as to how anyone could pull off a profit making endeavour via a (pseudo) physics forum.

I don't know what you mean by ambition: is this not considered to be good etiquette? I certainly want this Masterov weirdo to know that I don't want to have anything to do with him, so I'm happy to break etiquette for this point to be made.

What do you mean association with Alphanumeric? I don't know him, but I thought I was having a conversation with him before all this weirdness with Masterov happened. I think I want out now, it's too bizarre. This whole forum is just too bizarre: every conversation turns into a slagging match and most people are clearly cranks!

--
I honestly don't know.

 

[Masterov]

I certainly want this Masterov weirdo to know that I don't want to have anything to do with him, so I'm happy to break etiquette for this point to be made.

I understood it. (I'm quick-witted.)

Why do you come to my topic, in this case?
Can you explain?

 

[Masterov]

Propose to comprehend again the fact that modern physics does not answer the most basic questions, such (for example) as: "Why wind blow?"
Proof of this is the fact that none of my opponents did not dare to give a comprehensive answer to this question.

It's a shame, disgrace and shame for every physicist!

Nor do these people dare to judge things a lot more complicated.

=========================

Предлагаю осмыслить тот факт, что современная физика не даёт ответа на самые простые вопросы, такие (например), как: Почему дует ветер?
Доказательством тому служит тот факт, что ни один из участвующих в полемике не осмелился дать исчерпывающий ответ на этот вопрос.

Это – позор, срам и стыд для каждого физика.

И при этом эти люди берутся судить о вещах много более сложных.

 

[origin]

You got to be kidding!

Nope

I was answering your previous 'bounded view' where you said that local magnetic fields are responsible for sunspots. I am tying to point out to you that the sun is a whole system/process, not just disparate systems at localised positions/processes. The sunspots are part of the overall pattern/dynamics. Hence the solar sunspot 'cycle period' of 11 yrs. Remember?

No you were talking about coronal heating which has nothing to do with sunspots.

So, the local sunspot PAIRINGS are like the NORTH and SOUTH polar regions in a HORSESHOE like magnet (analogy) where the VISIBLE ARC SEGMENT of the overall 'LOOP' is completed through 'space' (here, coronal regions). In the case of the sunspot PAIRED phenomena, one 'pole' is where the field lines come out (north pole analogy) and the other is where the field lines/flows go in (South pole analogy). Sometimes there may be one major 'north pole' spot and two or more smaller 'south pole' spots surrounding and connected to it via the corresponding number of arcs. This layer/regions is where the sunspots/arcs are observed, because the energy is directed along the field lines and not all outside to the observer/satellite camera. The turbulent layers f the sun extend from subsurface layers into the corona. These magentic 'loops' twist and break and when the magnetic fields reconnect they pinch off the energy/matter which leaves the immediate regions and is detected. The absolute temps are what they are according to te actual energy/flows invoved. What WE detect is only what we CAN detect that LEAKS OUT of these plasma/magnetic loop features WHILE they ARE still SPOTS (and not after they disappear after reconnection).

If you are trying to say that sunspots are responsoble for coronal heating you need to supply evidence of that.

Just read the literature and see the cyclic nature of the build-up of twists and turns in the sun's field pattern over time as the rotation/coriolis etc effects eventually build up to the tangled filed lines etc which must 'give' at some critical point, and so re-establish the 'lower energy' pattern before they are disturbed again over the next cycle 'buildup' period.

Got it; you do not have any evidence to support your earlier claim:

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.

Goofy to you because you are not aware of the information/phenomena being conveyed. Try reading up on a subject before kneejerking form incomplete information/comprehension base.

No it is goofy because it is stuff you make up - if not simply supply the evidence.

The sunspots APPEAR cooler, they are NOT cooler. The paired-sunspot 'poles' are part of the overall LOOP flows/lines, so as a system of PAIRS PLUS CONNECTING LOOPLINES, they are NOT 'cooler', but appear cooler when treated as isolated/bounded phenomena/radiators. They are not; since while they ARE spots, the energy in that temporary loop phenomena is STILL moving/trapped ALONG (not radiating out) rather than ACROSS the field lines/loop (and only a relatively small amount of the total energy will LEAK OUT and observable; until the loop disintegrates, when the full measure of energy is then released/observed as a solar flare/ejection event).

Still wrong - sunspots are cooler, it really isn't that complicated. If I am wrong, you can simply supply some evidence supporting your position

So, calm down and do a full picture reading of the relevant literature and latest observations/discoveries. Cheers!

Try sticking to what is known and quit making up goofy stuff, it destroys your posts.

 

[Masterov]

Rising convection currents are hotter.
If sunspots are the result of the internal dynamics of the Sun, then the sunspots should be hotter.
But sunspots are cooler.

CONCLUSION: sunspots occur not as a result of internal dynamics.

There is no other the internal dynamics of Sun than convection currents from the core to the depth of a million miles.
==========================

Восходящие конвекционные потоки более горячие.
Если солнечные пятна являются следствием внутренней динамики Солнца, то пятна должны быть более горячими.
Но солнечные пятна холодные.

ВЫВОД: солнечные пятна возникают не в результате внутренней динамики.

Нет никакой другой внутренней динамики Солнца кроме конвекционных потоков из ядра на всю глубину в миллион километров.

 

[origin]

Rising convection currents are hotter.
If sunspots are the result of the internal dynamics of the Sun, then the sunspots should be hotter.
But sunspots are cooler.

You can't think of any other ideas huh? Convection or comets - that is it? Quite the scientist aren't we?

CONCLUSION: sunspots occur not as a result of internal dynamics.

Well like you said, only 2 options, sunspots can't possibly be related to anything, else like a magnetic field for instance. (Geeze, what a goof)

There is no other the internal dynamics of Sun than convection currents from the core to the depth of a million miles.

JESUS H. CHRIST the sun is big - huh?

 

[RealityCheck]

Nope

Then you have a problem.

No you were talking about coronal heating which has nothing to do with sunspots.

Oh please just stop ego-kneejerking and LISTEN. The coronal heating COMES FROM THE PHENOMENA of which sunspots are a part. Can you just get that before pretending to yourself and to everyone here that these things are somehow 'unrelated' events? Look at the wider phenomena, not your pet bounded part of it. OK?

If you are trying to say that sunspots are responsoble for coronal heating you need to supply evidence of that.

Read the bloody literature. It's all there if you look without reading/limitation bias to continue your limited perspective.

Got it; you do not have any evidence to support your earlier claim:

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.

I have often noticed where you and certain others berate others for NOT reading up on the subject matter before making posts about it. I have asked you to do what you often recommend to others. So, read up on it in the literature, instead of using double standards and just claiming there is no evidence available to even the most lazy interlocutor.

Go read up on these aspects and get back to me after you have a sufficiently wide familiarity with what I am talking about. All I'm asking is for you to do what you ask others to do when it suits YOU. Thanks.

No it is goofy because it is stuff you make up - if not simply supply the evidence.

You don't (or wilfully will not admit to) understand what I have said. You won't even read up on what I allude to. You keep making comments from ego/personal stance and, what's worse, from INCOMPLETE information base which you will not bother to correct by reading up on the subject before making further comment. Not a good look for someone who pretends to PERSONALLY criticize others. Glass houses.

Still wrong - sunspots are cooler, it really isn't that complicated. If I am wrong, you can simply supply some evidence supporting your position

Read again what I have pointed out about the energy content/containment until the reconnection/loop-bursting event releases the overall energy. Until that happens, any measurement/interpretation of whatever energy is LEAKING out of the intact loop/flows will NOT be a true indicator of the inherent temperature of the actual feature.

And when the arc/loop DOES 'break' and the previously 'magnetically contained/confined' energy/plasma mass IS released , that energy/plasma is what heats up the CORONA/EJECTS into space to be observed/intercepted and the total inherent energy/mass content of the erstwhile sunspot pair/loopsystem can be fully 'measured'. That is why the corona gets HOTTER than the surface of the sun itself. Get it yet?

Try sticking to what is known and quit making up goofy stuff, it destroys your posts.

Try actually reading up on what is known. That would make your own posts on this a little more fully informed as opposed to whatever partial/mis-information you are obviously coming from so far.



And have you yet understood that sunspots come in 'north/south' PAIRINGS as I described? Or do you still think each sunspot is 'isolated' and not part of a wider phenomena/dynamics? Really, you have to get up to speed more if you wish to make anywhere near cogent/valid criticisms on my posts so far on this.

Now stop being 'personal/excitable' in your responses, and just stick to the dispassionate points/discussion. Thanks.

Good luck and good reading to you...and stop bounding your perspective/information........enjoy the wider picture!

 

[Masterov]

Rising convection currents are hotter.
If sunspots are the result of the internal dynamics of the Sun, then the sunspots should be hotter.
But sunspots are cooler.

You can't think of any other ideas huh? Convection or comets - that is it? Quite the scientist aren't we?

I thought a lot of options.
Two options left with .
The other options do not have a physical justification.

Option that sunspots are the result of the internal dynamics of the Sun can not be implemented for the reason that all the sources of energy in the sun is very deep (million miles closer to the center of the Sun).
From the solar surface to a depth of one million kilometers no process (except of convection) in Sun which can are the reasons for the internal dynamics of the Sun processes (of non-convection type).

There is only one option: to the surface of the sun falling comet trail of comet and we see a sunspots.

The second reason (so that the spot may not be the result of an internal activity of the Sun) is that the spots colder surface layers. If manifested intrinsic activity of the sun, the spot would have been hot.

The third reason is that (judging by the scale of sunspots) internal processes must be in close proximity to the surface to a depth of not more than two thousand kilometers.
But at this depth of Sun there is nothing that could be the reason for the phenomena such as sunspots.
============================

Я думал много вариантов.
Осталось два варианта.
Остальные варианты не имеют физического обоснования.

Вариант, при котором солнечные пятна являются следствием внутренней динамики Солнца не может быть реализован по той причине, что все источники энергии в солнце находятся очень глубоко (миллион километров ближе к центру Солнца).
От поверхности Солнца до глубины в миллион километров никаких других процессов (кроме процессов конвекции) в Солнце не происходит (причин для этих процессов нет).

Остался один вариант: на поверхность солнца падает комета и след от падения кометы мы наблюдаем в виде пятна.

Вторая причина того, что Пятна не могут являться следствием внутренней активности Солнца заключается в том, что пятна холоднее поверхностных слоёв. Если бы проявлялась внутренняя активность солнца, то пятна были бы горячими.

Третья причина в том, что (судя по масштабам солнечных пятен) внутренние процессы должны происходить в непосредственной близости от поверхности, на глубине не более двух тысяч километров.
А на этой глубине в Солнце нет ничего, что могло бы стать причиной для явлений, подобных солнечным пятнам.

 

[Lakon]

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.

Hi przyk - OK, I think I'm OK with all that. I've also studied the wiki page, and understand the difference between active and passive transformation.

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.

The mathematics is totally beyond me. I have the math ability of, say, a mid level high school student. I hope you don't give up un me because of this, however.

Remember, what I'm hoping to get out of this is an understanding, in common everyday language and concepts, of time dilation. And though my post is brief, I have spent some considerable time, in studying the material and concepts you have pointed me to thus far.

Thanks.

 

[Lakon]

PS If you do not remind me of you in the future, I do forget you again.

Masterov, that's just too funny - whether you intended it or not.

One question - and please give me a clear, non quixotic answer.

A couple of times you've said science doen't konw why the wind blows. Do you ? What's your theory ?

 

[przyk]

The mathematics is totally beyond me. I have the math ability of, say, a mid level high school student. I hope you don't give up un me because of this, however.

You might not be familiar with the exact mathematical description, but what they're describing is simple enough. The first two equations I wrote (for a rotation) just depict this situation:

(Obtained by doing a Google image search for "rotation coordinates", which led me here.) What this is depicting is that if you start with certain x and y coordinates, then you can use a rotation to define two new coordinates x' and y' which are a certain mixture of the old x and y coordinates. The principle of rotational symmetry states that the laws of physics take the same form whether you write them in the (x, y) or (x', y') coordinates.

By analogy, a Lorentz boost depicted on a space-time diagram would look something like this:

(Obtained near the end of the page here.) Relativity states that the laws of physics take the same form whether you write them in terms of the (t, x) or (t', x') coordinates.

Remember, what I'm hoping to get out of this is an understanding, in common everyday language and concepts, of time dilation. And though my post is brief, I have spent some considerable time, in studying the material and concepts you have pointed me to thus far.

Well it's difficult to derive concrete results without using mathematics, but as you can see above, the Lorentz boost defines new time coordinates t' and x' which are a certain mixture of the t and x coordinates. If you know that this is a symmetry in physics, then it's not hard to imagine you're going to get effects like time dilation out of it.

Beyond that, I don't see how I can help you. The fact that the Lorentz boost is a symmetry in physics is something we've discovered (originally lurking in electromagnetism, and we've found it well supported by experience ever since). We can't explain why things should be that way any more than we can explain why rotation should be a symmetry in physics. They just are, as far as our experience shows.

By the way, if the term "time dilation" itself is puzzling you, like you're reading it as saying that time itself slows down, then you're probably reading more into it than you really need to. All we can really objectively say is that, according to relativity, we expect physical objects and systems in motion to evolve or "age" more slowly than an equivalent system at rest. Because relativity states that this is due to a symmetry in physics, we expect the same result regardless of the internal details of the system in question. Beyond that is just a matter of personal philosophy. In physics, we care about what we can in principle measure - we're rather pragmatic about things in that respect - so if we find that all moving objects evolve more slowly and always by exactly the same factor, then we'll think that, for all practical purposes, we may as well say that "time" slows down.

 

[Masterov]

PS If you do not remind me of you in the future, I do forget you again.

A couple of times you've said science doen't konw why the wind blows. Do you? What's your theory?

How you got this issue from the quotation?
----------------------

Do I know the answer to a question "Why wind blow?"?

Yes, I know.
I understand a natures of a winds, tornadoes and hurricanes.

But I would like to have seen all that the answer to this question of physics do not know.
The answer to this question is not known even by those physicists who predict the weather.
It is for this reason we have such a bad weather forecast.

The answer to this question is the key to understanding the mechanism of generation of a tornado.
And in general: without this answer will remain a mystery to scientists many atmospheric processes.

For example: Coriolis force is practical value in the weather is not.
-----------------

Do you know: why the dewfall into sunrise?

 

[Masterov]

przyk, what the purpose have your manipulation by visual coordinates?

You will not deny that the Lorentz transformations describe the visual coordinates of stars and galaxies?
==============

Ваши манипуляции с визуальными координатами какую цель преследуют?

Вы не будете отрицать, что Преобразования Лоренца описывают визуальные координаты звёзд и галактик?