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.
Tags photons

Reply
Old 2nd October 2008, 09:40 AM   #241
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 48,862
Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
You haven't proven that 'objects of mass' exist either.

You ignored ThirdEyeOpen, photons are objects of mass, they have mass because they are in motion. Otherwise they have zero rest mass, isn't that cool! The universe does not care what makes sense to us.
Well that is generaly not something people would say now as relativistic mass has fallen out of favor as a mathmatical expression.

In physics now when people say mass they mean the rest mass as reletivistic mass does not make anything easier
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle 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 2nd October 2008, 09:44 AM   #242
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 30,587
Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
nope...did a bit of a think and realised I am way out of my depth. A couple of things said by Pix has lead me to reassess the issue.
Proof of a travelling photon is unambiguous according to tested and tried methods.
I guess the constants are going to have to wait... for someone else to work it out because I must be mistaken.
any ways the thread op stands if you want to continue but I'll just lurk in the background and lick my wounds...

Thanks guys and gals for your tolerance...

That was.... anticlimactic.
RoboTimbo 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 2nd October 2008, 09:48 AM   #243
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
ahh but you cannot describe why physics is the same universally can you?
No, I can't.

Quote:
ha talk about a contradiction....you got it right unless ther is eveidence to the contrary... got it right in absolute terms ha....
Science doesn't tend to replace models that work perfectly well unless they can find one that works better. You have provided no evidence that "the photon model" (as referred to it) doesn't work well and no evidence that you have an alternative that works even better.

Quote:
Because inertia and for that matter gravity would cease to be a universal constants if the travelling photon existed.
Inertia is a universal constant? The gravitational constant works perfectly well with travelling photons.

Quote:
so you gotta ask yourself the question how are universal constants supported in a universe that requires a photon to hang it all together using the current space time paradigm?

any ideas you would like to suggest? Go on go out on a limb and make a few suggestions please...
What do you mean by how they are supported?
Tubbythin 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 2nd October 2008, 10:16 AM   #244
PixyMisa
Persnickety Insect
 
PixyMisa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sunny Munuvia
Posts: 16,346
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
That was.... anticlimactic.
Yeah. Is he allowed to do that?

__________________
Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu
What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO
PixyMisa 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 2nd October 2008, 10:45 AM   #245
Third Eye Open
Graduate Poster
 
Third Eye Open's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,400
Yikes! This thread got big quick.

So I guess I was misunderstanding at first, it's not that photons don't exist, they just don't travel.

So when I look at the sun, the photons coming from the sun aren't traveling to my eyes, they are... teleporting? Except not instantaneous teleportation, they add in a delay that is equal to exactly what we have measured to be the speed of light.

Or am I misunderstanding again... how do the photons teleport?
__________________
"Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain."- Friedrich von Schiller
"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature." - Thomas Jefferson
"Let all your troubles go, cling to the joy of living..." - Heavenly
Third Eye Open 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 2nd October 2008, 11:11 AM   #246
NobbyNobbs
Gazerbeam's Protege
 
NobbyNobbs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 5,617
Reading through this thread I, like Linda, am experiencing an education in logic when people like Pixy present their statements. Thank you for that.

I had a whole bunch of ozzie's posts quoted and ready to answer to, but I don't think I'm going to do that. I'm just going to try to put on my teacher hat and see what happens.


Ozzie, let's pretend we've never heard of photons, mass, inertia, speed of light, etc. Let's go back to the beginning of science, which is what you would have to do if you want to overturn the present understanding of things. Let's go back to the basics of the scientific method: observe, hypothesize, test, theorize.

We look up and observe the sun. We look out and observe the mountains. We see our friend across the room. None of those things is within reach for us to touch, yet we are aware of their existence. How? Well, somehow information concerning the fact of their existence must get from where they are in space and time to where we are in space and time. In all of our experiences, the best (and possibly only) way we know how to move in space and time is to *move*.

So, something must be moving from where they are to where we are, carrying information of their existence with it. What are these things that are moving? We certainly can't see them, but we know, from our logic, that they must be there. Let's give them a name. Let's call them "photons". (Remember, we've thrown out everything we know, so don't start subscribing preconceived properties to them yet.) The only thing we know about these "photons" is that they have the ability to carry information from one place to another. We also know that our eyes and brain have the ability to decode that information into something meaningful to us.

Now that we have observed and hypothesized, we can begin to test. What can we test about these "photons"? Well, let's see if we can affect the way they move. There are two aspects to movement: speed and direction. Let's see if we can change either. Ah! By using a mirror, I can see around a corner! I have found a way to make these photons turn a corner. I also discover, through a photocell, that I can make them do work. Using some simple calculations, based on the amount of work I can make them do, I could probably figure out their speed. And then I can try to make them do work in different mediums, or under other conditions, and figure out their speed then.

Bit by bit, we build up a theory of what "photons" are, what they do, how they behave. There are some aspects that might be puzzling, such as how they act in different inertial frames or particle-wave duality, but that's ok, because science doesn't pretend to have all the answers all the time.

Now, along comes someone else who says, "I think your 'photon' theory is a load of crap." My response would be, "Why? It explains everything we can observe." Sure, philosophically there's a chance I'm wrong. It could be that magic fairies are in charge of making the information move from one place to another. Or I could be part of a dream world, where the real world is nothing like this. But without the scientific method to back it up--observe, hypothesize, test, theorize--there's no real reason to suggest alternate explanations.

Of course, if my friend observes a phenomenon that the photon theory does not explain, I have to a) say "I don't know yet", b) adjust my theory, or c) scrap it and find a new one. But recall, the first step in the process is observation.

I suspect that if I were to ask "What have you observed that can't be explained by the current understanding of physics?" you would say the fact that universal constants are constant. I admit, my initial answer would be "Why shouldn't they be constant?" I view it as a more generalized extension of Newton's 1st Law: Things stay the same unless there's a reason for them to change. You could go ahead and ask why this should be so, but then it's turtles all the way down. So, in keeping with the detail to which we are going with this, my response would instead be "Why does this mean we should scrap photon theory?" I don't believe (and I could be wrong) that the idea of photons is meant to explain universal constants. You may as well toss out evolutionary theory because it doesn't explain plate techtonics.

Secondly, if photon theory should explain this and can't, the next step would be to see if the theory can be adjusted so as to take it into account.

If it can't be adjusted, then and only then should we toss it out. Even so, we should only do so if a better theory is offered. This better theory must not only explain all the observations under the old theory, but also the unexplained observations as well.

So, in the end, if you would like to get rid of photon theory, that's all well and good. Just submit a better alternative, and you'll have your name attached to a scientific paradigm.
__________________
I wish someone would find something I wrote on this board to be sig-worthy, thereby effectively granting me immortality.--Antiquehunter
The gods do not deduct from a man's allotted years on earth the time spent eating butterscotch pudding.
AMERICA! NUMBER 1 IN PARTICLE PHYSICS SINCE JULY 4TH, 1776!!! --SusanConstant

Last edited by NobbyNobbs; 2nd October 2008 at 11:16 AM.
NobbyNobbs 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 2nd October 2008, 01:13 PM   #247
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,699
Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
Ok pix, when I get my act together and put a decent hypothesis together that is vetted by a few qualified physicst I'll come back to this topic again...obviously I can't get that sort of assistance here...

But still unambigous proof of a travelling photon is lacking which is rather handy to tell you the truth.....

I see now I Have A Secret has become You Are Not worthy, try explaining your Secret, duh, are you Cantthinkofaname?
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David 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 2nd October 2008, 01:17 PM   #248
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,699
Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
any one got any ideas as to why the universal constants are well, uhm constant?
any ideas why the speed of light according to the photon model is invariant and a constant?
Because they appear to be that way, it might be that they are not on the other end of the universe, but they sure appear constant in this pool of the universe.
Quote:

Come on guys you know what you are talking about...lets hear those wonderfull ideas....
[ I apologise to the very few serious posters to this thread as I mean no offense to you]

Because they are, I don't know why the speed of light is constant, but as a wise man once said "Ask what, not why." I would guess it is the rate that the energy/mass can propagate through it's local area. But since some particle may violate the causality of macro objects. I don't know.
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David 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 2nd October 2008, 01:20 PM   #249
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,699
Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
well in a way photons are stationary relative to t=0
[no matter where a photon is it is always t=0]
refering to the light cone diagrams of Minkowski and Alberto

If one subscribes to the photon "modelo" as the photon changes position the universe moves forward in time so in a sense a photon is always stationary.

'tis a bit tough to word in my lingo that makes sense I know...
but this is using the photon model....and maybe I have in incorrect...
As mass is moving through time simulatenously with our photon at the rate of 'c' mass itself can be described as a photon or as AE states with his equation mass is energy.

so t=0 must be absolute...universally

This seems to be a restatement of Xeno's paradox. yet rabbits and turtles do get pinned by arrows.
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David 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 2nd October 2008, 01:23 PM   #250
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,699
Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
As you can't even understand the question I have failed to communicate the issue adequately. My bad...

Well you do keep playing "What have I got in my pocket?" maybe you have a good idea maybe you don't.
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David 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 2nd October 2008, 01:28 PM   #251
tesscaline
Illuminator
 
tesscaline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 4,024
Originally Posted by NobbyNobbs View Post
Reading through this thread I, like Linda, am experiencing an education in logic when people like Pixy present their statements. Thank you for that.

I had a whole bunch of ozzie's posts quoted and ready to answer to, but I don't think I'm going to do that. I'm just going to try to put on my teacher hat and see what happens.


Ozzie, let's pretend we've never heard of photons, mass, inertia, speed of light, etc. Let's go back to the beginning of science, which is what you would have to do if you want to overturn the present understanding of things. Let's go back to the basics of the scientific method: observe, hypothesize, test, theorize.

We look up and observe the sun. We look out and observe the mountains. We see our friend across the room. None of those things is within reach for us to touch, yet we are aware of their existence. How? Well, somehow information concerning the fact of their existence must get from where they are in space and time to where we are in space and time. In all of our experiences, the best (and possibly only) way we know how to move in space and time is to *move*.

So, something must be moving from where they are to where we are, carrying information of their existence with it. What are these things that are moving? We certainly can't see them, but we know, from our logic, that they must be there. Let's give them a name. Let's call them "photons". (Remember, we've thrown out everything we know, so don't start subscribing preconceived properties to them yet.) The only thing we know about these "photons" is that they have the ability to carry information from one place to another. We also know that our eyes and brain have the ability to decode that information into something meaningful to us.

Now that we have observed and hypothesized, we can begin to test. What can we test about these "photons"? Well, let's see if we can affect the way they move. There are two aspects to movement: speed and direction. Let's see if we can change either. Ah! By using a mirror, I can see around a corner! I have found a way to make these photons turn a corner. I also discover, through a photocell, that I can make them do work. Using some simple calculations, based on the amount of work I can make them do, I could probably figure out their speed. And then I can try to make them do work in different mediums, or under other conditions, and figure out their speed then.

Bit by bit, we build up a theory of what "photons" are, what they do, how they behave. There are some aspects that might be puzzling, such as how they act in different inertial frames or particle-wave duality, but that's ok, because science doesn't pretend to have all the answers all the time.

Now, along comes someone else who says, "I think your 'photon' theory is a load of crap." My response would be, "Why? It explains everything we can observe." Sure, philosophically there's a chance I'm wrong. It could be that magic fairies are in charge of making the information move from one place to another. Or I could be part of a dream world, where the real world is nothing like this. But without the scientific method to back it up--observe, hypothesize, test, theorize--there's no real reason to suggest alternate explanations.

Of course, if my friend observes a phenomenon that the photon theory does not explain, I have to a) say "I don't know yet", b) adjust my theory, or c) scrap it and find a new one. But recall, the first step in the process is observation.

I suspect that if I were to ask "What have you observed that can't be explained by the current understanding of physics?" you would say the fact that universal constants are constant. I admit, my initial answer would be "Why shouldn't they be constant?" I view it as a more generalized extension of Newton's 1st Law: Things stay the same unless there's a reason for them to change. You could go ahead and ask why this should be so, but then it's turtles all the way down. So, in keeping with the detail to which we are going with this, my response would instead be "Why does this mean we should scrap photon theory?" I don't believe (and I could be wrong) that the idea of photons is meant to explain universal constants. You may as well toss out evolutionary theory because it doesn't explain plate techtonics.

Secondly, if photon theory should explain this and can't, the next step would be to see if the theory can be adjusted so as to take it into account.

If it can't be adjusted, then and only then should we toss it out. Even so, we should only do so if a better theory is offered. This better theory must not only explain all the observations under the old theory, but also the unexplained observations as well.

So, in the end, if you would like to get rid of photon theory, that's all well and good. Just submit a better alternative, and you'll have your name attached to a scientific paradigm.
Nominated!
tesscaline 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 2nd October 2008, 04:42 PM   #252
ozziemate
Graduate Poster
 
ozziemate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,240
To get my informal ideas across you would have to be open to the following issues:
1] That distance is an illusion generated by the presense of mass/ matter.
2] To draw the distinction between relative zero and absolute zero.
3] accept that absoute nothing ness is the opposite pole of something ness which grants you a governed self justifying "singularity". [ which this universe is ] [ yes, your lingo means that the term governed singularity is a contradiction.
4] Be prepared to learn new words and definitions.

5] Be prepared to find out just how ingrained this photon model is in your mind set and how difficult it is to change that...in other words expect some pain in the process as I had to accept some pain.
6] take absolutely nothing, any law of physics, for granted.
7] to dump notions of linea time when discusing big bang or other exnihilo concepts.
8] to look for light effect data that would contradict the hypothesis when understood.
Becasue the pre-existiing data even though I believe acquired with incorrect interpreatation will actuall provide part of the evidencial support needed for the hypotheis to be accepted.
9] learn to work out how a univesre goes from zero dimension to two and then to three and four dimensions.


My physics is self developed in isolation from mainstream, due to many reasons but in the main it is to avoid the mind set that closes of possibility.
My actual forte is philosophy and even that has developed away from mainstream.

With a little translation effort the ideas could make sense to you but that woud take a little patience and certainly an ability to see value in what you are doing.

At the end of the period of understanding you would then be able to make a value judgement as to worth.
There is one key element missing for the hypotheiss and I guess in some ways this is what I am fishing for.
Reputation means nothng to me nor does ego nor does Randis millions as the net result of success goes way beyond anything you probably could imagine. And to be frank I personally don't need it for my own benfit as I have already got the answer but not the detail.

It is in the detail and the ability to explain the processes in your language that you need, for you to be able to understand the solution.

Again it is not something I need but I can be certain it is something you need if you want to travel the stars or get past the obstacle that a multiple time dimesional universe inflicts.
Currently it is possible to build a worm hole or better still a 2 dimensional gate and certainly to enter hyper spacial dimensions.
But the down side is that it also enables you to vapourise a planet sized object in less than a blink of the eye.

So yes it is difficult to know how to find my missing piece to the puzzle with out revealing too much detail along the way.
The information woud develop into public property so and award granted for a successful hypothesis / theory is not available.
why do it in this forum JERF because it is the most hostile, and intolerant to new ideas. And if it can be done here then it can be done any where.

Is it likely to happen?

Last edited by ozziemate; 2nd October 2008 at 04:45 PM.
ozziemate 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 2nd October 2008, 04:51 PM   #253
ozziemate
Graduate Poster
 
ozziemate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,240
time frame of effort would be about 4 months I reckon depending on how much flaming goes on...
ozziemate 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 2nd October 2008, 06:02 PM   #254
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,699
Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
Nope and to be honest I would really like to, Going to university and studying this stuff would have been a dream come true....but alas not the way of it....my calling so to speak was in other directions but maybe in the future I'll get a chance to learn your language. Esp calculus I reckon that'd be fun..

any ways this is off topic....

a photon in itself can not be observed in transit from point a. to b. correct?

it can only be observed by the effect it has on an object capable of absorbing and emitting it [ note the change in wording]
what is to say that the efffect is merely the object that would other wise be abklt to absorb and emit it? and provide exactly the same effect.

Um from the point of science, and I believe nihilism, it doesn't matter.

What matters is if the model works or not, i assume as does the scientific method to some extent that all theories are just approximate models of the behavior of reality.

It doesn't matter if there really is a gravitational force that acting between objects of mass to cause them to accelerate towards each other. All that matters is that it models the behavior of the objects accurately.

there are reasons to assume that photons are waves, interference, things like determing the speed of light by melting choclate in a microwave and things like that. they sure act like waves. regardless of what they really are.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...2&postcount=54
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9O2Keu6o3i0


Come up with the model, put it to the test. The rest as they say is in the demonstration of predictions.
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David 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 2nd October 2008, 06:41 PM   #255
Elizabeth I
Philosopher
 
Elizabeth I's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Defending the Alamo
Posts: 9,929
Originally Posted by paximperium View Post
This is the thread that he originally started
Case:Flying Forks-Denial of Reality:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=124946

And this thread is where it ended up.

Beware: Reading the original thread could lead to you losing brain cells.
...and he's another one of those people who think that number of views of this threads actually means something about his statements...

Originally Posted by Third Eye Open View Post
Yes... you are right. We can't detect light without an 'object of mass'. EVERYTHING IN THE UNIVERSE is an object of mass, so you are correct that, the universe aside, we cannot prove the existence of light.

Other things we cannot prove without the use of 'objects of mass':

Gravity
Evolution
The laws of thermodynamics
The Pythagorean theorem
The quadratic equation
The moon landing
The moon
The existence of grapes
The existence of trolls
Quote:
add to that flamers....
If you think Third Eye's post was flaming, you are in for a nasty shock sometime in the future when you really get flamed.
Elizabeth I 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 2nd October 2008, 06:43 PM   #256
Wowbagger
The Infinitely Prolonged
 
Wowbagger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Westchester County, NY (when not in space)
Posts: 15,356
Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
My physics is self developed in isolation from mainstream, due to many reasons but in the main it is to avoid the mind set that closes of possibility.
I would severely disagree with that!

The very first step in overthrowing the photon model, would be to become as intimately familiar with the model, as possible! Read all the necessary books. Earn a Ph.D. in electro-mechanical physics, if necessary. At least learn all you can about how the model was constructed, what evidence gained its support, etc.

Learn about why all the other alternatives, so far, have not been accepted.

You can't fight your "enemy" unless you know thy "enemy".

If you are afraid this will limit your thinking, then you could be underestimating your own imagination. All of the great, modern physicists, including (but not limited to) Albert Einstein learned all they could about mainstream physics, of the time, before they developed their brilliant alternatives.

Science tends to require much harder work than philosophy, but the rewards of building models that demonstratably work, (and are not mere thought experiments), makes it worth it.

(I was tempted to comment on your 9 bullet-points. But, I will see how others tear them apart.)
__________________
WARNING: Phrases in this post may sound meaner than they were intended to be.

SkeptiCamp NYC: http://www.skepticampnyc.org/
An open conference on science and skepticism, where you could be a presenter!

By the way, my first name is NOT Bowerick!!!!
Wowbagger 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 2nd October 2008, 06:52 PM   #257
ozziemate
Graduate Poster
 
ozziemate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,240
Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
Um from the point of science, and I believe nihilism, it doesn't matter.

What matters is if the model works or not, i assume as does the scientific method to some extent that all theories are just approximate models of the behavior of reality.

It doesn't matter if there really is a gravitational force that acting between objects of mass to cause them to accelerate to wards each other. All that matters is that it models the behavior of the objects accurately.

there are reasons to assume that photons are waves, interference, things like determine the speed of light by melting chocolate in a microwave and things like that. they sure act like waves. regardless of what they really are.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...2&postcount=54
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9O2Keu6o3i0


Come up with the model, put it to the test. The rest as they say is in the demonstration of predictions.
of course....

as you say:
Quote:
It doesn't matter if there really is a gravitational force that acting between objects of mass to cause them to accelerate to wards each other. All that matters is that it models the behavior of the objects accurately.
and as the current model fails to adequately do this regarding the constants that underpin them then that model is inadequate.

of course I think you would agree, and it is no big deal I guess.

But if one finds reason to believe that it is the actual model that prevents further understanding into the greater issues of universal constants then that model needs to be throughly looked at at a fundamental level.
For example I did about 2 years of SRT gendankens over the net trying to understand why I felt it didn't work..like most uneducated persons it appeared counter intuitive.

I got a reasonable grasp on it then realized that if light speed is invariant then SRT has to be the only outcome....there is no other theory that can accommodate invariance...as far as I am aware. Like wise with E=MC^2 so that when you understand how e=MC^2 is derived you can see that it i the only possible outcome....such is the brilliance of Albert E and colleagues

How ever when looking at the extremes of SRT when the gendankens are exposed to extreme circumstances it appeared that SRT became unstuck and I thought this is not good enough.

The issue of non-simultaneity or absolute t=0 across all RF's regardless of velocity meant that objects simply could not observe each other as their world line was either in the future or past or both were in the past of each other. Of course we cannot see the past nor can we observe the future...
and when you have two relative v frames at significant relative v for significant time durations the math proved that SRT becomes impossible.
The professor doing the math abandoned the project as soon as he realized that his pet theory was in trouble....his whole life had been devoted to it...
I tend to specialize intellectually in dimensional ism, especially time dimensional ism and whilst I have no math support to offer I feel any one prepared to do a Little work will see that observer 'A' cannot possibly observe observer 'B' as they would either have to time travel into the past or future to do so.
Now i know this would be a great gendanken to pursue and to be blunt I reckon it will go no where like all the others however it lead me to take a good look at the invariance issue,the use of light cones etc and time dilation effects.

The conclusion led me to the basic propositions in the first instance and that being the notion of a traveling photon and well I found what I did. That the evidence of the photon appeared ambiguous and the photon could actually be redundant in a better model that happened to demonstrate the mechanism necessary for universal constants.
At the same time I was exploring dimensional ism and how the universe acquired four fundamental dimensions and how it changed at a constant rate of 'c' A discussion that Harry Zeigler had with Einstein was a significant clue.

Where he mentions If I recall the reference, that mass changes at the rate of 'c' because the energy that mass is is traveling "within that mass" at 'c'
so in 1 second an object of mass actually travels approximately 300000kms within itself. [ generally speaking.] even though it may appear to be stationary relative to the observer [ who also changes at the same rate ] It is the resistance to changing that universal rate of 'c' that is "inertia"
However I saw at the time a potential for duplication in SRT gendankens, that we were dealing with a travelling photon and the traveling energy in mass. which one is it I thought, and of course why believe in a travelling photon when the mass is doing it any way? Therefore light data is reatined and the potential duplication is removed. but of course this was not correct however it offered a lot of food for thought about interpretation etc of data that may be from a travelling photon that appears to be ambigiously linked to mass.



So regarding pixs question about why 'c' is a constant can be explored from these premises.

There was a theory or hypothesis kicking around a while ago called moving dimensions where this aspect of AE's work is discussed quite well.

Last edited by ozziemate; 2nd October 2008 at 07:15 PM.
ozziemate 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 2nd October 2008, 07:19 PM   #258
ozziemate
Graduate Poster
 
ozziemate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,240
Originally Posted by Elizabeth I View Post
...and he's another one of those people who think that number of views of this threads actually means something about his statements...





If you think Third Eye's post was flaming, you are in for a nasty shock sometime in the future when you really get flamed.
nah I didn't think he was flamin, more venting frustration ....however the post about thread stats was merely to get paxisemous to consider his time to be more valueable than improve my or should I say the threads, uhmmmm statistical rating...[chuckle]

Last edited by ozziemate; 2nd October 2008 at 07:26 PM.
ozziemate 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 2nd October 2008, 07:23 PM   #259
ozziemate
Graduate Poster
 
ozziemate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,240
Originally Posted by Wowbagger View Post
I would severely disagree with that!

The very first step in overthrowing the photon model, would be to become as intimately familiar with the model, as possible! Read all the necessary books. Earn a Ph.D. in electro-mechanical physics, if necessary. At least learn all you can about how the model was constructed, what evidence gained its support, etc.

Learn about why all the other alternatives, so far, have not been accepted.

You can't fight your "enemy" unless you know thy "enemy".

If you are afraid this will limit your thinking, then you could be underestimating your own imagination. All of the great, modern physicists, including (but not limited to) Albert Einstein learned all they could about mainstream physics, of the time, before they developed their brilliant alternatives.

Science tends to require much harder work than philosophy, but the rewards of building models that demonstratably work, (and are not mere thought experiments), makes it worth it.

(I was tempted to comment on your 9 bullet-points. But, I will see how others tear them apart.)
you are not wrong and I agree, if time and resources were avaiable not a problemo.
my excuse is that I happen to think the worlds scientific community know what they are doing and why, if no resources are avialable get stressed out checking their work. I respect their position fully.
However when I discovered doubt about a few fundamental issues I realised that studying a potentially flawed theory for maybe 4 years only to over throw it would actually be a waste of time, it is far simpler and more efficient to just pose the issue and let their great minds get to it...

but first as you no doubt are about to say, you gotta put it in a way that convinces them the value in looking at it. The threads result is showing just how difficult that can be.

Last edited by ozziemate; 2nd October 2008 at 07:28 PM.
ozziemate 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 2nd October 2008, 07:32 PM   #260
ozziemate
Graduate Poster
 
ozziemate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,240
I also found that it is the resistance to changing the universal change rate of 'c' [ inertia ] that forces relative v objects to experience time dilation effects, which led on to Lorenz transform formulations, [flatening the light cones so to speak]
so time dilation is an effect cause by inertia.

now I have no idea if this is a true statement or position of not.

but it leads to an understanding of how fundamental inertia is and also a clue as to what makes it tick as a universal constant.
ozziemate 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 2nd October 2008, 07:36 PM   #261
tesscaline
Illuminator
 
tesscaline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 4,024
Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
I also found that it is the resistance to changing the universal change rate of 'c' [ inertia ] that forces relative v objects to experience time dilation effects, which led on to Lorenz transform formulations, [flatening the light cones so to speak]
so time dilation is an effect cause by inertia.

now I have no idea if this is a true statement or position of not.

but it leads to an understanding of how fundamental inertia is and also a clue as to what makes it tick as a universal constant.
If you don't know whether or not something is true, how, exactly, can it lead to a meaningful understanding of anything?
tesscaline 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 2nd October 2008, 07:37 PM   #262
ozziemate
Graduate Poster
 
ozziemate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,240
and before you get all upety about this seeing the past and seeing the future bit in a previous post you know damn well how hard it is to talk this stuff with out total confusion.

The observer on the rf would have to go back in time to observe the other object [ I am not refering to theoretical delays in light data due to light transit times ]
ozziemate 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 2nd October 2008, 07:42 PM   #263
ozziemate
Graduate Poster
 
ozziemate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,240
Originally Posted by SkeptiChick View Post
If you don't know whether or not something is true, how, exactly, can it lead to a meaningful understanding of anything?
true as in regards to current scientific thought...
to me it is just a process of reaosning and logic , it holds no particular importance except that leads further along the path of self discovery, but knowing whether it is a valid postion helps a little I guess.
so we start a thread on it hey?

inertia is?
ozziemate 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 2nd October 2008, 07:46 PM   #264
ozziemate
Graduate Poster
 
ozziemate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,240
Originally Posted by SkeptiChick View Post
If you don't know whether or not something is true, how, exactly, can it lead to a meaningful understanding of anything?
becaue it led to understanding the transforms and the light cones in a different from common perspective the notion of inertia becomes clear.
If I approached the light cones as suggested by most persons I have discussed with I woud never have seen how the transforms work nor would I have understood how dilation effects are a product of inertia.

Understanding the underlying process or ration-al rather than the math
if it was untrue the I woud never have got clsoe to understanding the cones or the transforms. One truth confirmed by another truth...except the second truth happens to be supported by the community at large. So by logically understanding the reasoning of the transforms I prove the initial position on the issue of inertia. A sort of reverse engineering technique if you will....

Last edited by ozziemate; 2nd October 2008 at 07:59 PM.
ozziemate 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 2nd October 2008, 07:47 PM   #265
ozziemate
Graduate Poster
 
ozziemate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,240
back in 6 hours or so...got work to do
ozziemate 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 2nd October 2008, 10:48 PM   #266
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,927
Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
of course....

as you say:


and as the current model fails to adequately do this regarding the constants that underpin them then that model is inadequate.

of course I think you would agree, and it is no big deal I guess.

But if one finds reason to believe that it is the actual model that prevents further understanding into the greater issues of universal constants then that model needs to be throughly looked at at a fundamental level.
For example I did about 2 years of SRT gendankens over the net trying to understand why I felt it didn't work..like most uneducated persons it appeared counter intuitive.

I got a reasonable grasp on it then realized that if light speed is invariant then SRT has to be the only outcome....there is no other theory that can accommodate invariance...as far as I am aware. Like wise with E=MC^2 so that when you understand how e=MC^2 is derived you can see that it i the only possible outcome....such is the brilliance of Albert E and colleagues

How ever when looking at the extremes of SRT when the gendankens are exposed to extreme circumstances it appeared that SRT became unstuck and I thought this is not good enough.

The issue of non-simultaneity or absolute t=0 across all RF's regardless of velocity meant that objects simply could not observe each other as their world line was either in the future or past or both were in the past of each other. Of course we cannot see the past nor can we observe the future...
and when you have two relative v frames at significant relative v for significant time durations the math proved that SRT becomes impossible.
The professor doing the math abandoned the project as soon as he realized that his pet theory was in trouble....his whole life had been devoted to it...
I tend to specialize intellectually in dimensional ism, especially time dimensional ism and whilst I have no math support to offer I feel any one prepared to do a Little work will see that observer 'A' cannot possibly observe observer 'B' as they would either have to time travel into the past or future to do so.
Now i know this would be a great gendanken to pursue and to be blunt I reckon it will go no where like all the others however it lead me to take a good look at the invariance issue,the use of light cones etc and time dilation effects.

The conclusion led me to the basic propositions in the first instance and that being the notion of a traveling photon and well I found what I did. That the evidence of the photon appeared ambiguous and the photon could actually be redundant in a better model that happened to demonstrate the mechanism necessary for universal constants.
At the same time I was exploring dimensional ism and how the universe acquired four fundamental dimensions and how it changed at a constant rate of 'c' A discussion that Harry Zeigler had with Einstein was a significant clue.

Where he mentions If I recall the reference, that mass changes at the rate of 'c' because the energy that mass is is traveling "within that mass" at 'c'
so in 1 second an object of mass actually travels approximately 300000kms within itself. [ generally speaking.] even though it may appear to be stationary relative to the observer [ who also changes at the same rate ] It is the resistance to changing that universal rate of 'c' that is "inertia"
However I saw at the time a potential for duplication in SRT gendankens, that we were dealing with a travelling photon and the traveling energy in mass. which one is it I thought, and of course why believe in a travelling photon when the mass is doing it any way? Therefore light data is reatined and the potential duplication is removed. but of course this was not correct however it offered a lot of food for thought about interpretation etc of data that may be from a travelling photon that appears to be ambigiously linked to mass.

So regarding pixs question about why 'c' is a constant can be explored from these premises.

There was a theory or hypothesis kicking around a while ago called moving dimensions where this aspect of AE's work is discussed quite well.
Where does all the stuff in bold come from?
Citations please.
Or is that you own idea? If so please present the mathematics in another thread (this thread is about photons).
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 2nd October 2008, 11:27 PM   #267
PixyMisa
Persnickety Insect
 
PixyMisa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sunny Munuvia
Posts: 16,346
Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
To get my informal ideas across you would have to be open to the following issues:
1] That distance is an illusion generated by the presense of mass/ matter.
It isn't.

Quote:
2] To draw the distinction between relative zero and absolute zero.
Not sure what you mean by this.

Quote:
[3] accept that absoute nothing ness is the opposite pole of something ness which grants you a governed self justifying "singularity". [ which this universe is ] [ yes, your lingo means that the term governed singularity is a contradiction.
And this is meaningless.

Quote:
4] Be prepared to learn new words and definitions.
We are. We just ask that the definitions make some kind of sense.

Quote:
5] Be prepared to find out just how ingrained this photon model is in your mind set and how difficult it is to change that...in other words expect some pain in the process as I had to accept some pain.
This is completely beside the point.

We are perfectly prepared to throw the photon model overboard. But we won't do so without reason.

Quote:
6] take absolutely nothing, any law of physics, for granted.
We don't.

Quote:
7] to dump notions of linea time when discusing big bang or other exnihilo concepts.
Eh?

Quote:
8] to look for light effect data that would contradict the hypothesis when understood.
Not our job. If you have such data, great. We'll look at it.

Quote:
Becasue the pre-existiing data even though I believe acquired with incorrect interpreatation will actuall provide part of the evidencial support needed for the hypotheis to be accepted.
As we have seen, you don't know what the data is.

Quote:
9] learn to work out how a univesre goes from zero dimension to two and then to three and four dimensions.
It didn't and you can't and it's not relevant.

Quote:
My physics is self developed in isolation from mainstream, due to many reasons but in the main it is to avoid the mind set that closes of possibility.
Wrong!

That mindset you are speaking of is knowing something about physics. It doesn't close off possibility. It closes off impossibility.

Quote:
My actual forte is philosophy and even that has developed away from mainstream.
Then I suggest you learn some physics before you tackle that subject.

Quote:
With a little translation effort the ideas could make sense to you but that woud take a little patience and certainly an ability to see value in what you are doing.
So far, you haven't proposed anything but misconceptions. Not a good start.

Quote:
At the end of the period of understanding you would then be able to make a value judgement as to worth.
We can do that with a very high probability right now.

Quote:
There is one key element missing for the hypotheiss and I guess in some ways this is what I am fishing for.

Reputation means nothng to me nor does ego nor does Randis millions as the net result of success goes way beyond anything you probably could imagine. And to be frank I personally don't need it for my own benfit as I have already got the answer but not the detail.
If you don't have the detail, why do you think you have the answer? The details are what actually matters.

Quote:
It is in the detail and the ability to explain the processes in your language that you need, for you to be able to understand the solution.
Give us some equations, showing how your hypothesis makes the same predictions as QED but goes further. That way we don't need to mess about with language.

Quote:
Again it is not something I need but I can be certain it is something you need if you want to travel the stars or get past the obstacle that a multiple time dimesional universe inflicts.
We can travel to the stars as it is - albeit slowly.

Just because we need something doesn't make it true. And this is the science forum. Truth is rather important here.

Quote:
Currently it is possible to build a worm hole or better still a 2 dimensional gate and certainly to enter hyper spacial dimensions.
No, probably not.

Quote:
But the down side is that it also enables you to vapourise a planet sized object in less than a blink of the eye.
Even if true, so what?

Quote:
So yes it is difficult to know how to find my missing piece to the puzzle with out revealing too much detail along the way.
As I keep saying, cut the nonsense about "revealing too much detail". Just come out with everything, right now. We'll help you sort the wheat - if any - from the chaff, and save you a lot of time.

Quote:
The information woud develop into public property so and award granted for a successful hypothesis / theory is not available.
Scientists always collaborate. Einstein didn't come up with the photoelectric effect in isolation, but he provided the key insights, and won the Nobel Prize.

Quote:
why do it in this forum JERF because it is the most hostile, and intolerant to new ideas.
Actually, you've been treated pretty gently. There are places where your opening posts would have got you flamed to a crisp in an instant.

(What won't happen though - you won't get banned. Not for asking questions.)

Quote:
And if it can be done here then it can be done any where.
Why do you think it can be done at all?

Quote:
Is it likely to happen?
Try it.

Just tell us everything about your hypothesis - hold nothing back - and we'll take it from there.
__________________
Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu
What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO
PixyMisa 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 2nd October 2008, 11:59 PM   #268
PixyMisa
Persnickety Insect
 
PixyMisa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sunny Munuvia
Posts: 16,346
Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
But if one finds reason to believe that it is the actual model that prevents further understanding into the greater issues of universal constants then that model needs to be throughly looked at at a fundamental level.
Yes. If we had such a reason, that would be interesting. We don't.

Quote:
The issue of non-simultaneity or absolute t=0 across all RF's regardless of velocity meant that objects simply could not observe each other as their world line was either in the future or past or both were in the past of each other.
No.
__________________
Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu
What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO
PixyMisa 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 3rd October 2008, 12:44 AM   #269
Kevin_Lowe
Guest
 
Kevin_Lowe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,221
Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
My actual forte is philosophy and even that has developed away from mainstream.
It's been experimentally demonstrated that people who are bad at logic are also bad at knowing they are bad at logic. This leads to one of the unavoidable problems with philosophy as a discipline: lots of yahoos think they can do it already. "So you think rationally about difficult problems, and explain your arguments and conclusions as clearly as possible... I can do that!".

Reasonably often said yahoos read a few books that would represent first-year content in university-level philosophy, and cook up their own half-baked and ill-thought-out ideas that don't actually make any logical sense. If they did this at a university someone who had seen that particular half-baked idea before (these ideas of theirs are very rarely anything novel) would explain to them the problem in their thinking, but because they are "working" in isolation this does not happen.

What they don't realise is that the odds of coming up with something genuinely revolutionary in philosophy based on some first-year reading and private musing, are about the same as the odds of coming up with something genuinely revolutionary in maths or physics by those means. It's conceivable a yahoo could do so, but a large number of very smart people who know a lot more about the topic have already been over that ground very thoroughly over the years.
Kevin_Lowe 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 3rd October 2008, 01:11 AM   #270
ozziemate
Graduate Poster
 
ozziemate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,240
Originally Posted by PixyMisa View Post
It isn't.

Not sure what you mean by this.


And this is meaningless.

We are. We just ask that the definitions make some kind of sense.

This is completely beside the point.

We are perfectly prepared to throw the photon model overboard. But we won't do so without reason.

We don't.

Eh?

Not our job. If you have such data, great. We'll look at it.

As we have seen, you don't know what the data is.

It didn't and you can't and it's not relevant.

Wrong!

That mindset you are speaking of is knowing something about physics. It doesn't close off possibility. It closes off impossibility.

Then I suggest you learn some physics before you tackle that subject.

So far, you haven't proposed anything but misconceptions. Not a good start.

We can do that with a very high probability right now.

If you don't have the detail, why do you think you have the answer? The details are what actually matters.

Give us some equations, showing how your hypothesis makes the same predictions as QED but goes further. That way we don't need to mess about with language.

We can travel to the stars as it is - albeit slowly.

Just because we need something doesn't make it true. And this is the science forum. Truth is rather important here.

No, probably not.

Even if true, so what?

As I keep saying, cut the nonsense about "revealing too much detail". Just come out with everything, right now. We'll help you sort the wheat - if any - from the chaff, and save you a lot of time.

Scientists always collaborate. Einstein didn't come up with the photoelectric effect in isolation, but he provided the key insights, and won the Nobel Prize.

Actually, you've been treated pretty gently. There are places where your opening posts would have got you flamed to a crisp in an instant.

(What won't happen though - you won't get banned. Not for asking questions.)

Why do you think it can be done at all?

Try it.

Just tell us everything about your hypothesis - hold nothing back - and we'll take it from there.
thanks pixs you have just made it post #270
ozziemate 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 3rd October 2008, 01:16 AM   #271
ozziemate
Graduate Poster
 
ozziemate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,240
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Where does all the stuff in bold come from?
Citations please.
Or is that you own idea? If so please present the mathematics in another thread (this thread is about photons).
it should be obvious to thinker such as your self that the post you refer to, talks of self derived insights that concur with some critical aspects of physics and may or may not agree with current scientific thought.
NO claims are being made.
Just responding to Dancing Davids response so that he can understand a little about where I am coming from so he doesn't waste his time speculating.
and of course the post you are critical of is about photons...is it not?

Last edited by ozziemate; 3rd October 2008 at 01:28 AM.
ozziemate 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 3rd October 2008, 01:24 AM   #272
ozziemate
Graduate Poster
 
ozziemate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,240
Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe View Post
It's been experimentally demonstrated that people who are bad at logic are also bad at knowing they are bad at logic. This leads to one of the unavoidable problems with philosophy as a discipline: lots of yahoos think they can do it already. "So you think rationally about difficult problems, and explain your arguments and conclusions as clearly as possible... I can do that!".

Reasonably often said yahoos read a few books that would represent first-year content in university-level philosophy, and cook up their own half-baked and ill-thought-out ideas that don't actually make any logical sense. If they did this at a university someone who had seen that particular half-baked idea before (these ideas of theirs are very rarely anything novel) would explain to them the problem in their thinking, but because they are "working" in isolation this does not happen.

What they don't realise is that the odds of coming up with something genuinely revolutionary in philosophy based on some first-year reading and private musing, are about the same as the odds of coming up with something genuinely revolutionary in maths or physics by those means. It's conceivable a yahoo could do so, but a large number of very smart people who know a lot more about the topic have already been over that ground very thoroughly over the years.
yeah I can agree with that....
ozziemate 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 3rd October 2008, 01:29 AM   #273
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
Care to define what you mean by inertia? Just so there is no confusion.
Tubbythin 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 3rd October 2008, 01:36 AM   #274
ozziemate
Graduate Poster
 
ozziemate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,240
Originally Posted by Tubbythin View Post
Care to define what you mean by inertia? Just so there is no confusion.
What I found and probably incorrectly is that inertia is:

The resistance to changing the change rate of 'c'.

A little more detail:

Premise:
The entire universe is in a state of constant change. That change is at a uniform rate of 'c'.
i.e. an apple sitting on a table changes approximately 300000kms per second with in itself as does the table and everything else universally.

Result:
Inertia is the resistance to that rate changing, to something other than 'c'.

hence we have time dilation when comparing relative velocities of RF's

As 'c'+ v is in excess of the inertia value of 'c' thus time must dilate to accomodate the difference between RFs thus maintaining the universal rate of change 'c', hence inertia is constant.
I think if Iam not mistaken if you study the lorenze method in the transforms you will see the similarities however I do not hold too much stock in the Lorenz transforms but they seem to do the job.

Last edited by ozziemate; 3rd October 2008 at 01:40 AM.
ozziemate 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 3rd October 2008, 01:42 AM   #275
ozziemate
Graduate Poster
 
ozziemate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,240
if you need me to reword anything or whatever let me know as it would be great to get it into a reasonable language to avoid confusion in the future.
ozziemate 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 3rd October 2008, 01:43 AM   #276
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,927
Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
it should be obvious to thinker such as your self that the post you refer to, talks of self derived insights that concur with some critical aspects of physics and may or may not agree with current scientific thought.
NO claims are being made.
Just responding to Dancing Davids response so that he can understand a little about where I am coming from so he doesn't waste his time speculating.
and of course the post you are critical of is about photons...is it not?
The post that I replied to seems to be about Special Relativity, the speed of light and inertia. The word photon is not mentioned. The word light is used a few times.
The physical constants can be variables if you want. But that has no effect on whether photons exist or not. For example if the speed of light changed on a short time scale, e.g. during the minutes of a experiment on the photoelectric effect, we would see the same photoelectric effect and still conclude that photons exist. Of course any variation in physical constants is hypothesised to occur over billions of years.

BTW:
  • Who was the professor in "The professor doing the math abandoned the project as soon as he realized that his pet theory was in trouble....his whole life had been devoted to it..."?
  • Who was Harry Zeigler and what discussion did he have with Einstein?
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 3rd October 2008, 01:44 AM   #277
Mashuna
Ovis ex Machina
 
Mashuna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,856
Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post

Premise:
The entire universe is in a state of constant change. That change is at a uniform rate of 'c'.
i.e. an apple sitting on a table changes approximately 300000kms per second with in itself as does the table and everything else universally.
Where have you taken this premise from?
__________________
Id rather be a rising ape than a falling angel. - Sir Terry Pratchett
Mashuna 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 3rd October 2008, 01:44 AM   #278
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,927
Also: inertia is the resistance of mass to any force.
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 3rd October 2008, 01:49 AM   #279
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
What I found and probably incorrectly is that inertia is:

The resistance to changing the change rate of 'c'.
Inertia is defined scientifically something like "resistance to change in motion". I suggest, for clarity, you come up with another term.

Quote:
A little more detail:

Premise:
The entire universe is in a state of constant change. That change is at a uniform rate of 'c'.
Well... information cannot be transferred at a quicker rate than c. But... change rate of what?

Quote:
i.e. an apple sitting on a table changes approximately 300000kms per second with in itself as does the table and everything else universally.
I have absolutely no idea what you mean by "changes within itself".

Quote:
Result:
Inertia is the resistance to that rate changing, to something other than 'c'.
This is meaningless without defining "changes within itself".

Quote:
hence we have time dilation when comparing relative velocities of RF's

As 'c'+ v is in excess of the inertia value of 'c' thus time must dilate to accomodate the difference between RFs thus maintaining the universal rate of change 'c', hence inertia is constant.
This is very mangled. I have no idea how to respond.

Quote:
I think if Iam not mistaken if you study the lorenze method in the transforms you will see the similarities however I do not hold too much stock in the Lorenz transforms but they seem to do the job.
Why not?
Tubbythin 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 3rd October 2008, 01:56 AM   #280
ozziemate
Graduate Poster
 
ozziemate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,240
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
The post that I replied to seems to be about Special Relativity, the speed of light and inertia. The word photon is not mentioned. The word light is used a few times.
The physical constants can be variables if you want. But that has no effect on whether photons exist or not. For example if the speed of light changed on a short time scale, e.g. during the minutes of a experiment on the photoelectric effect, we would see the same photoelectric effect and still conclude that photons exist. Of course any variation in physical constants is hypothesised to occur over billions of years.

BTW:
  • Who was the professor in "The professor doing the math abandoned the project as soon as he realized that his pet theory was in trouble....his whole life had been devoted to it..."?
  • Who was Harry Zeigler and what discussion did he have with Einstein?
as I described earlier to understand how to make the photon redundant would require about 4 months of exploring a completely new way of looking at space and time...and is not likely to happen.
refer post#252

Don't really know the professor that well as it was over the net at another science forum. He was a teacher, book writer and a research scientist into plasma formation and containment in a vaccum or something like that.
It was about 3 years ago but possibly the archived posts of some length can be salvaged if necessary showing his mathematics and handling of the dilema.
Harry Zeigler has a discussion with AE I believ during or after a speach given in the 1930s I think, I will have to dig up my net research files from then to find it again...it was not easy tracking the event down and only a lucky poster mentioned it in a post years ago as a possible reference. Also it is only a clue and not the detail that I needed.

I believe it was not a significant meeting however it was significant enough for it to be officially recorded at the time..possibly in a magazine or newspaper article...I would have to check the details as I don't usually try to remember this sort of stuff and rely on files instead. If at all.
ozziemate 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 12:19 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.