Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by quantum_wave, Dec 5, 2014.
i apologize for your comments appearing to be on par with a mentally disabled individual.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
I would dispute many things in what you just posted as to any mechanics given, but I don't want to seem unappreciative of your responses. You are trying to "tell" me what you believe is mechanistic and true, and I respect that, though you might not understand the difference between empirical, mathematical, and mechanistic.
I suppose you give me credit for an uneducated layman preliminary guess when I refer to the gravitational wave energy density gradient of the medium of space. Your explanation seems to be that space is composed of: 1) this sheer fluid which is energy, 2) that hosts what Einstein defines as gravitational waves from certain stress events like exploding stars, 3) plus the properties of space that govern the speed of light, permittivity and permeability, 4) plus the pressure caused by, what, somehow adding more space, or adding more matter? Do they come from nowhere, out of nothing?
Have I got it all? Is that what you say constitutes the nature of space?
How do those characteristics of space come about, meaning what is their nature and how do their values change, mechanistically? How can some "stress" events produce gravitational waves, when common interactions between particles do not? I say that all particles that interact display new geodesics, and the conservation of energy and momentum require resulting waves which I call gravitational waves.
Just grabbing from your post, do you claim that what makes things mechanistic is the gravitational field that occurs when you add space to space? Are you saying that if you add space to the field, that makes it mechanistic by causing the existing space to curve to accommodate the new space? How so? Seriously, answer how do you add space? It isn't difficult to grasp that new space causes the "curvature" of existing space, or in my words energy density variances, as a result of pressure, assuming the pressure of new space is different, but first I want to understand how you simply add space to space.
If you mean that the stress-energy-momentum tensor of the space, refers to the the shear stress of the medium of space when matter is present, then maybe you mean that if you add matter to space, you get curvature and stress, which in the table that you presented equates to pressure? I agree but you haven't got the mechanics of it yet, and so our description of it will be different. To say the energy in space and energy contained in matter is equivalent relative to the speed of light squared, then answer my question about how energy becomes contained in matter?
I do understand the difference. The stress-energy-momentum tensor "describes the density and flux of energy and momentum in spacetime". A photon moving through space is a flux of energy-momentum, and it's a wave too. It really is a wave, not a point particle, and not a wave with some billiard-ball thing in the middle. Radio waves don't have little hard specks inside them. A radio-wave photon can have a wavelength of a kilometre.
Einstein refers to an ideal fluid, but it isn't what you'd think of as a fluid. Remember the shear stress term. It's an elastic solid.
Yes, Einstein said space isn't nothing, and he said the properties of space alter the speed of light in space. Search on properties, and you find stuff like this: "the gravitational potentials play the role μνg which—in short—expresses the physical properties of empty space. Again, “empty” space seems to be endowed with physical properties, that is, not physically empty as it appeared in the special theory of relativity. Therefore, one can say the ether has been resurrected." Note that the metric tensor is "what you measure", using for example light clocks dotted throughout space.
Adding more energy. A concentration of energy causes gravity. Matter only causes gravity because it is a concentration of energy. Search the Einstein papers on pressure and you see stuff like this where he refers to the pressure of an ideal fluid and changes in energy due to changes in density.
Pretty much. The thing to remember is that space isn't nothing. Waves run through it. It is a medium. You hear people saying it isn't, and that the electric wave creates the magnetic wave and vice versa, but that's cargo-cult rubbish.
Does not parse. A photon is a pulse of stress moving through space at c, and we make electrons and positrons out of it in pair production. Common interactions between particles are stress events. A photon has an active gravitational mass and so in a way it is a gravitational wave as well as an electromagnetic wave.
IMHO you need to look closely at what a photon is.
Throw a photon through it.
You're still not getting it. Forget about matter. Energy causes gravity. A photon causes gravity. Surely you know about TQFT? Matter is just tying light in knots.
Well, you just lied there.
Can you please give a single example of where Einstein use inhomogeneous space in a physics application?
I take your reference to the billiard-ball thing in the middle as a reference to my depiction of a photon wave-particle. Here it is again:
There is nothing solid in there, lol. The particle is composed of wave energy and the waves contained in the particle, though always in the process of inflowing and out flowing, do spend time traversing the particle space; what you call the billiard ball. Those are the contained waves and they make up the contained energy of the particle. Obviously, if waves slow down as the wave energy density increases, when waves leave the medium of space between particles, and enter the particle space, their progress slows dramatically. That results in a time delay relative to their speed outside of the particle. The time delay caused by the high energy density of the particle is the mechanism of energy containment by a particle.
The tiny, slow waves traversing the particle space do intersect and overlap, and the overlap space where waves intersect causes a "high density spot" there at each wave convergence. The particle has those spots all throughout it and they are continually changing location within the particle as the wave energy flows in and out.
The inflowing wave energy is directional from other particles and objects and is composed of the spherically out flowing wave energy from those distant particles and objects.
That is a simplified mechanistic explanation of the workings inside the wave-particle. They are not point particles; at least we agree on that.
Still, elastic solid isn't very descriptive, and it sounds like a form of aether like what I would call the waveless medium of space; a medium that is there regardless of any wave action, but that carries the wave action.
There is room for common ground, except that I would like to know how you measure the metric tensor. I'm somewhere near agreeing with the concept of light clocks, and to me such a clock would show dilation in the measurement, relative to a clock at rest. I would explain that dilation as being caused by the difference in energy density between the clocks, and either one can be considered at rest. Motion relative to a rest clock slows the rate that the moving clock measures the ticks because motion in any direction increases the energy density in that direction, and particles function slower as the energy density of their "frame" increases.
Good, we essentially agree.
Yes, good agreement.
So you say. Let's come back to that; too much content spreads the replies too thin, lol.
So do you.
That simple? Is the photon wave two dimensional or spherical?
Get over yourself, lol. What mechanics are occurring to tie light in knots. How does emission of a photon from an electron accomplish that knot thing?
Again, to much content keeps us from understanding each other. Try to respond just with what you deem necessary to answer my response, and try to respond to what I say, not with what you would have said if you were answering your own post, but to what I said in response. How can you falsify anything by saying it is wrong, and giving me responses which I have to ask for accompanying mechanics, just like I asked for in the first place.
Throw a photon through it, lol. Slow down there mate.
Used? What kind of mealy-mouthed question is that? I can show you where he referred to inhomogeneous space, that's good enough:
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Finding myself alone in Pseudoscience brings back old memories. I used to start threads here until I found that my ideas were becoming more and more reasonable and responsible, and at the same time, the Alternative Theories forum was created. My stuff rightfully belongs there, but it does make trolls feel good to get them shoved to pseudoscience from time to time by a compliant forum rules determination.
I want to add a follow-on to the content quoted above:
I've been told that images would help express my hypotheses, but who cares about you being helped to understand. You can visualize from my descriptions if you had any inclination to do that, and the quality of the members in general is high enough that most could, and most wouldn't.
However, if you can visualize the particle composed of "contained" wave energy, and those waves continually intersecting and overlapping, forming high density spots as they work their way through the particle space, you can easily visualize my hypothetical mechanism of gravity.
As particle wave energy is continually refreshed from the directionally inflowing wave energy, the high density spots within the particle space tend to shift in the direction of the net high energy density gradient in the surrounding medium of space. Therefore, particles and objects move in that direction.
One more point here. Since I hypothesize that the photon is a wave-particle with directionally inflowing wave energy and spherically out flowing wave energy, and because they are emitted at the speed of light to start with, photons get all of their inflowing wave energy from the direction of motion. Therefore, wave energy traversing the medium of space from any other direction will not be able to catch up with the photon, and so they will follow the gravitational wave energy density gradient of the medium of space. Since that gradient is influenced by the presence of massive objects, photon paths will curve with the gradient.
The innocent person would have said "I have never used a sock puppet to post in any discussion board. I have never needed to because I have never been banned." But you can't, can you. So instead you equivocate. You think readers won't notice, or at least you hope so. How's that working for you so far?
The direct answer to A ≠ B is A ≠ B, not B ≠ A. Forensics and mental health experts refer to this as subterfuge, and sometimes detect criminals from similarly nuanced speech.
A lie. Your relentless dishonest attacks on science and academia, your profuse reliance on mangled technical prose, your obstinate refusal to address empirical data, and your attacks on the constancy of c -- ostensibly to shore up their attacks on radiometric dating -- are straight from the SPAZ attackers' playbook. But my objection was against the repartee between two cranks, as it continues here. It is done to give the false impression that the main petpetrator has a modicum of support. It's quintessentially dishonest.
And like them, you have no credentials to justify any of your attacks on science and academia.
And since some of them remain closeted, or wear a thin patina of neutrality, your similar tactics do mirror those of a SPAZ.
Indeed I can find nothing that distances you from them, unless you have ever defended against YE SPAZzers by explaining the high certainty in dating the Earth to ca 4.7 BY, according to radiometric dating, and the high certainty of the exponential law of radioactive decay.
That is partly true since, by your own admission, you never had any credentials to begin with. But otherwise the opposite is true. No credentialed person or institution has ever endorsed your naive and narcissistic claims.
But you discredit yourself everytime you attack science and academia. So my statements stands on this fact alone.
Your latest tactic is to mangle technical prose, converting it to rant. Everytime you get up on your soapbox whining that "Einstein said", followed by your nonsensical conflation of real and apparent quantities, you are fully engaged in pseudoscience rant.
That itself is a lie. More accurate is to admit that you rarely are truthful.
Worse, you chronically interfere in intelligent discussion to promote yourself, and you have been promoting a junk science publication you authored which has been offered for sale. That itself is grounds for a permaban. But really, your marketing strategy has backfired since it only draws out assessments like "Folks, don't waste your money! John Duffield is an imposter, pretending to be an expert in physics, but he is only a programmer! What kind of dishonest nut would pretend to master highly technical principles taken from centuries of research by countless brilliant minds, who actually bothered to study and pass the exams Duffield never took, then go out into the world and gather data? His internet persona has 'fraud' stamped all over it!"
And I demand that your permaban be reinstated.
Just as a programmer is in no position to rewrite physics, a paroled permabanned user is in no position to demand anything, and esp. for taking cranks, trolls and spazzes to the woodshed. Everytime I see another member do that, I want pin a medal on them.
My objections to your posts are not insinuations. They are calls to order. Insinuations are what you do to prose taken from Einstein, redacted and mangled, to drone on about the variance of c, or any of the many versions of that trash.
Ah, the victim stance. Paint a target on your back, go into a crowded place and yell insults, and then cry when people throw rotten vegetables at you. All to sell a junk science book. Run away, realizing you're spinning your wheels, then get up and do it all over again. For years; many, many years. I think you're getting warm with "abuse" -- but it's entirely self-inflicted. Stop projecting your internal issues onto others. That's pathological. Go clean; begin by admitting that you can't solve the end of chapter problems in basic math and science. Explain why you obssess over the constancy of c, or "what Einstein said". Assuming you are neither a plumber or mechanic, tell us whether why you don't stand over your plumber's shoulder telling him how to sweat pipe, or reading out bolt torque specs to your mechanic when you're getting your car serviced. What is the difference here? Ask a SPAZ. They need more nuts like you to promote themselves and their cult.
Unlike you I am not using message boards to promote something I wrote. Don't blame others for your decision to promote yourself.
You make me proud of my ignorance.
Impeding trolls is not trollimg. Reversal, BTW, is straight from the SPAZ playbook. QED.
That's a strawman! No doubt there's Mods here that use socks! Take AN for example, he could be here disguised as you. Do you deny that?
No. AN, if he was around all this time, he wouldn't come after me like that. He would attack the content with content.
I think I have a pretty good idea of how AN posted. Just my opinion, but AN is here somewhere, and Aqueous sounds link AN to me. AN attacked, viciously! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Thanks, Dr.N. That is what the title of the thread asked. And the conclusion was really never in doubt.
It comes down to the question of coordinate time vs. proper time, in a general way, I think. At least it does if I am right in my understanding that coordinate time applies to SR, and proper time applies to GR.
In SR, where the OP started by referring to its time dilation factor, and implying that if light and gravity travel at the same speed in a given frame, then both travel at the same speed as each other in all frames, but their speed always varies between the rest frame and the moving frame.
Notice here, that when you add gravity, that is where you either step out of SR and invoke General Relativity and the EFE's, or as I often mention, you invoke the gravitational wave energy density hypothesis, not both.
They are different approaches to describing the relative effects of moving objects in terms of energy density. GR is based on empiricism over centuries of observation that is quantified most effectively by Einstein's EFEs, and the GWED hypothesis is a mechanistic approach.
I never invoked spacetime in this thread. I hypothesized that the gravitational energy density of the medium of space might replace GR's curvature of spacetime with a mechanistic explanation. It is GR or the GWEDH, lol.
So after consorting with known felon Farsight you are now associating with known psychopath Reiku? Or is this another surge in SPAZ activity?
That's not a conclusion. It's an assumption.
No, that would have no bearing on this question, other than to drive countless more nonsensical posts in which the member demands that nature follow his or her personal fantasy about how the universe "should" work, ostensibly to shore up some tacit belief, such as Creationism. Why else would anyone go to so much trouble continually picking at the meaning of time, the potential weakness in any theory that concerns time, the constant demand that wave propagation requires a medium, the insistence that there is an ether, that matter is really "made of" energy, and that science is fundamentally broken, but only in this limited way, leading to any ostensible argument against the constancy of c, whether to attack Big Bang theory or the true geologic age of the Earth? You are not bashing medicine, for example, and you will no doubt attest to the validity of any science that cured you (excluding some Christian Scientists etc.) But let's ignore the fact that other branches of science, such as medicine, also rely on the same first principles of physics which you keep attacking.
Why don't you people just come out of the closet and stop all the moronic pretense?
That's a consequence of electromagnetics which may or may not have any bearing on gravitational waves, if indeed any are ever detected. But there is no useful purpose to this line of inquiry and it has nothing to do with the first principles of science anyway, so really, you should kill this whole idea and bury it. Go pursue some issues in basic science, and start reading some of the milestone experiments which fostered modern physics. If I were you I would begin with the discovery of atomic spectra, and then try to stand in Hubble's shoes when he was reviewing the data that then existed. Start there, and learn how redshift presented itself to him, and how he inferred the Big Bang from that. Then work your way backwards to the entirely separate discoveries of Lorentz and Poincare about the nature of warp due to relativity, by learning what Fitzeau discovered. Then explain redshift in terms of the coordinate rotation they discovered. Pretty soon none of this imaginary science will matter anymore. You will be closer to understanding the ideas that you can never possibly explain by random fantasy. And also: learn how to spot fallacy in any proposition, beginning with your own.
Nonsense. SR applies to frames in relative motion, GR applies to frames at relative gravitational potential. They may or may not coincide. And drop the "hypothesis" which is properly characterized as "a baseless, fallacious and erroneous belief", not even a hypothesis at all. It's worthless trash, like a lot of bad ideas anyone with half a brain throws out before landing on good ideas. Hell, it's not even feasible. So kill it, burn it, and bury the ashes.
No they are not. They are the consequence of the relative nature of length and time, in reference to a measurement frame, looking at a test frame which is either in motion relative to the reference frame, and/or sitting at a different gravitational potential. For Pete's sake (where's Dr. Pete?) you need to be able to state this yourself, instead of convincing yourself by rote that whatever you dream up controls the world around you.
No, the prior empirical data is largely due to Tycho, who managed to eke 3 digits out of his primitive instruments and methods. Kepler's laws of planetary motion explained Tycho's data, and Newton explained the physical cause of Kepler's laws. The motivation for GR could be more properly cast as the consequence of noticing, much later, that there were small discrepancies in the more accurate trajectories of planets, which, as it turn out, are due to failure to account for relativity.
That's a meaningless statement. And even if it were meaningful, it would still be useless.
Then you're on the wrong track. You need to understand that warp acts coincidentally on space and time as a sheet that's been distended. That sheet is what we call spacetime. Otherwise you have no hope of carrying on a meaningful dialogue about relativity.
You mean you made the false, erroneous and fallacious assumption about that, nothing more.
No it's GR or some other feasible explanation that closes other open questions without reversing the tenets of GR. That excludes every one of your crank "hypotheses".
Take my advice. Get some basic training in science. Pick 20 physical scientists who made some important discovery, and read what they did, why, and how. You are only several courses shy of the education you need to understand why everyone keeps telling you your posts are all nonsensical, bald, and flat wrong.
AN didn't see a creationist behind every burning bush, and didn't think that layman questioning the things that the science community already questions was a hater trying to tear down science. My thread title is a question that isn't yet answered, but that almost everyone can accept; the speed of light and gravity are the same.
No, AN wasn't such an ignorant hater, though he did drive with two wheels off the road when he got mad; but usually not with all four wheels off the road. The good thing is that there is no need to try reply to such rubbish because there is nothing true about most of those types of rants in the first place, but thank you for your opinion on the possibility of a sock at work there.
Everyone knows that my profile says: "Contemplating the universe, considering infinity, and exploring the concept that anything that seems supernatural actually has natural causes that we don't yet understand." Sound like a creationist science hater to you, lol.
The haters are idiots who think that science is cast in stone. They are the ignorant ones. I believe there is a lot more science to be discovered. There could be a set of invariant natural laws that governs everything, including the connections in the brains of these hate filled ranters, which comes close to describing people like Aqueous_Id. And much of that science points to wave-particles, gravitational wave energy, and hidden variables at a foundational level where we aren't yet able to observe.
Far-sight: Correct me on the parts that I have wrong. A photon has an energy, equal to Planck's constant times the frequency. For example, what is the energy of a single photon? You have to know the frequency from the source. The source emits a flow of photons, often of multiple frequencies, to equalize its energy with the surrounding conditions. When the excited electrons equalize among themselves, the rest state is achieved, and only the lowest energy photons at the rest frequency are emitted, I think.
Separate names with a comma.