The Emergence of Crackpots from the SciForums Space-Time

The trouble with computers is that intelligent beings designed all of the underlying properties and hardware that a computer virus might spontaneously develop in.

It can be argued that once the properties of atoms are in place the self-replicating molecule is inevitable.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

FarSight,

I think this might be very useful for u, ie. if u hadnt already found it.

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/EINSTEIN/

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Thanks Singularity. That looks interesting. I've put it on my favourites so I can't lose it, and will read it properly. I quite like to print out a pile of paper then sit down in a quiet spot so I can give proper attention. I'm away for a long weekend soon so apologies if I it looks like I haven't.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Brilliant quote. Delightful. When next I am frustrated by the terminally dumb I shall read it to restore a feeling of equilibrium (and elitist superiority

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

).

 

I don't doubt SR, just your interpretation. Yes, we always measure c to be the same old 300,000km/s, but time dilation means those seconds are different. And there's no offsetting length contraction transverse to the direction of travel. The mental leap here is to forget about the travel, because that's introducing your preferred frame as a kind of aether. So switch from SR to GR, and what you end up with is: If there's time dilation, the seconds are different, so c is different, even though locally it's still measured at 300,000km/s. So c is constant, but at the same time, it isn't. And "at the same time" is the key.

Good post post Janus. Again.

I guess Bending how? is the $64,000 dollar question.

 

And you have tacitly assumed that your interpretation is the correct one, and mine is flawed. Aparently this means that the American Education System has failed, and I somehow got through six years of physics education without properly understanding one of the most fundamental concepts to 20th and 21st century physics.

First, if you don't doubt SR then why are your conclusions contradictory to one of it's most fundamental conclusions? Second, there is no length contraction transverse to the direction of travel, there are no doubts about this. There is a length contraction IN the direction of travel, which is presumably how you measure the speed of light in the first place. But if this is true, then your assumption is inconsistent with your results.

The laws of physics are the same in all frames. The speed of light is a law of physics. The speed of light is the same in every frame.

So your thought experiment violates experiment (there are bounds on the changing speed of light) and it violates special relativity.

 

I'd read your "Energy Explained" post. You ended up claiming that energy was a "volume of stress". This claim is void of objective meaning.

I haven't presented a position other than "you are wrong" - which I haven't attempted to justify yet.

You don't necessarily need all the mathematical relationships laid out, but you do need to explain how you model whatever concepts you introduce.

"Self-evident" means that at some point you're taking something for granted, and choosing not to question it. Nothing is "logically self-evident".

I thought the current definition of the metre meant that c was invariant by definition. I don't mind entering a discussion about this aspect of relativity with you - just start a thread or point me to an existing one.

I suppose you also think the origins of the word "atom" ("indivisible" in Greek, "smallest particle" in Latin) undermine contemporary particle physics and chemistry?

Why did you pick this example specifically? The last time I heard a physicist talk about time travel (David Gross at the 2005 Solvay conference), he immediately mentioned the grandfather paradox as a problem with the concept.

In what sense? I don't see a problem with the notion that events can be separated in time.

You are the one trying to propose a theory. I am not, and with good reason. I don't even understand the problems in contemporary physics (at least not yet), let alone how I might go about solving them.

Don't get ahead of yourself. What problems does it solve? What predictions does it make?

There doesn't seem to be anything in your "Relativity+" thread except for a bunch of links and a discussion of Einstein, so I'll deal with your "Time Explained" post. It's a long post, and I don't feel like responding to the whole of it at once, so for now I'll just respond to the part where you call the definition of time "circular" (say in the next day or so).

I haven't even tried to present any objective or rigourous arguments in that one post you quoted - just a few general observations. As for ignorance, ignorance of what? I'm certainly ignorant of a lot of physics (basically everything from quantum mechanics and general relativity onwards), but it doesn't seem like this is a problem as far as following your "theories" is concerned, and it doesn't mean I'll be fooled by pseudo-logic.

 

And the winner of the Ophiolite Put Down of the Month Award is przyk for this exchange:

Distilled genius.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

If I had to hazard a quess, I'd put it down to the non-Euclidean nature of space. IOW, spacial curvature.

 

przyk:

Can you do better? Do you have any explanation at all? Could you tell some kid what energy is? The capacity to do work just doesn't cut it. It isn't enough. People want more. See my first post on this thread.

Try to keep an open, scientific mind. If you think I'm wrong, please do try to justify it. Void of objective meaning comes over as dismissive, religious, unscientific. And whatever you might think, at least I'm trying.

Like I said, I'm trying.

Agreed.

Yes, c is invariant "by definition". Which basically means it's invariant "because I say it is, end of discussion". But underneath that definition, there a dark and disturbing secret. Godel and Einstein discovered it, and I have too. See TIME EXPLAINED v2.1.

Nope. Come on, don't try to defend Parallel Universes with atoms. By the way, IMHO particle physics will be undermined in time. But that's something for another day.

I saw a "Horizon" documentary (Time Trip) featuring Michiu Kaku and others talking about time travel, parallel worlds, and virtual reality. I thought "Oh this is total hogwash". Then I started thinking about time. After that everything kind of came tumbling out.

Sure they are separated. But not by a length. The length is only in your head. Time has no length, and it doesn't flow. Clocks don't run, and days don't pass. Look at the words. They're all figures of speech. They're not literally true. Ontologically speaking, they're all quite false.

Noted, along with your other points. I confess the "four Nobel Prizes" was a goad. As for what problems RELATIVITY+ might solve... well, let's just say I don't want to get ahead of myself.

Beware. It's a Teddy Bear's Picnic.

Have a read of your post 23 again, and count the "general observations" like crackpot and crank. I note your "pseudo-logic" above. My logic is tight. Come on, I'm obviously not stupid. You will not be able to break it. Really.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1328163&postcount=23

 

I would point out that Kaku worked on one of the hardest problems in string theory, called String Field Theory. If you don't believe that he made actual contributions to the subject, check here:http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=FIND a kaku&SKIP=0

Scroll down a ways because he has mostly been doing popular stuff lately.

The point I want to make is that even very smart people aren't so sure about some of these things. People have worked their whole lives to understand these things. To say "I can explain time" trivializes their work, and their statements. You say "Their ideas are total hogwash" just because you don't understand the physics. Now, in some sense, you are comparing yourself to them, whether you want to or not. In the Energy Explained thread there are people who are reading your work and finding value in it! In writing these things, you are presenting yourself as an expert, and clearly you are not. There's a reason people pay Michiu Kaku thousands of dollars for public speaking engagements, and he has books which sell all over the world.

This is the point I wanted to make---bad science hurts a lot of people.

 

Well... since String Theory is hogwash as well, I'm not sure what your point is. :bugeye:

 

And you say this having studied the subject?

 

Or did you just accept someone else's opinion because it sounded right?

 

I've always liked and respected Michiu Kaku, Ben. I've read all his books. Of course he's made actual contributions. Valuable contributions. But when it comes to time, I'm sorry, but he's wrong. Yes, I know people have worked all their lives to understand things. But they don't understand things. And here's the rub: I do.

LOL, swivel! Below the belt! And even if it was irony, it was very funny.

Singularity: IMHO it's a nice clean, tidy, simple change in permittivity. Shrug: space is flat. But to justify that I need to get it all down in an essay, and I might end up with a somewhat different concept. It's a tricky one.

 

Er, a mathematical function of the state of a system with some useful, practical properties (like invariance over time)? There doesn't need to be any more to it than that.

The only "problem" I've encountered with energy is the way the term is used outside the scientific community. Most students will have heard it used in pseudoscientific or religious contexts ("life energy" and so on) long before their first physics class. By this time, "energy" has mystical connotations that are certainly not rooted in any science.

Enough for what? Anyway, I thought the thermodynamic free energy was the "capacity to do work".

The primary aim of the sciences in general is to model nature. Pleasing the public is what religions are for.

If "volume of stress" actually means something, you should have no trouble explaining how for example the kinetic energy formula \(\frac{1}{2}m v^2\) (or its relativistic version \(m c^2 ( \gamma - 1 )\)) can be derived from this definition.

Not quite. Fixing c to be invariant by definition is a convention that is rendered practical by relativity, and would be extremely impractical otherwise. The real science in all of this, what the special theory of relativity boils down to, is the Lorentz invariance in the laws of physics. This is the symmetry that cannot simply be defined into existence, and from which all the relativistic effects (time dilation, invariance of c, reciprocity, etc.), whether you want to call them "real" or "perceived", follow.

And that would be...?

I wasn't trying to defend the possible existence of parallel universes, as I don't have a stance on this topic. I was criticising your dismissal of parallel universes. Whatever reason you may have for this, I really hope it's not the one you posted. If "logic" = "wordplay" to you, we're done here.

"Length", "interval", "period" - whatever. The point is there's a \(\Delta t\). I'm really not too fussy as far as the terminology is concerned.

Wow. You figured that out all by yourself???

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You really are convinced what you fill your posts with is "logic", aren't you?

 

I have tried to explain this to Farsight many times. He does not understand what Lorentz Invariance means.

As an aside, crackpots almost ALWAYS break Lorentz Invariance. Actually, 6/6 of the crackpots I have ever talked to have broken Lorentz Invariance.

 

But what basis do you have to call what he thinks wrong?

My girlfriend is in med school. How would she feel if I told her what she thought about cancer was wrong, if my only source for information was "The Big Book of Cancer"?

 

Most of the anti-relativity cranks I've seen here silently ignore anything related to the Lorentz transformation, which tells you something about the depth of their undersanding of relativity. The only two exceptions I recall are martillo (used it in a calculation once), and tsmid (who was fixated on the transformation being "flawed", based on his disagreement with one particular derivation of it).

Anyway, for your entertainment value:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html
http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/theoristbad.html
http://archive.salon.com/people/feature/2000/07/06/einstein/index.html

 

On another thread Ice Age Civilisations accused me of arrogance and I humorously agreed with him. In reality I am a retiring pussy cat. You, on the other hand, are truly arrogant. You may also be right, but I rather doubt it.