Finite Theory: Historical Milestone in Physics

JeanTate said:
Really?



Do I recall correctly? That masses which are protons, for example, have constituents (quarks) whose total mass is faaar below that of the proton? :confused:



Oh, and your toy universe does not have the property your just magically assigned it. :D
Click to expand...



You forgot an important property: masses also emit gravitons which will technically define the frame of reference.
 
philippeb8 said:
- Those who do not believe me can answer this simple thought experiment:

Imagine you have an empty universe with 1 star in it. Can the star spin on its own and if so at what speed will the fire be ejected given an angular velocity omega?
Click to expand...
For the moment forget the star. Imagine an empty universe with two particles in it, connected by a bond.

The particles have a momentum of equal magnitude in a direction parallel but opposite to each other.

So the particles will try to go in a straight line but will be turned by the bond, so you have a spinning pair.

And even if you have a spinning frame of reference, the particles will try to go in a straight line and so will behave the same.

If the momentum is strong enough to break the bond then the particles will start to move away from each other, ie "ejected" from the spinning pair..

Add two more particles and more bonds and you get the same thing. Particles will be ejected from this group with a definite velocity, relative to the spinning group of particles.

To get spin (in the classical sense) you need at least two particles and at least one bond. Spin (in the classical sense) is just the emergent behaviour of matter moving in a straight line, constrained by bonds. No bonds (or other kinds of attractive force) then no spin (in the classical sense).

So the thought experiment does not pose any sort of difficult problem, the matter would be ejected by the spinning star with a definite velocity (relative to the other matter in the start) , just as happens in an ordinary universe.
 
Robin said:
For the moment forget the star. Imagine an empty universe with two particles in it, connected by a bond.



The particles have a momentum of equal magnitude in a direction parallel but opposite to each other.



So the particles will try to go in a straight line but will be turned by the bond, so you have a spinning pair.



And even if you have a spinning frame of reference, the particles will try to go in a straight line and so will behave the same.



If the momentum is strong enough to break the bond then the particles will start to move away from each other, ie "ejected" from the spinning pair..



Add two more particles and more bonds and you get the same thing. Particles will be ejected from this group with a definite velocity, relative to the spinning group of particles.



To get spin (in the classical sense) you need at least two particles and at least one bond. Spin (in the classical sense) is just the emergent behaviour of matter moving in a straight line, constrained by bonds. No bonds (or other kinds of attractive force) then no spin (in the classical sense).



So the thought experiment does not pose any sort of difficult problem, the matter would be ejected by the spinning star with a definite velocity (relative to the other matter in the start) , just as happens in an ordinary universe.
Click to expand...



Regarding the particles: the particles will crash on each other. Why should the pair of particles start spinning?

Regarding the star: what defines the angular velocity omega if there is nothing else in the universe?
 
philippeb8 said:
Regarding the particles: the particles will crash on each other. Why should the pair of particles start spinning?

Regarding the star: what defines the angular velocity omega if there is nothing else in the universe?
Click to expand...
Polite: You might want to re-read what Robin actually wrote (you seem to have misunderstood quite a bit of it).

Less polite: erecting a strawman shows you don't understand what Robin wrote and/or your own idea.

Even less polite: disingenuousness will get you precisely nowhere.
 
philippeb8 said:
Relative to which frame of reference?
Click to expand...
You tell us.

I see that you have yet to answer my question about what metric you have chosen to use for your toy universe. If that's because you don't understand what I'm asking, then I posit that have a great deal of work to do before you can actually begin to overthrow ~300 years' of physics.
 
philippeb8 said:
Relative to which frame of reference?
Click to expand...

Rotation isn't relative to an external frame of reference. When something rotates, it's parts are all in motion relative to each other. You don't need anything else in a universe to have a star rotate.
 
Ignorant gibberish that gravitons "technically define the frame of reference"

philippeb8 said:
...masses also emit gravitons which will technically define the frame of reference.
Click to expand...
6 December 2019 philippeb8: Ignorant gibberish that gravitons "technically define the frame of reference"
This is a frame of reference
In physics, a frame of reference (or reference frame) consists of an abstract coordinate system and the set of physical reference points that uniquely fix (locate and orient) the coordinate system and standardize measurements within that frame.
Click to expand...
The coordinate system is actually defined by an observer. Every observer can select a different coordinate system.

Plus a "You forgot an important property" lie.
This is the first mention of this gravitons/frame of reference gibberish.
No one who knows what a frame of reference is would think that "gravitons which will technically define the frame of reference" is an important property or even related to this universe.
 
An incoherent scenario that is not really a "thought experiment"

philippeb8 said:
simple thought experiment: Imagine you have an empty universe with 1 star in it. Can the star spin on its own and if so at what speed will the fire be ejected given an angular velocity omega?
Click to expand...
6 December 2019 philippeb8: An incoherent scenario that is not really a "thought experiment".
Addressing this nonsense more fully. Thought experiment
A thought experiment (German: Gedankenexperiment,[1][2] Gedanken-Experiment,[3] or Gedankenerfahrung[4]) considers a hypothesis, theory,[5] or principle for the purpose of thinking through its consequences.
Click to expand...
A thought experiment is not a vague description and questions.

"Can the star spin on its own" has the obvious answer of yes because there is nothing in the description that says the star cannot spin :jaw-dropp.
This is also supposed to be a thought experiment so we can assign the star any spin we want from 0 to so fast the star comes apart ("fire be ejected").
In the real universe when a star forms it must have a spin.

Another error with this vague description is that there is no observer! Thus it is impossible to measure the spin we assign to the star. Add an observer and they can tell whether a real star like the Sun is spinning. A spinning ball of plasma is not spherical, it is an oblate spheroid. Also an observer will see sunspots moving across the surface of the star and can assume that is because of spin (or they are orbiting the star).
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
6 December 2019 philippeb8: An incoherent scenario that is not really a "thought experiment".

Addressing this nonsense more fully. Thought experiment

A thought experiment is not a vague description and questions.



"Can the star spin on its own" has the obvious answer of yes because there is nothing in the description that says the star cannot spin :jaw-dropp.

This is also supposed to be a thought experiment so we can assign the star any spin we want from 0 to so fast the star comes apart ("fire be ejected").

In the real universe when a star forms it must have a spin.



Another error with this vague description is that there is no observer! Thus it is impossible to measure the spin we assign to the star. Add an observer and they can tell whether a real star like the Sun is spinning. A spinning ball of plasma is not spherical, it is an oblate spheroid. Also an observer will see sunspots moving across the surface of the star and can assume that is because of spin (or they are orbiting the star).
Click to expand...



The star can spin on its own but no fire will be ejected as fast as it can spin and the shape of the star will remain perfectly spherical at all times.
 
I think using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment should be worth more than a piddling 5 points.

Anyhow, again, centrifugal force in rotating reference frames contradicts the claim that no mass (plasma or "fire") would be ejected or that the shape would be unaffected.
 
philippeb8 said:
Regarding the particles: the particles will crash on each other. Why should the pair of particles start spinning?
Click to expand...
As below - the particles move according to Newtonian laws and try to move in straight lines but are constrained by the bond, hence they form a spinning pair.

Now if you were to view this on your mobile phone with the auto-rotate switched off and then rotate your phone in the opposite direction so that the particles stay in a straight line then you get a spinning frame of reference, but it doesn't change anything about the behaviour of the particles

spinning_pair-1.gif
 
A delusion that a spinning star's shape is perfectly spherical

philippeb8 said:
The star can spin on its own but no fire will be ejected as fast as it can spin and the shape of the star will remain perfectly spherical at all times. .
Click to expand...
6 December 2019 philippeb8: A delusion that a spinning star's shape is perfectly spherical? Or an silly attempt to change his incoherent scenario?

A repeated "fire" error - stars are not on fire, stars do not have fire. He has been told this a couple of times.

6 December 2019 philippeb8: A delusion that spinning stars will never eject plasma.
A star is plasma held together by gravity. Spin a star fast enough and plasma will be ejected when the centrifugal forces overwhelm gravity.
Fast-Spinning Star on Verge of Breaking Apart

The article is about Alpha Arae where "The rapid rotation is causing a pronounced equatorial bulge of about 2.4–2.7 times the polar radius.[9]"

6 December 2019 philippeb8: An incoherent scenario that is not really a "thought experiment".
 
Reality Check said:
If you read my post, that stops us from measuring the spin as I highlighted in bold there and do again here. We can assign any spin that we want to a hypothetical star.
Click to expand...
If you are star heat resistant, it can be done.

If the star is spinning then due to centrifugal force, the force at a point on the surface of the star will be less than that due to the gravity of the star alone. Its direction may not be directed straight towards the centre of mass of the star either.

So by taking a few gravitational measurements at various points on the star's surface, we should be able to find the axis of spin and the star's angular velocity.
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
6 December 2019 philippeb8: A delusion that a spinning star's shape is perfectly spherical? Or an silly attempt to change his incoherent scenario?

A repeated "fire" error - stars are not on fire, stars do not have fire. He has been told this a couple of times.

6 December 2019 philippeb8: A delusion that spinning stars will never eject plasma.
A star is plasma held together by gravity. Spin a star fast enough and plasma will be ejected when the centrifugal forces overwhelm gravity.
Fast-Spinning Star on Verge of Breaking Apart

The article is about Alpha Arae where "The rapid rotation is causing a pronounced equatorial bulge of about 2.4–2.7 times the polar radius.[9]"

6 December 2019 philippeb8: An incoherent scenario that is not really a "thought experiment".
Click to expand...

Ok then what defines the geostationary altitude of the star?
 
A "Kinematical Time Dilation" delusion (does not match the real world)

philippeb8;12913443[url said:
https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthread.php?137103-Finite-Theory-of-the-Universe-Dark-Matter-Disproof-and-Faster-Than-Light-Speed&p=2464214#post2464214[/url]
Click to expand...
6 December 2019 philippeb8: A "Kinematical Time Dilation" delusion (does not match the real world).
He denies the time dilation from SR with its theoretical and experimental support and proposes to replace it with 1-v2/c2 (this is SR time dilation squared).
Anyone can see that this is very wrong since we have measured time dilation up to close to the speed of light and the experimental evidence agrees with SR time dilation. Experimental testing of time dilation includes the Rossi–Hall (1940) and Frisch–Smith (1963) experiments on muons from cosmic rays.
Frisch and Smith showed that this is in agreement with the predictions of special relativity: The time dilation factor for muons on Mount Washington traveling at 0.995 c to 0.9954 c is approximately 10.2.
Click to expand...
There are 17 particle accelerator experiments confirming SR time dilation also listed.

This is easily found, textbook physics that a person trying to replace relativity must know - thus a delusion rather than ignorance.
 
Nonsensical, irrelevant question about his incoherent star scenario

philippeb8 said:
Ok then what defines the geostationary altitude of the star?
Click to expand...
6 December 2019 philippeb8: Nonsensical, irrelevant question about his incoherent star scenario.
  1. 6 December 2019 philippeb8: Ignorant gibberish that gravitons "technically define the frame of reference"
  2. 6 December 2019 philippeb8: Ignorant "Masses all have their own reference frame" gibberish
  3. 6 December 2019 philippeb8: An incoherent scenario that is not really a "thought experiment".
  4. 6 December 2019 philippeb8: A delusion that a spinning star's shape is perfectly spherical? Or an silly attempt to change his incoherent scenario?
  5. 6 December 2019 philippeb8: A delusion that spinning stars will never eject plasma.
  6. 6 December 2019 philippeb8: FT Theory: A "Kinematical Time Dilation" delusion (does not match the real world).
 
Reality Check said:
6 December 2019 philippeb8: A "Kinematical Time Dilation" delusion (does not match the real world).
He denies the time dilation from SR with its theoretical and experimental support and proposes to replace it with 1-v2/c2 (this is SR time dilation squared).
Anyone can see that this is very wrong since we have measured time dilation up to close to the speed of light and the experimental evidence agrees with SR time dilation. Experimental testing of time dilation includes the Rossi–Hall (1940) and Frisch–Smith (1963) experiments on muons from cosmic rays.

There are 17 particle accelerator experiments confirming SR time dilation also listed.

This is easily found, textbook physics that a person trying to replace relativity must know - thus a delusion rather than ignorance.
Click to expand...

Particles going at the speed of light are measured with great uncertainty because it is based on samplings & statistics.
 
 
philippeb8 said:
Ok so you can't answer it.
Click to expand...
A delusion that anyone can answer a nonsensical question or bother to answer an irrelevant question.
6 December 2019 philippeb8: Nonsensical, irrelevant question about his incoherent star scenario.

  1. 6 December 2019 philippeb8: Ignorant gibberish that gravitons "technically define the frame of reference"
  2. 6 December 2019 philippeb8: Ignorant "Masses all have their own reference frame" gibberish
  3. 6 December 2019 philippeb8: An incoherent scenario that is not really a "thought experiment".
  4. 6 December 2019 philippeb8: A delusion that a spinning star's shape is perfectly spherical? Or an silly attempt to change his incoherent scenario?
  5. 6 December 2019 philippeb8: A delusion that spinning stars will never eject plasma.
  6. 6 December 2019 philippeb8: FT Theory: A "Kinematical Time Dilation" delusion (does not match the real world).
  7. 6 December 2019 philippeb8: Nonsensical, irrelevant question about his incoherent star scenario.
 
Robin said:
As below - the particles move according to Newtonian laws and try to move in straight lines but are constrained by the bond, hence they form a spinning pair.

Now if you were to view this on your mobile phone with the auto-rotate switched off and then rotate your phone in the opposite direction so that the particles stay in a straight line then you get a spinning frame of reference, but it doesn't change anything about the behaviour of the particles

[qimg]https://robinsrevision.files.wordpress.com/2019/12/spinning_pair-1.gif?w=1024[/qimg]
Click to expand...
And, to build this up, not yet quite a star, but universe that contains only a four particle spinning object which can spin with a definite angular velocity even though there are no other reference objects:

spinning_set-1.gif
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
A delusion that anyone can answer a nonsensical question or bother to answer an irrelevant question.
6 December 2019 philippeb8: Nonsensical, irrelevant question about his incoherent star scenario.

  1. 6 December 2019 philippeb8: Ignorant gibberish that gravitons "technically define the frame of reference"
  2. 6 December 2019 philippeb8: Ignorant "Masses all have their own reference frame" gibberish
  3. 6 December 2019 philippeb8: An incoherent scenario that is not really a "thought experiment".
  4. 6 December 2019 philippeb8: A delusion that a spinning star's shape is perfectly spherical? Or an silly attempt to change his incoherent scenario?
  5. 6 December 2019 philippeb8: A delusion that spinning stars will never eject plasma.
  6. 6 December 2019 philippeb8: FT Theory: A "Kinematical Time Dilation" delusion (does not match the real world).
  7. 6 December 2019 philippeb8: Nonsensical, irrelevant question about his incoherent star scenario.
Click to expand...

Ok this conversation is now like a deadlock.
 
"Particles going at the speed of light" idiocy + "great uncertainty" lie

philippeb8 said:
Particles going at the speed of light are measured with great uncertainty because it is based on samplings & statistics.
Click to expand...
6 December 2019 philippeb8: "Particles going at the speed of light" idiocy + "great uncertainty" lie.

6 December 2019 philippeb8: A "Kinematical Time Dilation" delusion (does not match the real world) is clear that these are particles going close to the speed of light and cites the Wikipedia article with sources including the actual uncertainties a few clicks away.
Experimental testing of time dilation
Measurement of the Relativistic Time Dilation Using μ-Mesons Frisch, David H. ; Smith, James H. (1963)
An experiment has been performed to demonstrate the relativistic time dilation as a large effect, using only comparatively simple equipment. μ-mesons incident on top of Mt. Washington, New Hampshire, were selected to have speeds in the range between 0.9950 c and 0.9954 c. The number of these which survived to reach sea level was measured in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The number expected without time dilation was calculated from the distribution of decay times of these μ-mesons (i.e., the mean life as measured in both this experiment and others) and from the known distance of descent. The observed time dilation factor is 8.8±0.8 to be compared with the effective time dilation factor calculated for mesons of these speeds in our detection geometry 1/(1 - v2/c2)1/2 = 8.4 ± 2.
Click to expand...
Uncertainties highlighted. The ranges in these observed and predicted values overlap in this 56 year old experiment.

6 December 2019 philippeb8: Some "samplings & statistics" = "great uncertainty" idiocy
It is textbook math that the uncertainty in statistical analysis is sample size dependent. That is why polls do not have to ask everyone in a country to get a reliable result, they just have to ask a large enough sample.
 
Last edited:
philippeb8 said:
Regarding the star: what defines the angular velocity omega if there is nothing else in the universe?
Click to expand...
So to the second question. Below there is a set of 10 particles, bonded to each other and there is a spin to the object as a whole with a definite angular velocity. Contained are four free particles which are ejected.

If I had enough particles in this system then the particles would be ejected just as they would be in any real spinning object, for much the same reasons and the velocity as they leave the object would agree with the normal physical laws and this does not depend on any reference object.

Again, try the trick with spinning the phone in the opposite direction so that there is no overall spin and the free particles will be ejected just the same although there is "no" angular velocity.

So again the star would not depend upon any reference object. If there was a spinning frame of reference and therefore no angular velocity, then the centrifugal forces would work just the same it would eject matter just the same.

Animation:

spinning_star.gif

 
Robin said:
So to the second question. Below there is a set of 10 particles, bonded to each other and there is a spin to the object as a whole with a definite angular velocity. Contained are four free particles which are ejected.

If I had enough particles in this system then the particles would be ejected just as they would be in any real spinning object, for much the same reasons and the velocity as they leave the object would agree with the normal physical laws and this does not depend on any reference object.

Again, try the trick with spinning the phone in the opposite direction so that there is no overall spin and the free particles will be ejected just the same although there is "no" angular velocity.

So again the star would not depend upon any reference object. If there was a spinning frame of reference and therefore no angular velocity, then the centrifugal forces would work just the same it would eject matter just the same.

Animation:

[qimg]https://robinsrevision.files.wordpress.com/2019/12/spinning_star.gif?w=1024[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Let me ask you differently (what Reality Check cannot answer):
- What defines the geostationary altitude of this lonely star?
 
What does your "Kinematical Time Dilation" predict for the Frisch-Smith experiment

philippeb8 said:
Ok this conversation is now like a deadlock.
Click to expand...
Correct. Ignorant nonsense about an incoherent scenario is a deadlock to an conversation.

A simple question in case you want to actually start a conversation
What does your "Kinematical Time Dilation" predict for the Frisch-Smith experiment?
Measurement of the Relativistic Time Dilation Using μ-Mesons Frisch, David H. ; Smith, James H. (1963).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom