|
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. |
4th August 2014, 01:32 PM | #2601 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
Only I'm not. See this post on the other thread. And you know I'm not lying.
All: sorry about this. I was saying something to Darat that I think is worth reapeating. Imagine you notice that there are no threads on JREF featuring homeopathy. No scepticism of homeopathy, and no critical thinking about it. When you look into it, you find that every time some guy started talking about homeopathy, he got shouted down by a snarling pack of homeopaths, and ended up giving up and going somewhere else. So the forum became a homeopathy-free zone. The homeopaths don't contribute to the forum. They lurk. And they only come out of the wallpaper to trash any threads that could be critical of homeopathy. They're only there as a troll-patrol to make sure homeopathy doesn't catch any flak. Now replace homeopathy with physics, and that's pretty much where we're at. Only with this thread we're poised for a breakthrough, because Perpetual Student has just cottoned on to the fact that the speed of light varies in the room you're in. And that I'm not the crackpot. And if I'm not, then who is? Duh duh duh! |
4th August 2014, 01:37 PM | #2602 |
Just the right amount of cowbell
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Well past Hither, looking for Yon
Posts: 6,710
|
|
__________________
"In times of war, we need warriors. But this isn't a war." - Phil Plaitt |
|
4th August 2014, 01:53 PM | #2603 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,852
|
Hold on! I am not a physicist! Nevertheless, it is still my understanding the speed of light will be measured as c by any observer in any reference frame. Can anyone come up with a counter example to that? And -- I question the concept of "global observer," which seems to me to be contrary to GR. So, I am still waiting for some counter examples and a valid description of global observer under GR. The only new thing I have come to understand, is that there are ambiguities in defining the term "reference frame" in GR. Review my conversation with Clinger above to confirm that.
|
__________________
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. - Richard P. Feynman ξ |
|
4th August 2014, 02:04 PM | #2604 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
|
|
4th August 2014, 02:19 PM | #2605 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
No they can't, I explained the tautology that Magueijo and Moffat referred to. The local motion of light defines your second and you metre, which you then use to measure the local motion of light.
Originally Posted by Perpetual Student
Originally Posted by Perpetual Student
Originally Posted by Perpetual Student
Note how some other posters are rather desperate to change the subject. |
4th August 2014, 02:32 PM | #2606 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
Yes, and I'll imagine that CERN have found a way to producing clean cheap energy and manufacture hover bikes and space drives. But they haven't. What have they achieved? Er, the discovery of the Higgs boson? When the Higgs mechanism contradicts E=mc˛? You should take a look at The Discovery of What? It's on vixra because the Unzicker wasn't allowed to put it on arXiv.
Also see The Higgs Fake and arXiv for other papers by Unzicker, including the VSL discussion. |
4th August 2014, 02:34 PM | #2607 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,120
|
You're completely wrong when you claim the Higgs mechanism violates relativity.
|
__________________
When I look up at the night sky and think about the billions of stars out there, I think to myself: I'm amazing. - Peter Serafinowicz |
|
4th August 2014, 02:38 PM | #2608 |
Just the right amount of cowbell
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Well past Hither, looking for Yon
Posts: 6,710
|
Let's talk about that. You've complained about rubber rulers, so let's pick definitions that don't have an obvious dependence on light. For distance, how about sodium chloride crystals? It's a nice repeating structure. For time, let's use a single oscillation of the Cesium clocks that you linked.
So suppose I make a portable speed-of-light measuring device that sends a photon past a NaCl crystal with a known number of cells, and counts the number of Cesium oscillations it takes (there's a mirror involved). We'll call it a CsSalt device. Now, I take my CsSalt device, and take a measurement on the floor of my living room and find that the speed of light is 60,319,475 NaCl cells per oscillation. If I then take the CsSalt device to the ceiling, what would it say the speed of light is? |
__________________
"In times of war, we need warriors. But this isn't a war." - Phil Plaitt |
|
4th August 2014, 02:48 PM | #2609 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
It doesn't help. See the GR time dilation article and note the bit that says "electromagnetic radiation and matter may be equally affected, since they are made of the same essence"
60,319,475 NaCl cells per oscillation. You're using the motion of light (or electromagnetic phenomena) to measure the motion of light. Hence the tautology. It's like a clockwork man using a clockwork clock to measure the speed of his own clockwork. Then when he jumps into a viscous oil bath with his clockwork clock, he claims the speed of clockwork is unchanged. Even though it's now half the rate it was. |
4th August 2014, 02:59 PM | #2610 |
Just the right amount of cowbell
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Well past Hither, looking for Yon
Posts: 6,710
|
|
__________________
"In times of war, we need warriors. But this isn't a war." - Phil Plaitt |
|
4th August 2014, 03:01 PM | #2611 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
Oh no I'm not. The mass of a body is not the measure of its interaction with some mystic cosmic treacle. Note this in Einstein's E=mc˛ paper:
"The kinetic energy of the body with respect to (ξ ɳ Ϛ) diminishes as a result of the emission of light, and the amount of diminution is independent of the properties of the body. Moreover, the difference K0 − K1, like the kinetic energy of the electron (§ 10), depends on the velocity." It should be clear to you that Einstein considered the electron to be a body. And this should be clear to you too: "The mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content" The mass of a body is a measure of its energy content. Not the measure of its interaction with some mystic cosmic treacle. So if you're rooting for the latter, you're going to have to throw away that E=mc˛ T-shirt. And buy yourself a new T-shirt, like this: |
4th August 2014, 03:15 PM | #2612 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
Not really. There's such a thing as a nuclear clock, but you can do low-energy proton/antiproton annihilation to gamma photons, so there's no getting away from the electromagnetism. Have a read of The Other Meaning of Special Relativity by Robert Close. He refers to the wave nature of matter. When everything is made of waves, you use the local motion of waves to calibrate your rods and clocks. There isn't anything else. Then you use your rods and clocks to measure the local motion of waves. So regardless of how you move or where you go, you always measure the local speed of waves to be the same. Even when it isn't.
Sorry, I have to go now. |
4th August 2014, 03:18 PM | #2613 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,120
|
Look it's quite simple. The 'energy content' comes from the interaction, and so therefore does the mass. The ideas are not mutually exclusive.
|
__________________
When I look up at the night sky and think about the billions of stars out there, I think to myself: I'm amazing. - Peter Serafinowicz |
|
4th August 2014, 03:20 PM | #2614 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,696
|
Your final argument is a straw man - no one believes that light is made up of billiard-ball particles. It's made up of quantum particles that have a wave and a particle nature. But you don't seem to understand the mainstream physics view of anything - only the view that you claim your heroes Einstein and Maxwell espouse. With that out of the way, the "amplitude of the pluck" varies based on how hard I pluck the string. Cartoon diagrams, however, are often normalized to the same amplitude in order to easily visualize other concepts.
|
__________________
Truthers only insist that there must have been some sinister purpose behind [WTC7] because they already think there's a sinister purpose behind everything. -Horatius |
|
4th August 2014, 03:35 PM | #2615 |
Just the right amount of cowbell
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Well past Hither, looking for Yon
Posts: 6,710
|
When you get back, then, am I correct to understand that you're saying that any conceivable way to measure a local speed of light would always return the same value, and yet it's a crackpot idea to think that the local speed of light always has the same value?
Speed is always time vs. distance. How do you know that it's not local time that's varying, rather than local speed? |
__________________
"In times of war, we need warriors. But this isn't a war." - Phil Plaitt |
|
4th August 2014, 03:48 PM | #2616 |
Data Ghost
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: The Library
Posts: 2,898
|
A more "can do" attitude is needed. Take a strong decay like Δ+ --> p + π0 and see how long it takes, on average, in the rest frame of the Δ+. That's your time standard. In the same reference frame, how far do the produced protons travel, on average, in that standard time? That's your distance standard.
ETA: And, just to be clear, if you did define your time and distance standards in this way you'd still find the locally-measured speed of light was 299,792,458 m/s everywhere. |
4th August 2014, 05:20 PM | #2617 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
No, Farsight, You referred to an unpublished, not cited preprint from 2008. The authors are so wrong that even you should know it!
A photon is a particle when it acts like a particle and the entire wave when it acts like a wave (wave/particle duality). See: Length of a Photon |
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
4th August 2014, 05:32 PM | #2618 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
All: do excuse Farsight for his inability to distinguish between cartoons drawn by artists and actual science. Along with his delusion about ben m (a working particle physicist!) physics knowledge being poor.
This is actually another symptom of a crackpot - when someone knowledgeable about physics points out the flaws in their argument, the crackpot response is to accuse that other person of being ignorant rather than citing the scientific literature that shows that they are right. The fact that artists are free to start drawing pictures of electromagnetic waves starting at any point on the wave has still totally escaped Farsight ! The fact that a Google search on electrometric waves is not a reference to the scientific literature is still not understood by Farsight. |
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
4th August 2014, 05:46 PM | #2619 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
Farsight: Where is the "partial neutron" in your idea
Of course there are many internet sites stating the obvious fact that has been known since Maxwell - in electromagnetic waves, electric fields vary and magnetic fields vary, Farsight - Duh !
The fields go from a positive field strength to a negative field strength and back. Where the "crackpottery" comes in is associating that positive/negative field strength with a "partial electron" or "partial positron" just because the words positive or negative are there. That is what ben m, I and other posters are pointing out. There are no charges there. There are no masses there. There are no spins there. There are electromagnetic fields whose strength goes from a positive to a negative value and back. To take that delusion to the maximum: Why are you not asserting that the position of zero field strength is a "partial neutron"? Or a "partial Higgs boson"? For that matter where do you get a "partial electron" from? - why not a "partial muon" or a "partial down quark"? |
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
4th August 2014, 06:02 PM | #2620 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
All: Imagine the real world. In this real world homeopaths come to this forum and start threads on homeopathy.
Posters here point out that they are supporting scientifically invalid concepts (laws of similarity and dilution). Posters point out that there is no scientific evidence for homeopathy working better than a placebo. Posters point out that there is no viable mechanism that allows homeopathy to work. Posters point out that the support for homeopathy is mostly anecdotes. Posters point out that the homeopaths sometimes rely on stories from the 1850's ("provings"). Posters start threads that contain valid (scientifically based) medicine which are occasionally derailed a little by homeopaths. In this forum, Farsight with his various invalid ideas is the "homeopath" ! I am sure that you can see the parallels. Also homeopaths imagine that because one person has learned some physics it somehow means that they are not a crackpot ! The reality is that even crackpots get some things right - it is what they get wrong that makes them a crackpot. |
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
4th August 2014, 06:28 PM | #2621 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
Farsight - try reading at least the title of what you cite!
Comments on "Note on varying speed of light theories" The comment is about Variable speed of light theories. This is not General Relativity (note how they are spelt differently!). They state the obvious - the current definitions of the meter and second involve the speed of light and thus you cannot use the standard definitions of meter or second to measure the speed of light. Isn't it lucky that everyone knows this and no one does this to measure the local speed of light ! They go on to speculate about how to measure c in VSL theories. What makes the speed of light vary in GR is that the speed of light need not be constant in a non-inertial frame of reference. This is what Einstein stated in 1915. Clinger correctly said things like The coordinate velocities of light within a GR frame are therefore equally arbitrary. That is because GR is built so that you can select any equally arbitrary coordinate system you like. In each coordinate system, the coordinate speed of light will depend on the coordinate system - amazing ! The Baez article confirms this without explicitly mentioning coordinate systems (these are the various rulers and clocks) Sorry, Farsight, but the topic remains the same: * hero worship of Einstein, * inability to understand the scientific literature (including Einstein's work!), * belaboring the obvious over and over again, * assertions that other posters are ignorant, * assertions that are invalid, * dependence on cartoons, * etc. are typical symptoms of a crackpot. |
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
4th August 2014, 06:54 PM | #2622 |
Muse
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 509
|
Sure, you link to yet another post where you lie. Whenever you write, "It isn't my theory," you are clearly lying. One calls it "lying" because you are promoting a very specific set of claims that no other person is promoting. Even you admit that Einstein does not agree with your theory, since you admit that Einstein disagreed with your position in cosmology and you admit that Einstein did not use a variable speed of light in his equations. So it would be a lie for you to claim that you are merely trying to promote Einstein's work.
Quote:
However, since it cannot actually function as physics, we need to trim the fat. |
4th August 2014, 06:56 PM | #2623 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
Oh dear, Farsight: This delusion raises its ugly head yet again !
The Higgs mechanism is a Relativistic Quantum Field theory - it explicitly obeys E=mc˛. Anther crackpot symptom - the inability to learn even after years of knowing what the science is: Farsight: (1 November 2012) Is the Higgs mechanism a relativistic quantum field theory? i.e. is it is based on special relativity and is thus consistent with E=mc^2. Farsight: (19 November 2012) What does Higgs mean by Lorentz-covariant and relativistic? Farsight: (20 November 2012) It is delusional to think that a relativistic QFT violates SR Alexander Unzicker studied physics and law in Munich and received his doctorate in neuroscience. So we have an vixra PDF from an person too lazy to find out the answers to their questions. "The Higgs Fake" is a crackpot book just by the title - a new boson was discovered, it fits what we expect for a Higgs boson (but we need its spin to be absolutely sure) thus a Nobel Prize is justified. |
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
4th August 2014, 07:07 PM | #2624 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
Farsight: What does Higgs mean by Lorentz-covariant and relativistic
Yes you are wrong and have been since November 2012 when this ignorance was first mentioned on the forum:
Farsight: (1 November 2012) Is the Higgs mechanism a relativistic quantum field theory? Farsight: (19 November 2012) What does Higgs mean by Lorentz-covariant and relativistic? Farsight: (20 November 2012) It is delusional to think that a relativistic QFT violates SR |
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
4th August 2014, 07:28 PM | #2625 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
That remains wrong, Farsight.
You do not need an standard clock or meter to measure the speed of light - you can do it roughly with a microwave oven and even more accurately with a cavity resonator:
Quote:
Juts because the standard SI second and meter was defined in terms of the speed of light in 1983 does not mean that experiments measuring the speed of light magically stopped in 1983. For example: A one-way speed of light experiment 10/2009 . |
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
5th August 2014, 12:38 AM | #2626 |
Muse
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 762
|
Seems rather arrogant.
Describe what you found in your own words. Go into detail.
Quote:
Positive and negative relative to some direction.
Quote:
Demonstrably false.
Quote:
Quote:
|
5th August 2014, 12:48 AM | #2627 |
Muse
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 762
|
On the subject of this thread, has anyone here read any of Alexander Unzicker's books?
Peter Woit did, and he described his experience in Bankrupting Physics | Not Even Wrong.
Quote:
|
5th August 2014, 07:37 AM | #2628 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
Originally Posted by edd
But there's plenty of people who think photons are point particles, google it. And despite electron diffraction, here's Nobel Laureate Frank Wilczek saying "Quarks are spin-1/2 point particles, very much like electrons..." I do. I understand far more of that than most people here. You know what I mean. Action h really can be defined in terms of momentum x distance. It's the same h regardless of wavelength. So something is the same for all those waves.
Originally Posted by dasmiller
Originally Posted by dasmiller
Originally Posted by ctamblyn
Originally Posted by Reality Check
|
5th August 2014, 07:45 AM | #2629 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,120
|
Even the bits of that that are correct don't have any particular relevance to what I was trying to get across.
Look, take the proton. It's got a mass, and it's got an energy from that mass of E=mc2. But you know that most of that mass isn't from the Higgs mechanism (you've referred to that fact before) - it comes from the binding energy of the strong interaction. The fact there's an explanation of how the proton has that energy doesn't mean that the energy does not follow E=mc2 or violate relativity. In the same way, the explanation for the origin of a given fundamental particle's mass does not change that it still follows E=mc2. That's all I'm trying to get across. |
__________________
When I look up at the night sky and think about the billions of stars out there, I think to myself: I'm amazing. - Peter Serafinowicz |
|
5th August 2014, 07:46 AM | #2630 |
Muse
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 509
|
Your claim is that all mass is photons. This is not the thread to discuss that bizarre claim for which you have so much less evidence than the standard model that it is embarrassing. Especially since you refuse to produce a means of doing physics applications.
Quote:
Perhaps "Farsight Physics" would be better called, "Homeopathy Physics". |
5th August 2014, 07:58 AM | #2631 |
Just the right amount of cowbell
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Well past Hither, looking for Yon
Posts: 6,710
|
To be honest, I'm not seeing the connection to the Sagnac effect, but I shall ponder that further.
Quote:
|
__________________
"In times of war, we need warriors. But this isn't a war." - Phil Plaitt |
|
5th August 2014, 08:36 AM | #2632 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
Best forget about that. I wasn't going to mention it, it just muddies the waters.
Because time doesn't literally pass. That's just a figure of speech. A clock counts some kind of regular cyclical motion and shows some cumulative display that we call "the time". Think of a mechanical clock, or a quartz wristwatch, or an atomic clock. There isn't actually any time flowing inside a clock. A clock isn't some kind of cosmic gas-meter measuring "the flow of time". It has a "movement". It "clocks up" some kind of motion. And when the clock goes slow, it's because the motion is going slow. And of course because Einstein said the speed of light varies with position, and because of this book. And because of Magueijo and Moffat and Ned Wright and Don Koks and others.
Originally Posted by dasmiller
|
5th August 2014, 08:45 AM | #2633 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
It's all correct. E=mc˛ is correct.
The story goes that the Higgs mechanism is responsible for the quark masses, which is 1% of the mass of the proton, and E=mc˛ is responsible for the rest. Only we've never seen a free quark. But we have seen low-energy proton-antiproton annihilation to gamma photons. So the proton is just another example of light in a box. Light in a box of own making. Light in a box, minus the box. Hence the wave nature of matter. It ain't rocket science. |
5th August 2014, 08:53 AM | #2634 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,852
|
|
__________________
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. - Richard P. Feynman ξ |
|
5th August 2014, 08:55 AM | #2635 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 18,774
|
|
5th August 2014, 09:05 AM | #2636 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
|
5th August 2014, 09:30 AM | #2637 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,852
|
|
__________________
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. - Richard P. Feynman ξ |
|
5th August 2014, 10:15 AM | #2638 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
|
And the electron, muon, and tau masses. And electroweak symmetry breaking, i.e. the masses of the W and Z. Also, the Higgs mechanism is responsible for the existence of a heavy scalar boson with pretty much the exact production cross section and decay scheme seen in a tentatively-identified 125 GeV boson found at LHC.
Quote:
Quote:
Great argument, Farsight! In a universe with no heavy quarks, no Higgs boson, no electroweak symmetry breaking, and in which proton-proton annihilation had some properties you just made up, the Higgs mechanism would sound pretty silly! Great story. Want to talk about the real world? |
5th August 2014, 10:24 AM | #2639 |
Just the right amount of cowbell
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Well past Hither, looking for Yon
Posts: 6,710
|
Okay.
Quote:
Okay, imagine a cellular automata universe. In this version, the states of the cells change asynchronously; that is, there's no requirement that all cells update simultaneously. In such a universe, the sequence of state changes is time, and you could certainly have regions of the universe in which the cells experienced more or fewer state changes, on average. In such a universe, time really would be passing at different rates in different regions. How do you know our universe isn't like that? (to be honest, I'm not clear on how you'd ever the speed of light to look constant in a cellular automata universe. But that's another topic.) |
__________________
"In times of war, we need warriors. But this isn't a war." - Phil Plaitt |
|
5th August 2014, 11:11 AM | #2640 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
What's with the snip and the sigh? You asked the question, I answered it. I've seen footballers pass, I've seen buses pass. But you've never seen time pass. It's just a figure of speech. A convention. Nay, a conviction.
Our universe is like that. Change and motion is occurring at different rates in different places. Time isn't really passing at all. Light moves, things move, **** happens, that's it. Use the refresh rate to calibrate your rods and clocks, then use them to measure the refresh rate. |
Thread Tools | |
|
|