ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 4th December 2019, 10:45 PM   #41
philippeb8
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 660
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
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?



Oh, and your toy universe does not have the property your just magically assigned it.


You forgot an important property: masses also emit gravitons which will technically define the frame of reference.
philippeb8 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2019, 05:28 AM   #42
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 11,390
Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post


- I'm basically saying the last 300 years of physics are all wrong.



-
We get that a lot of that round here.
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"

Last edited by Robin; 5th December 2019 at 05:51 AM.
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2019, 06:21 AM   #43
sackett
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Detroit
Posts: 5,830
I just felt a breeze

Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
No.
Source?
__________________
Fill the seats of justice with good men; not so absolute in goodness as to forget what human frailty is. -- Thomas Jefferson

What region of the earth is not filled with our calamities? -- Virgil
sackett is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2019, 06:34 AM   #44
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 11,390
Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
- 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?
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.
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2019, 07:21 AM   #45
philippeb8
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 660
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
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.


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 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2019, 08:23 AM   #46
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Betwixt
Posts: 15,818
Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
Regarding the star: what defines the angular velocity omega if there is nothing else in the universe?

The accelerations of particles on the surface of the star.
__________________
A zømbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2019, 08:29 AM   #47
philippeb8
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 660
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
The accelerations of particles on the surface of the star.


Relative to which frame of reference?
philippeb8 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2019, 10:30 AM   #48
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,269
Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
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?
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.
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2019, 10:32 AM   #49
JeanTate
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,269
Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
Relative to which frame of reference?
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.
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2019, 10:43 AM   #50
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 31,690
Finite Theory: Historical Milestone in Physics

Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
- I wrote a theory...

That’s not how you spell “millstone”.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2019, 11:22 AM   #51
phunk
Illuminator
 
phunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 4,103
Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
Relative to which frame of reference?
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.
phunk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2019, 11:45 AM   #52
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 87,833
Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
In other words the star cannot eject fire because the reference frame spins with the star.
Why would there be fire on a star?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2019, 12:08 PM   #53
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Betwixt
Posts: 15,818
Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
Relative to which frame of reference?

Any inertial frame of reference you choose.
__________________
A zømbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2019, 12:19 PM   #54
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Betwixt
Posts: 15,818
Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
In other words the star cannot eject fire because the reference frame spins with the star.

Masses in a spinning reference frame experience centrifugal force.
__________________
A zømbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2019, 12:29 PM   #55
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 12,728
I see that The 12 Days of Holiday Nuttery has begun.
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2019, 12:42 PM   #56
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 12,728
Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
- I wrote a theory that was previously debated here:
snipped
And they suspended you.
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2019, 12:54 PM   #57
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Hellbound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not in Hell, but I can see it from here on a clear day...
Posts: 14,089
Have you got a theory with less spam in it? I don't like spam.
__________________
History does not always repeat itself. Sometimes it just yells "Can't you remember anything I told you?" and lets fly with a club. - John w. Campbell
Hellbound is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2019, 02:11 PM   #58
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,272
Exclamation Ignorant gibberish that gravitons "technically define the frame of reference"

Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
...masses also emit gravitons which will technically define the frame of reference.
6 December 2019 philippeb8: Ignorant gibberish that gravitons "technically define the frame of reference"
This is a frame of reference
Quote:
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.
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.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2019, 02:16 PM   #59
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,272
Exclamation Ignorant "Masses all have their own reference frame" gibberish

Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
Masses all have their own reference frame....
6 December 2019 philippeb8: Ignorant "Masses all have their own reference frame" gibberish
Similar to the next 6 December 2019 philippeb8: Ignorant gibberish that gravitons "technically define the frame of reference"
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2019, 02:50 PM   #60
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,272
Exclamation An incoherent scenario that is not really a "thought experiment"

Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
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?
6 December 2019 philippeb8: An incoherent scenario that is not really a "thought experiment".
Addressing this nonsense more fully. Thought experiment
Quote:
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.
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 .
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 by Reality Check; 5th December 2019 at 03:04 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2019, 03:31 PM   #61
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 21,517
Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
- I wrote a theory that was previously debated here:
https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthr...14#post2464214
It was drivel then and is drivel now.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2019, 04:37 PM   #62
philippeb8
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 660
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
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 .

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).


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.
philippeb8 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2019, 04:47 PM   #63
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 65,218
Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
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.
No fire will be ejected because there is no fire on or around a star.
__________________
Self-described nerd.

My mom told me she tries never to make fun of people for not knowing something.
- Randall Munroe
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2019, 05:09 PM   #64
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Betwixt
Posts: 15,818
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.
__________________
A zømbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2019, 05:19 PM   #65
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 12,728
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
No fire will be ejected because there is no fire on or around a star.
But in the dark they flicker like the lit end of a joint and that has fire!
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2019, 05:29 PM   #66
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 11,390
Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
Regarding the particles: the particles will crash on each other. Why should the pair of particles start spinning?
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

__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2019, 05:33 PM   #67
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,272
Question A delusion that a spinning star's shape is perfectly spherical

Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
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. .
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 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2019, 05:55 PM   #68
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 15,474
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
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.
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.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975

Last edited by psionl0; 5th December 2019 at 05:57 PM.
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2019, 06:19 PM   #69
philippeb8
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 660
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
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".
Ok then what defines the geostationary altitude of the star?
philippeb8 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2019, 06:19 PM   #70
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,272
Exclamation A "Kinematical Time Dilation" delusion (does not match the real world)

Originally Posted by philippeb8;12913443[url
https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthread.php?137103-Finite-Theory-of-the-Universe-Dark-Matter-Disproof-and-Faster-Than-Light-Speed&p=2464214#post2464214[/url]
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.
Quote:
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.
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.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2019, 06:31 PM   #72
philippeb8
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 660
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
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.
Particles going at the speed of light are measured with great uncertainty because it is based on samplings & statistics.
philippeb8 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2019, 06:40 PM   #75
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 11,390
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
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

https://robinsrevision.files.wordpre...r-1.gif?w=1024
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:

__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"

Last edited by Robin; 5th December 2019 at 07:45 PM.
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2019, 06:48 PM   #77
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,272
Exclamation "Particles going at the speed of light" idiocy + "great uncertainty" lie

Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
Particles going at the speed of light are measured with great uncertainty because it is based on samplings & statistics.
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)
Quote:
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.
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 by Reality Check; 5th December 2019 at 06:59 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2019, 07:04 PM   #78
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 11,390
Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
Regarding the star: what defines the angular velocity omega if there is nothing else in the universe?
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:


__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2019, 07:15 PM   #79
philippeb8
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 660
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
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:
Let me ask you differently (what Reality Check cannot answer):
- What defines the geostationary altitude of this lonely star?
philippeb8 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2019, 07:16 PM   #80
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,272
Question What does your "Kinematical Time Dilation" predict for the Frisch-Smith experiment

Originally Posted by philippeb8 View Post
Ok this conversation is now like a deadlock.
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).
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:17 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.