The relative velocity of photon and moving frame:SR heresy.

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by geistkiesel, Jul 13, 2004.

  1. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    OK. I think we might be able to close the gap here. We agree with the observations but perhaps not the cause and affect.

    Cerenkov Radiation is nothing more than a clue for us to consider.

    It is my speculation that the medium is a UniKEF (meaning a dynamic flowing kenetic energy field - not necessarily my UniKEF). If it exists over an energy gradient (i.e. - a broad range of velocities) and light is a quantum energy release from a carrier signal generated by the light source associated with an object (or observer) moving relative to the field at v = c, the production of light shifts causing the illusion of light invariance. In reality the speed of light has not remained constant but you shift the production and observation of the affect.

    It is further my view that the electron jumping orbit makes a "Qualitative " energy change by releasing a photon, which shifts the "Quantitative" energy seperation (distance) between the electron and the atomic nucleus. It doesn't traverse from one orbit to another it collapses the spatial distance. So since from its view it doesn't move, it requires no time.

    It is the affect of the relative energy in relative motion that alters the energy seperation of objects (Lorentz Contraction). UniKEF is more about understanding why and how we percieve the universe to function Relavistically than it is about claiming Relativity doesn't exist.

    Now there are those that will object to such crass speculation based on no facts and only a need to produce a result but I suggest that my speculation is no less valid than the AD HOC creation of Exotic Dark Matter and Exotic Dark Energy based on needs to satisify an observation.
     
    Last edited: Jul 23, 2004
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    geistkiesel:

    It seems to me that further dialogue between us will not prove to be useful. From your last post, it is clear that you have a very large chip on your shoulder about something. Perhaps you have been rejected by a nasty SR theorist some time in the past. I don't know. From your post, it seems you don't disagree with SR for any logical reason. You disagree with it on principle; you just don't like it, for reasons only known to yourself.

    I thought we might be able to have a discussion about science, but that seems to be beyond you. You prefer to talk about conspiracies, and to paint anybody who can actually justify their ideas as some kind of authoritarian. Your labelling of me is water off a duck's back. I've heard it many times before on forums like this one. It is a standard response some people have when they are pushed to explain their ideas and find that they cannot do so in a coherent way.

    I will respond to your last post to show you why this discussion is no longer about science, but more about you. I expect that, as a result, your next response will be even more vitriolic than your last one. Bear in mind that, if my next response to you is somewhat shorter, it will be because I have lost interest in the discussion, for reasons which should be obvious to you if you reflect a little.

    I don't see this as a battle of egos, but clearly you do, so let me tell you: you haven't changed my mind about anything scientific in this thread, and I am under no illusions that I have changed your mind about anything either.

    Ordinarily, I would ask you at this point which differences with physical truth you are specifically referring to, but I know I would get the usual run-around.

    Again, ordinarily I would think about addressing these points in detail, perhaps in another thread, but given your statements below, I think I would be wasting my time and yours.

    As was clear from my post prior to this, there are three options, as you say:

    1. Einstein is right.
    2. Galileo / Newton is right.
    3. Both are wrong.

    You've ruled out (1), though on no firm basis. You find the mention of (2) "ambiguous and presumptive". And you explicitly say below that you are not suggesting (3). Since you have ruled out all possibilities, it seems you are not discussing the issue at all, or at least not in any logical way. (One further option might be that both Einstein and Galileo/Newton are right, but as I have explained that is not a logical possibility, since their views are incompatible.)

    As for your "rating" of my contributions to this thread, here and below, bear in mind that, up to this point, I have been the only person engaging you in some kind of dialogue. If you want to preach without getting annoying questions from the crowd, fine - I'll leave you to it.

    The physical justification is that such treatment reproduces all of observed physics, whereas the assumption that the speed of light can vary for different observers does not.

    If you look at the actual history of the development and acceptance of relativity, you will find that your claim here is false. Also, it doesn't explain why so many of today's students, who have no vested interest, readily accept the theory of relativity. Maybe they are all stupid, brainwashed sheep, but I doubt it. I would say that the reason physicists accept the theory is that it appears to be correct, and no better alternative has come to light.

    If scientists really thought like this, it would be a wonder that science ever progresses at all. Yet, funnily enough, it does.

    That's fine, as far as it goes. Just don't expect anybody to jump on your wagon on your say-so alone. If you want them to believe you, you'll need to convince them using some kind of defensible argument.

    Perhaps in future, people will regard you as a noble martyr. Then again, maybe they won't.

    Yes, both of those. This is a public forum. Did you think I was writing just for your benefit?

    Because Ptolemy has been proved wrong. Einstein has not. (And don't think I'm disparaging Newton or Galileo, by the way. Galileo is perhaps my favorite of the great physicists.)

    I'm sorry you feel admonished. I have an unfortunate tendency to reflect the tone of a poster's statements back at them.

    If you're trying to develop new thinking, it is a good idea to touch base with reality now and then. It prevents you from becoming too wrapped up in ideas just because they're yours.

    I haven't even got to the point of understanding where your dogma differs from the stuff in my "church" yet. And don't worry - I don't expect to convert you.

    Only when we're discussing SR.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    It's called "the scientific method".

    Fine. Be content with that. If you don't have anything to prove to anybody else, why not keep quiet? It seems to me that your actions here belie your words.

    Ah! That's more like it. You're a crusader against the nasty SR morons who are preaching garbage to the world.

    There are probably more worthy causes, geistkiesel. I don't think civilisation will collapse because a few people believe a particular theory in physics. Perhaps you should turn your attention to fighting greater injustices in the world?

    What, in particular, should I read? Are you referring to Miller's ether drift experiments? I think I already know enough about them. And a lot has happened since 1933.

    Yes, I agree.

    I don't really understand this paragraph, since you are once again using terms such as "force" in a non-standard way. But I don't imagine you're about to explain yourself.

    No. I've thought about it. If I were to pick an absolute zero velocity frame of reference, I'd probably vote for the mean motion of the cosmic microwave background radiation. But I'm not convinced that even that frame provides any kind of absolute standard of rest. Nor I am convinced that such a standard is necessary or useful.

    I have seen no evidence of "rage" from me in this thread. I'm happy to leave other posters to judge whose rage is greater here - yours or mine.

    You tell me! You brought it up.

    This isn't my field, and I don't have the information you ask for at my fingertips. Suffice it to say that the astonomical community agrees on this. Of course, they're probably all part of the conspiracy.

    SR theory isn't really necessary for this. Nor is dark matter, black holes, or the work of Dayton Miller. I assume whatever data which was "discarded" was data which was irrelevant.

    It is possible to consider Earth as the centre of the universe. But all evidence indicates that the same can be said of any point in the universe. There is no reason to prefer the Earth frame to any other frame, and in fact, doing so often makes calculations unwieldy and overly complicated. Witness, for example, the difficulty astronomers prior to Kepler had in explaining the motion of the Sun and planets around the Earth.

    Really, the only people who insist on the Earth being the absolute centre of the universe these days are fundamentalist religious nuts. Which brings us to...

    Do I smell religion? If so, have I got a forum for you!

    I don't think they were pretending, geistkiesel.

    I have no problem at all with you assuming the Earth is stationary for the purposes of calculating the trajectory of a baseball, or your car, or whatever. All I've said is that your assumption cannot be used for every application. It's a simple enough point.

    Yes, that's a clear assertion. It happens to be wrong, but it is clear.

    This is where science and you part company.

    I have been trying to get to the bottom of your claims - that's all. If you've learnt something along the way, that's great.

    A few points here. First, the expression you gave applies to systems where the mass is changing because new matter is being added to the system, or because matter is being lost from the system. It seems you are comparing this to the relativistic expression for relativistic mass increase, which is for a system with constant rest mass. The two equations describe different things.

    Second, you are wrong to say that this expression is ignored in special relativity. SR copes just fine with this, although the expression for force in SR is different from the expression in Newtonian physics. In the low-velocity limit, the Newtonian expression is reproduced from the SR expression, as usual.

    Ordinarily, I would ask for references to support your claim, but I'm sure you don't have any and don't care anyway.

    If further conversation was likely, I would ask you to give your definition of "reference frame".

    You've misunderstood. I was talking about the acceleration of the entire Earth relative to, say, the Sun. You are talking here about the acceleration of other objects, caused by the Earth's gravity. They are two different things.

    You surprise me. How can you talk about acceleration without knowing what it is?

    The physical definition of velocity is: v = ds/dt,
    where s is the displacement of some object as measured in some coordinate system, and t is time.

    Acceleration is defined as: a = dv/dt = d<sup>2</sup>/dt<sup>2</sup>.

    In other words, acceleration is the rate of change of velocity, or the second derivative of displacement with respect to time.

    Take a coordinate system fixed to a train, and when the train pulls out of the station, the acceleration of the station is non-zero. It follows directly from the definition of acceleration. There can be no argument with that, other than to say that a coordinate system attached to the train is invalid for some reason (and you have failed to do that so far).

    What a novel accusation. If only I had a dollar for every time somebody has accused me of that on the internet. More usually it's "imagination" rather than "curiosity", though.

    If I didn't have the slightest interest, I would not have engaged with you. Let's just say I have a passing interest, though right now it is a waning one.

    Indeed there are - usually about how closed-minded I am to the reality of little green men visiting Earth. I have this lack of curiosity, you know.

    If the train and station are moving at constant velocity relative to each other, then both are approximately inertial. Previously, we were talking about acceleration, which is a different matter.

    If you haven't got the point by now, I doubt you'll get it when I explain it a third time.

    SR is a mind game, in a sense. It requires you to let go of prejudices about the physical world which you develop automatically as your grow up, mostly from experience. Opponents of SR are fond of complaining that relativists are not open to new ideas. It is ironic, since it is usually the relativists who are fighting the closed-mindedness and prejudice of the people who dispute the theory based on nothing better than a gut feeling that something isn't right.

    Good luck with your endeavours, geistkiesel.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. 2inquisitive The Devil is in the details Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,181
    Mac, Cerenkov radiation is not a 'clue' to anything other than positively verifing that
    light is not invariant in speed to an object moving within the same medium (water or
    whatever) as light. If the speed of light was invariant wrt the particle in the same
    medium, the particle would have to measure the speed of light as unchanging regardless of the particles velocity and the particle could never exceed the speed
    of light in the medium. Does this not also apply to Earth's atmosphere, also a medium,
    where Cerenkov radiation is observed caused from some 'cosmic rays' that enter the
    Earth's atmosphere at a velocity greater than the speed of light in our atmosphere?
    Gamma ray telescopes and satellites detect this cerenkov radiation in the atmosphere.
    Would some SR expert tell me if I have this wrong and explain how a particle can still
    exceed the speed of light in a medium and be able to shine a light ahead and see it
    travel ahead at the speed of light in the particle's frame of reference. What would an
    Earth-based observer see?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. geistkiesel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,471


    I guess it is all in the eye of the beholder. I've said it before and I will one more time. So James R, read and do what you may.
    Why special relativity rejected:
    1. Simultaneity Specifically one person's point of view in a moving frame is sufficient to claim all pesons in the frame should view the loss of simultaneity alike. See the Einstein railway Station train gedanken. There are many observers on the train that can verify simultaneity in the moving frame, but all is judged on just one observer.SR is a mere perception in the point of view of the observer, and is not a physical event.
    2. Discarding Absolute zero velocity body of reference.A photon stream reflecting between two parallel mirrors will remain invariant in that trajectory, and if the enclosure moves the single line trajectory will remain invariant in position. Any physicist on board will see the single line move to the left as the apprratus moves to the right. SR has the observer on board seeing the reflections off the side of the beam as the straight line trajectory of the invariant photon stream and uses this as an example of time dilation. But here the dilation is clearly the result of misinterpreting the posutlates of light motion that the motion of light is independent of the motion of the source. This misconception is further exposed as there is no other reason reason given for SR other than the error in reading the wrong reflection. But the passengers are supposed to slow down in aging also?
    3. Galilean and Lorentzian transformations are disgused silliness. To insert relativity equations at high velocity is not a body of reference transformation, it is a mathematical contrivance inserted into the physics.
    4. The laws of physics do not demand that all inertial frames measure the speed of light relative to the frame as equal to C. C measured from the earth frame is C. An inertial frame also measured from the earth frame has a velocity Vf, therefore the relative velocity of photon and frame is C - Vf = Vrel wrt to the earth frame.
    5. Using the earth as a preferred frame is consistent with all physics models. All reference frames are equal say the SR theorists, therefore I choose the earth as one I prefer. Measuring C from the earth frame even with its orbital motion does not impose any nonisotropic properties in the light, therefore the velocity error in choosing the earth frame measures zero when measuring the velocity of light. Seeing a light moving past the space ship window, I know it is moving at C wrt planet earth assumed zero velocity. So why measure it, I can keep track of my own velocity and measure the relative velocity of photon and frame like before. Even if there is time dilation I can measure a distaace on the ship at v = 0 and calibrate the time it takes the light to pass a measured distance. Therefore I can measure the relative velocity for a moving frame and the speed of light.
    6. Not one SR theorist has indicated any serious challenge to the above except to utter SR mantras. It isn't personal James R , but this is what I read from you. From the get go, it was you demanding that I see iot your way. You never indicated any understanding of what I had to say, so what do you expect me top do? If all inertial frames are equivalent in your world, well I just took the planet earth as my preferred frame from which my inertial frames are measurd. Do you have a problem with that?
     
    Last edited: Jul 23, 2004
  8. 1100f Banned Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    807
    All the quotations i gave where from the first paper. Go to the first link you gave and checck who is the author of this paper.


    When you say a velocity of 2c wrt whom?
    Please answer this question.

    Wrong, it is not c-v or c+v, but you must use the velocity addition formula. This will give the change of n in flowing medium.

    What case?

    Before learning nuclear physics, it is necessary to learn QM. How many courses in QM did you take? How many nuclear processes have you ever calculated? How many cross sections have you calculated?


    Can you provide the equations fo motion of the UNIKEF and show that it is FTL?

    How light is generated by accelerating charges is provided by Maxwell's equations.

    The fact that you don't understand something doesn't mean that this something is wrong.

    At least I know them better than you.

    The problem is that you think you know things. But you don't have the basis for understanding them.

    You even don't know what is energy and why there is a law of conservation of energy.


    before writting energy# ^2, try first energy*a^2, if it won't work, try energy*b^2 etc....
    BTW, How can you write energy*c^2? What is the meaning of c^2. You can add apples with apples but what is apples^2?

    What limitations?


    Where, when an electron jumps from one orbital to another is there a region where classically it can't be? Where do you find that classically it has a negative kinetic energy?
    The transition of electrons from different states is something totally differnt from tunneling.

    My age is totally irelevant to the fact that you don't know quantum mechanics. Did you ever solved Schrodinger equation for a square barier ever in your life?


    If you would have understood what is really tunneling, you wouldn't have said that this is semantic.


    Please show me the references where it has been tested.


    To tell you the truth, I began to read it, but allready the first sentences show the misunderstanding of physics, dimensional analysis. Then the next sentences show misunderstanding of relativity and finally the next replace the 2 assumptions of SR with 10 or 15 assumptions that were not even wel defined. Then I stopped reading it.


    I know that when someone says that his theory is correct but cannot provide the calculations for it, its theory is BS.
     
  9. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Perhaps you have misunderstood my meaning. Others have also thought I meant Cerenkov Radiation and light were the same thing. What I meant by being a clue was how FTL produces light and that the currently unknowns about light could mean that light is likewise a function of something propagating FTL through space in relation to the observer. That would account for the apparent invariance since production of light is based on a relative energy level to the observer.
     
  10. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Your comments therefore are meaningless. I posted (3) links which had negative comments about Relativity. I stated only one indicated qualifacations.

    That one claimed to be a Dr of Mathematics and Dr of Physics. Choosing your attacks to be only for those not claiming qualification doesn't address the simular issues raised by the Dr.

    Now if you have something to show HE is incorrect, perhaps, but to attack the unqualified posts and ignore that they are butressed by a Dr seems fraudulent on your part.

    To anyone not trying to hide behind strict relavistic frames of reference. I have already stated that the observer operating the laser would see a +c and -c component. Neither component is FTL but collectively the operator sees the two components seperating at a combined velocity of 2c.

    How else do you suppose that the 1 lyr gap becomes traversed in 6 months? Address the issue and stop waffling.

    I don't disagree with that. My point was that the velocity shifts with the fluid flowing vs static passage through water.

    So says 1100f? Funny I have several Nuclear Engineering books. Guess what not one has any QM in them. Are you sure you have been to college? Now I also have Nuclear Physics books and they do include QM.

    Since QM is currently very much an area of research and not clearly understood and considering that Nuclear Reactors have been around for decades, suggests to me you don't know what the hell you are talking about.

    What you think we control reactors on the "Uncertainity Principle" HeHeHe. You are a riot.

    You don't need equations for a basic assumption to a concept.

    Perhaps but then perhaps not. You are measuring properties of light and not necessarily its causation.

    The fact that you think you understand something doesn't make it correct. Particularily when you have blinders on to alternative interpretations of data.

    HeHeHe. So says 1100f.

    Again so says 1100f. Unfortunately you have no real basis for that conclusion.

    And you don't know the first damn thing about what I know.
    Where do you see "#"?

    BTW: Since that is the example I use in UniKEF Gravity for the case of F = G * m1 * m2 /r^2 = Gm^2/r^2, where apple times apple equals a square apple, you must have at least started to read. You should finish reading. You might learn something. i.e. - Gravity can be shown to be m1 + m2 times the UniKEF energy function integration. "No more square apples". Hmmmm.

    FTL for starters. Infinities and singularities for some other unacceptable conclusions.

    Not so much where it can't be (except per Pauli's Exclusion Principle) but from where it doesn't exists. It vanishes from one orbit and appears in another instantly without existing inbetween. Now if you choose to not view that as tunneling that is your perogative. Would you not equate traveling a worm hole to be tunneling? I do.

    Your age is not irrelevant to the fact that after education in my youth they stopped teaching times tables, long division and manual extraction of square roots and started teaching "Sets in New Math" and stopped teaching spelling and went to "Phonetic Spelling".

    Facts that have caused todays youth to not be able to think if the batteries in their calculators run down.

    It is one thing to be able to read what others say but entirely another to be able to think for yourself.

    It is obvious you don't know Nuclear Engineering.

    No. Have you ever calculated 1/m, Chi-Square, Number of stages to raise uranium enrichment from 0.71% to 99%, k eff, Geometric Buckling, reactivity, Inhour, Equilibrium concentration of Xenon, Samarium Poisoning, or spent hours "Hand On" controlling nuclear chain reactions up through acceptable NDT curves so as to not blow the damn thing up? I didn't think so.

    http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3046&stc=1

    http://www.unikef-gravity.com/aukmainframe.htm

    Then perhaps you should take off your "Tainted Glasses" and read more. (That was Tainted, not tinted).

    You have actually made it quite clear you don't know anything but what you have been told.
     
  11. chroot Crackpot killer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,350
    They don't contain any relativity, either. You learned how to push buttons on a machine that someone else conceived, designed, and built.

    What's really funny about this quote is that it negates the hundreds of times you've asserted you know advanced physics because you have nuclear engineering experience. What you've just indicated is that you've been lying the whole time, and you knew it.

    - Warren
     
  12. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    CH, CH, CH and you claimed you had changed.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    You state (without any knowledge what-so-ever) that the initial thrust of development of nuclear power via the operators program authorized by a special act of Congress was a bunch of trained monkeys.

    How pathetic.

    I have called you many things, i.e. - obnoxious, etc. But I don't believe I have ever called you a liar but this is clearly a deliberate attack based on nothing. That makes you the liar.

    In the attached photo you don't see operators manuals, you see college texts on several technical areas, including electrical, mechanical and nuclear engineering, physics, mathematics and yes including Calculus and some Relativity.

    So stuff it. Oh but thanks for confirming that 1100f also lied when he stated QM was a necessary component and included part of nuclear engineering.

    http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3048&stc=1

    PS: FYI - I graduated 2nd in class by 0.1%.

    And in opposition to your suggesting that we were taught to push buttons and not design - Well we were taught to think, including design, to include the maximum ability to succeed since we were taught to operate on the moon as part of the Apollo Moon Base project; where the nearest hardware store for repair or modification as necessary was about a quarter of a million miles away.

    That training is what is missing in others sheep skins - The ability to think. You are a bunch of video recorders storing what others before you have concluded and you were never taught to think.
     
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2004
  13. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Lets dissect this shall we?

    I thought I just read where you said "To tell the truth". You clearly don't know the meaning of the word.

    Here is the first sentance:

    "Newtonian Gravity is expressed as F = G * m1 * m2 / r ^ 2. "

    Please show us the failure to understand physics based on this statement.

    Here is the first paragraph:

    "Newtonian Gravity is expressed as F = G * m1 * m2 / r ^ 2. The product from that expression results in the term "m^2" ( mass squared). Mass squared is conceptually problematic. "

    Again show us the basis for your snide and unsupported remarks.

    Here are the next (8) statements of the introduction.

    ************ From UniKEF Gravity ***************

    What is an "Apple" times an "Apple" equals a "Square Apple" physically?

    In addition, while mathematically it coincides with a wide range of observations, it suggests "Action without a cause" and ultimately fails to describe observation over vast distances.

    UniKEF Gravity is a physical model where cause can be shown and mathematically it provides the functions over the entire spectrum of observation. It begins with an inverse square relationship between forces and distance of separation squared.

    It then becomes more linear which corresponds with the flattening of the gravity curve at galactic scales, that now require the creation of Dark Matter or MOND adjustments of the basic Newtonian mathematics to match observation of the galactic rotational velocity of its stars. They in general orbit twice as fast as Newtonian gravity can account for. That is they should be flying off into space not circling the galaxy.

    Observed gravity is much stronger than predicted by Newton. Either there is 4-5 times as much matter in the galaxy than we see or the gravity curve flattens (decreases more slowly than predicted by Newton)

    Finally, it goes through zero and becomes repulsive which is consistant with an accelerating expansion of the universe without the addition of Dark Energy.

    UniKEF unifies the phenomena of gravity into one coherent physical process in lieu of three separate regimes of gravity caused by mathematical and different hypothetical causes.

    It produces gravity by the product of energy transferred to accumulative mass by a simple geometric and trigometric relationship which is Inversely proportional to the distance between the masses squared and avoids the question about the physicality of "What is mass squared?" *************************************************


    Please show us where this has anything to do with Relativity. Much less a misunderstanding of Relativity.

    Being generous I count 10 general areas of discussion in 4 pages of text. Virtually all dealing with the UniKEF integration process and no discussion of SR or its assumptions. Frankly most grade school children could follow the description of the process. The fact that you couldn't tells us a great deal.

    To come up with 15 assumptions you would have to have read the entire text several times and have duplicated reading of assumptions since 15 assumptions are not made.

    The overall quality of your post is more than just piss poor, it is deliberate fraud and unsupported innuendo, an attempt to mislead others as to both the UniKEF theory and the content of the web site.

    http://www.unikef-gravity.com/
     
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2004
  14. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    MacM, chroot and others:

    If you want to discuss your qualifications, please take it to the "About the Members" forum. It is off-topic for this thread.
     
  15. bradguth Banned Banned

    Messages:
    226
    geistkiesel,
    This is one for your eyes and still functioning brain, though possibly the likes of "James R" can function in spite of his borg/SR implants, as perhaps the majority of other eyes and formulated brain cells within this topic/forum are those of merely robotic CCD elements interfaced to a well preprogrammed sub-routine, that which automatically excludes upon any sort of "what if" conjectures that might impose a GR/SR threat such as yours. But, since I'm not even nearly as smart as some robots, and far from your level of expertise, it seems my only viable option is to think a little outside the box, as best I can.

    Perhaps the notion of my understanding 1% of what you seem to instinctively know or suggest that you realize about the velocity of a photon is an over-estimate of my limited wisdom, though perhaps the slight portion of what I'm perceiving as your conjecture of "c" being entirely relative to the base velocity of Earth or of whatever other frame of existence, as opposed to a speeding probe/frame that's already making 10% "c", is an important quest by my standards.

    Your statement of "special relativity is purely a perception of the observer's game and has notuing to do with ophysics" seems sufficiently OK by my way of what little 3-cell thinking I can muster. In my limited realm of not even being one of those robots, nor am I your typical incest cloned borg that's extremely well RNA bonded into some intellectual DNA cesspool that's got absolutely nowhere other to go except down, thus sideways isn't even an option. As such, I was just wondering if you could share better logic, better words and thereby offer an outcome that's not persay another mainstream status quo analogy that's only further suggesting that there's no further point in our thinking outside the box, especially outside the mainstream box, that which consistently excludes upon new ideas on the simple basis that they might lead to stepping on a few of those robot/borg toes.

    Here's my question (pardon all of my grammar, syntax and dyslexic factors);
    If a CW beam of photons could establish a sufficient alignment of spinning atoms (unfortunately most of those being merely hydrogen atoms), as for creating a narrow laser beam extending out some 0.7 light year (3.3e12 km).

    If once this beam were established, as for being sent into a given nullification zone, whereas the intended target that was past this nullification zone was to be Sirius, at roughly another 8 light years and counting, whereas we then introduce another photon packet of an appropriate frequency shift and/or phase or perhaps of an elongated photon shift, by which every spinning atomic zone of influence associated with the primary CW beam would essentially react as that of an alignment of FIFO nodes, thus offering spinning nodes an opportunity that's capable of attracting, amplifying and discharging whatever comes along, of transferring and/or communicating those incoming photons, as though the original CW beam acts as the waveguide, of which induced sufficient atom-spinning that enables the newcomer packet into being handed off at something greater than "c".

    At the relative moving end of this primary CW beam, that which is providing a moving photon frame or event horizon that is still traveling towards the intended target at "c" - Earth, however if perchance the message/packet of added photons that are riding this CW wave or photonic waveguide are not lost along the way, my question is; are these message packets going to be capable of exiting at "c+c", if not a whole lot faster?

    And if so, can we (as mere humans) demonstrate and/or otherwise prove it?
     
  16. 1100f Banned Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    807
    This is what you posted:
    No mentioning of any qualifications

    to this I gave you comments on the first link, then a comment on the second and said that I don't bother to read the third. After a few posts where we discussed the first article, you raised the qualifications of the posters. If you don't want any comment on the links you gave, don't give the links.


    Who is going at a velocity of 2c?

    So you agree that the velocity of light in water will be c<sub>w</sub> in one frame where you will write for the position of the front of the light: x = c<sub>w</sub>t, and in another frame, its velocity will be c'<sub>w</sub>, and the position of the front of the light will be x' = c'<sub>w</sub>t', and not x' = c<sub>w</sub>t', as stated in the paper.


    Nuclear processes are not classical. No matter how many times you write that they are classical, they are not.

    Nuclear reactors have been built after Quantum Mechanics existed. Quantum mechanics is proved and accepted by all physicists around the world. Most of today's physics is based on Quantum mechanics (nuclear physics, high energy physics, Solid state physics...)

    The calculations for nuclear decays are quantum mechanics calculations, the same is for the scattering on nuclei.




    After 50 years, you do need.


    The sources of light is perfectly well understood.


    It is you who said that you had only courses in calculus decades ago, and almost never used it.


    You know calculus.


    misprint, sorry.

    If gravity is as you said m1 + m2 times UNIKEF energy function integration. Don't you have a problem with apples + apples time oranges where the oranges go approximatively (at least this is what you claim) as one over square bananas?
    I am sure that you also have problem with classical kinetic energy 1/2mv<sup>2</sup>. What is v<sup>2</sup>? again square apples.
    What about Stefan's law j = &sigma;T<sup>4</sup>. Here you have apples to the fourth power?


    1. Your view of the process of transition is wrong. The wave function of an electron in an atom is not a delta function. An electron even in the ground state have a probability to be anywhere in space.
    2. You didn't show me any place where in the transition, the electron is classically not alowed to be.
    3. When physicists talk about tunneling they talk about some specific process. If you want to define your tunneling, you are free to do it, but be aware that when you quote physicists saying something about tunneling, this is not what you mean.
    What physicists refer to as tunneling, is something completely different from transitions between bound states.


    Totally irrelevant.

    I agree, I never learned nuclear enineering. However, I have learned Nuclear physics.


    My question was if you have ever solved scrodinger's equation for a square barrier. Obviously, your answer show that you don't know what is tunneling.
     
  17. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    True in a finite way but you choose to ignore however, that two pages ago I also posted this clarifyer:

    "Yes. I am not advocating a particular answer but the fact that inspite of a majority vote that seems to agree with you, there are many (including highly trained physicists) that disagree with all of this. One of the above at least is such a physicists.

    This is typical of your nitpicking arguements. You like to grab onto anything, however minor, symantics etc., and run with it as though it was actually very signifigant. It isn't.

    My point is you like to challenge peoples understandings based on specific education because it can make an easy arguement where facts of the case can be ignored and not addressed. When the author is infact qualified, he is still labled a "Crackpot" if he disagrees with you. That shows your arguements about education is a mere front.

    For example Tom Van Flanderan. I don't agree with all his views, just as I don't agree with all of AE's views. But TVF is not only well educated (qualified) but has an extensive experence history, makes sound scientific and mathematical arguements, yet he is treated in the scientific community as being a "Crackpot".

    Point being, education is not really the issue. The issue is if they don't agree with your views they are "Crackpot". Frankly that is not an acceptable conclusion. (except of course to you).

    Do you have a reading disability? "Nobody has been claimed to be going 2c. It was clearly pointed out that the velocity addition formula would be applied between the two receeding end components and that the result would calculate < = c.

    But that from the perspective of the test operator the two ends are receeding from each other (third party view) at a relative velocity of 2c.

    Now address that statement and stop writting your own new statements to argue.

    That has nothing to do with the claim that nuclear engineering requires courses in QM or that one must be a physicist to understand nuclear engineering.

    It has not been argued that the real world does not function in a quantum manner. The point was (and still is) that such issues are studied as nuclear processes and not studied at the QM level, in nuclear engineering.

    So then according to your standards, AE is in douclbe jeopardy (100 years) and must now provide mathematics for his assumptions?

    Not at all. In UniKEF proper I go further and suggest our mathematics are only correct superficially and that it is the dynamics of energy which become squared and not physical objects. the fact that we don't have a good understanding of such energetic functions is a seperate issue. My gut tells me that every function that we currently describe as having a x^2, ect function is actually based on some principle such as an energy field creating a counter force. That is the greater the energy the greter the resistance and hence a v^2 relationship and that such macroscopic views as currently used only describe the result and not the process.

    From UniKEF Gravity:
    The continued requirement to have the product of mass, even Pseudo Mass, leads me to believe that the attenuation or absorption of UniKEF operates as a dynamic impedance rather than a passive resistance.

    That is it is not linear and can be viewed as having resistance as a function of its energy. i.e. - creates its own counter force. In such a case, if for example a 100x U field were to penetrate a given spherical mass and impart 10x momentum we would calculate a 10% coefficient.

    However rather than a 70.7x field yielding a 7.07x momentum penetrating the same mass (coefficient still being 10%), it would yield a 5x momentum or have a transfer coefficient which is proportional to the penetration squared. That feature would use k = Volume/UPV as a measure of the magnitude of such a shift in penetration resistance.

    The consequence of this property of UniKEF would be to eliminate the mass squared term entirely and gravity would become simply:

    F = U * ~^k * (PM1 + PM2)

    This makes gravity logical as a function of total pseudo mass and NOT mass squared. This would only require that the kg^2 term in G or UG be changed to kg.



    So you reject the "Pauli Exclusion Principle"?

    Nor should I have to. That is not the issue. The issue is its vanishing from one orbit and appearing in another instantly without existing inbetween orbits.

    Like I said if you want to be picky (symanitcs) that is your perogative. It doesn't alter the underlying concerns about the processes being discussed.

    Well, let me first state I don't like doing this because it is becoming picky but you are the one that insists age (and education over the ages) has no bearing. the following is from one of your jposts. Lets have a look.

    Posted by 1100f: "Wel, if you studied physics, and got the impression that they treat you as robots, then you must have been at the wrong university. I can assure you that where I studied, they didn't taught us as robots, but the main thing that they taught us was to think.

    It should read: Well, if you studied physics, and got the impression that they treat you as robots, then you must have been at the wrong university. I can assure you that where I studied, they didn't teach us as robots, but the main thing that they taught us was to think.

    Now the "Well" is clearly a typo but the "Taught" is clearly a lack of good grammer.

    Then you clearly have no basis to claim QM is required courses in nuclear engineering.

    We will note that I stated "No" to your question but that you avoided my question but choose to continue your play on words and syamantics and not admit you haven't calculated numerous functions of nuclear engineering.
     
    Last edited: Jul 28, 2004
  18. Paul T Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    460
    MacM,

    Do you consider Einstein as a crackpot since he proposed many unconventional ideas, which at times disagreed with previously well established concepts or theories?

    He is indeed a crackpot.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    So, relative to which observer this velocity of 2c really is?

    Can you elaborate how to apply "Pauli Exclusion Principle"? How did you reach conclusion that "An electron even in the ground state have a probability to be anywhere in space" violate "Pauli Exclusion Principle"?
     
  19. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Nope but that doesn't make him correct either.


    See what I mean.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    It is the third party observers view of the active parties velocities. He must see the relative velocity between the ends of the split beam receed from each other at a relative velocity of 2c.

    Each end however is only c relative to him but it is a +/- c and accounts for the undilated time and contraction of the other parties ability to fill the 1 lyr gap in 6 months.



    We aren't only talking of a "ground" state but going from different energy states (hence orbits). Pauli doesn't really involve different orbits but I was responding to something 1100f had said.
     
  20. 1100f Banned Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    807
    Relative to whom?



    I give you a result of quantum mechanics and you ask me if I reject the Pauli exclusion principle?


    This is where you are wrong. The electron in the atom is not restricted to be only at discrete distances from the nucleus. When you have a transition from one energy level to another, the wave function is not a delta function in the begining and another one at the end. At any time there is a probability for the probability to be anywhere in space.

    This is not semantics. Transition between two bound states and tunneling are two completely different processes.


    I agree that I am doing grammar mistakes in English. I am not sure if you would do less mistakes in French, Hebrew or Spanish than I am doing in English.
    It's Sad that you measure the education of someone by trying to find grammar mistakes in a foreign language.

    I agree with you that if you just want to be able to use the formulas, without really understanding the processes, you don't have to learn QM.
     
  21. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    For the forth time. The observer operating the laser, the universe at large. Neither end exceeds "c" but the ends are percieved (and are) receeding from each other at 2c.

    No you made a statement that the electron can be anywhere. It can't. No two electrons can have the same quantum numbers. That is Pauli's Exclusion Principle.

    So according to you we cannot rely upon such transitions to be discrete and lasers can't be made work.? Laser function on such discrete orbital changes.

    Statistically it is claimed that it is not only possible but in infinite time a broken glass will reverse and reassemble.

    I don't think that is what we should be eluding to here, we are talking reality not hypothetical.


    I have already said if you wish to divert the issue to one of symantics it is your perogative. I choose to refer to such transitions as tunneling. That is the act of apparent teleporting across a spatial domain without existing anywhere inbetween the start and finish points.

    Don't be sad. I excuse the issue due to english not being your primary language. It therefore does not show the point I was trying to make which is simular mistakes by our american youth is rampant due to phonetic spelling and improper teaching methods.

    PS: I lived in France (4) years and do speak some French, also Russian, but neither fluently.

    I disagree that one doesn't understand the process. The fissioning process (or fusion) is understood from a more macroscopic level. that is one does not need to do wave functions to understand the process. Likewise I suggest that should "Strings" become universally accepted, you would resist being told you don't understand because you hadn't studied strings but only QM.
     
  22. 1100f Banned Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    807
    This is not relvant to what I said. You described the electron as being able to be only in discrete positions, and this is not true. Look for example at the hydrogen atom. When the atom is in the ground state, which has a defined energy, it is not constrained to be in a specific distance from the nucleus. Its wave function is not a delta function. When the atom is in the first excited state, it has another energy, and the electron is not constrained to a specific distance from the nucleus.


    I never said that the energy levels for bound states are not discrete. They are discrete. The distance from the electron to the nucleus is not discrete. In a laser, what is used is the fact that the energy level are discrete.


    This is not semantics. Tunneling is not this kind of phenomena that you describe. Transitions between bound states are neither like what you describe.


    As I told you, my age is totally irelevant.

    You believe that you understand nuclear processes. But you cannot have a deep understanding of these processes.
    And BTW, I am not ashamed to say that even though I had a course in string theories, since I have never done any research in the field, I cannot say that I have a deep understanding of them



    תנאי שימוש באתר | עזרה | פרסם בוואלה! Copyright © 2004 Walla! Communications LTD. All rights reserved.
     
  23. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    1100f,

    No I did not. Here is what I actually said:

    and
    Now you think you can select hydrogen in a unique condition and makes points. It doesn't cut it.

    Discrete orbits:

    http://www.chem.dal.ca/horbital/orbital.html

    Electron shielding with multiple electron atoms:

    http://www.chm.davidson.edu/ChemistryApplets/AtomicOrbitals/Zeff.html

    Ground State of Hydrogen:

    http://www.campusprogram.com/reference/en/wikipedia/h/hy/hydrogen_atom.html

    Your statements are blatantly in error and your posts appear to be deliberately deceptive with an agenda.

    Here is what you actually said:

    It cannot.

    I did.
    I can easily conceed that I may not have the deepest understanding in terms of QM or in your case perhaps "Strings" but that is a totally different issue than saying I don't understand nuclear engineering since I haven't had QM. Nuclear engineering operates on a different level of physics and with different physics formulations. It is grossly invalid to state not viewing the processes from a QM vantage point means one doesn't understand nuclear engineering.
     

Share This Page