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 3rd October 2008, 01:57 AM   #281
Fredrik
Graduate Poster
 
Fredrik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,912
Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
7] to dump notions of linea time when discusing big bang or other exnihilo concepts.
Originally Posted by PixyMisa View Post
Eh?
Don't you know that time is like a big ball of wibbly wobbly, timey wimey...stuff?

(If you haven't seen episode 3x10 of Doctor Who, "Blink", you should do it as soon as possible, even if you haven't seen any of the other episodes).

I've been thinking about contributing something to this discussion, but it seems pointless. It's interesting that someone who's this interested in both philosophy and physics doesn't seem to understand what a theory is. (No, I don't mean you Pixy ).

Last edited by Fredrik; 3rd October 2008 at 01:58 AM.
Fredrik 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, 02:02 AM   #282
ozziemate
Graduate Poster
 
ozziemate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,240
Originally Posted by Mashuna View Post
Where have you taken this premise from?
Basically self derived from working SRT gendankens and using the light cones as a starter.
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, 02:09 AM   #283
ozziemate
Graduate Poster
 
ozziemate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,240
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Also: inertia is the resistance of mass to any force.
ok I see we almost agree maybe the approach is different.

"The resistance to changes made upon that mass" is how I would probably state it, given that the mass is already undergoing change in a constant fashion and as proposed at the rate of 'c' any extra change or energy delivered to it accelerates the masses change rate faster than it's constant of 'c' with out time dilation... So time dilation maintains the balance between relative velocities by maintaining the change rate of 'c'
and if you go real deep you will see why the universe coud be considered as a self justifying, governed singularity, and how it maintains it's constants in a self justifying manner. [ hence when the universe is expanding we see no difference in the meter used to measure 'c']

Last edited by ozziemate; 3rd October 2008 at 02:11 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, 02:10 AM   #284
Mashuna
Ovis ex Machina
 
Mashuna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,856
Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
Basically self derived from working SRT gendankens and using the light cones as a starter.
In which case, could you be a bit more explicit about what you mean by:

Quote:
an apple sitting on a table changes approximately 300000kms per second with in itself
I'm afraid I don't follow your current explanation.
__________________
I’d 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, 02:17 AM   #285
ozziemate
Graduate Poster
 
ozziemate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,240
Originally Posted by Tubbythin View Post
Inertia is defined scientifically something like "resistance to change in motion". I suggest, for clarity, you come up with another term.
but what is motion to the observer on that RF but zero. The mass of that rf is still changing though.... [ how do you define the rate of change for the observer and the mass involved?


Quote:
Well... information cannot be transferred at a quicker rate than c. But... change rate of what?
the mass itself must change ....ask youself how that is possible? and you will derive the same conclusion.


Quote:
I have absolutely no idea what you mean by "changes within itself".
The energy with in the mass is moving at a speed of 'c'
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, 02:20 AM   #286
ozziemate
Graduate Poster
 
ozziemate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,240
Originally Posted by Fredrik View Post
Don't you know that time is like a big ball of wibbly wobbly, timey wimey...stuff?

(If you haven't seen episode 3x10 of Doctor Who, "Blink", you should do it as soon as possible, even if you haven't seen any of the other episodes).

I've been thinking about contributing something to this discussion, but it seems pointless. It's interesting that someone who's this interested in both philosophy and physics doesn't seem to understand what a theory is. (No, I don't mean you Pixy ).
that makes it to post#286 thank you every much for 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, 02:26 AM   #287
ozziemate
Graduate Poster
 
ozziemate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,240
Originally Posted by Mashuna View Post
In which case, could you be a bit more explicit about what you mean by:



I'm afraid I don't follow your current explanation.
Actually Mashuna, over the years playing around with this stuff it has often amazed me that not very many qualified persons have even thought about this issue let alone bothered to try and understand it. It takes quite a bit of stretching of the imagination to see it.

Some scinetists have and are then able to derive the famous energy formula and lorenze transforms independantly of a text book. Reverse engineer if you like.
If you take AE postulates and apply them strictly you can see how he managed to work them into the famous theories that he did.
If you guys want to get into it. This issue of inertia or "universal change rate" we can start a thread devoted to it as I see my interpretation is confusing but also it may prove interesting to explore more deeply how AE constructed his space time concepts

Last edited by ozziemate; 3rd October 2008 at 02:28 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, 02:30 AM   #288
ozziemate
Graduate Poster
 
ozziemate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,240
Reality Check,
Quote:
The energy with in the mass is moving at a speed of 'c'
could probably be better stated as : mass AS energy is moving at the rate of 'c' to aid in understanding.
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, 02:36 AM   #289
ozziemate
Graduate Poster
 
ozziemate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,240
reference to Harry Ziegler:

post a another physics forum archives
Quote:
Almost a hundred years ago leading scientists were discussing the fact that if the most elemental constituents of mass all moved at the invariable speed of light, the phenomena of relativity would be a natural consequence. This, of course, required the classical space-time.

Has anyone ever found a flaw in this? Einstein didn't attempt as far as I have been able to discover. H. Ziegler advocated this circa 1909.

Albert Einstein, "Development of Our Conception of the Nature and Constitution of Radiation," Physikalische Zeitschrift 22, 1909. Translated by Christian Holm. Jefferson Hane Weaver, The World of Physics, VOL. II, New York, 1987. Einstein discussed this with H. Ziegler, Max Planck, and Stark.
If you want a link to the forum in question I think you will have to PM me as I gues it would be against JREF rules to advertise another forum

Last edited by ozziemate; 3rd October 2008 at 02:39 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, 02:40 AM   #290
Blackadder
Muse
 
Blackadder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 728
I finally know the sole reason why these nut cases are good for us. We learn so much in these threads.

I learned a lot about photons today thanks to the responses. Without ozzie I would be less knowledgeable.

Thanks ozzie
Blackadder 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, 02:41 AM   #291
Ladewig
I lost an avatar bet.
 
Ladewig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 27,360
I am having a devil of a time understanding this last page

Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
the mass itself must change ....ask youself how that is possible? and you will derive the same conclusion.
I asked myself how that is possible and I did not derive the same conclusion. Would you elaborate?

Quote:
The energy with in the mass is moving at a speed of 'c'
Does this speed have a direction?
__________________
I lost an avatar bet to Doghouse Reilly.

Last edited by Ladewig; 3rd October 2008 at 02:42 AM.
Ladewig 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, 02:43 AM   #292
ozziemate
Graduate Poster
 
ozziemate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,240
thus SRT is the only possible outcome if light speed is invariant, my thoughts confirmed by information similar to that posted above.
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, 02:50 AM   #293
ozziemate
Graduate Poster
 
ozziemate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,240
Originally Posted by Ladewig View Post
I am having a devil of a time understanding this last page



I asked myself how that is possible and I did not derive the same conclusion. Would you elaborate?



Does this speed have a direction?
I haven't yet made the correlation with atomic theory or any of the quantum models but in a very uneducated fashion : my notes at the time were similar to this:
"....it can be assumed if one accepts that mass/energy is changing at the rate of 'c' that it covers the distance by the radius distance of it's vibration or alternating frequency.... like a balloon that is expanding and contracting at the speed of 'c' the increase in the radius by the time involved.
one expansion is positive the other is negative....with an over lap so that the mass doesn't flicker in and out of existance.

I have diagrams somewhere.....hmmm...one day I will get organised...

Last edited by ozziemate; 3rd October 2008 at 02:51 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, 02:51 AM   #294
Fredrik
Graduate Poster
 
Fredrik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,912
Sigh...I can't resist this one.

Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
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.
You talk about photons like others talk about "absolute time" or "three dimensions of space". Those are ideas get stuck in our heads when we're kids and it can be very difficult to see beyond them. But the theory of photons isn't like that at all. It takes a lot of hard work to even understand what a photon is.

First you have to understand both special relativity and quantum mechanics, the two most counter-intuitive theories science has ever found. (Not counting nonsense "theories" that can't even make predictions, or bad theories that just disagree with experiments). When you combine SR with QM, the notion of "particles" (as it's used in relativistic quantum mechanical theories) arises in a very natural way. (A note for the educated reader: See chapter 2 of vol. 1 of "The quantum theory of fields" by Steven Weinberg). Now, if you just write down a few of the simplest possible theories of interacting particles, one of them happens to agree with experiments to an almost absurd degree of accuracy. This is the theory called quantum electrodynamics, QED. It describes electrons, positrons and photons, and many consider it the best theory that science has ever come up with. (In my opinion, the only theory that can compete with it for that title is general relativity). The reason for that is that predicts the outcome of a very wide range of experiments with a ridiculous accuracy.

If you want people to take ideas about light consisting of something other than photons seriously, this is what has to happen:
  • You have to turn your incoherent ramblings into an actual theory, i.e. an unambiguous set of statements that can predict the outcome of some kind of experiment.
  • The range of experiments that your theory predicts the outcome of must be at least as large as the range of experiments that QED predicts the outcome of.
  • The agreement of those predictions with experiments must be at least as good as the agreement between QED and experiments.
This is just a minimum of requirements. Even if you succeed with this, you'd still have problems because QED is a part of the standard model, which includes other particles and also agrees with experiments. So this is just a list of things that need to happen before anyone will even bother to look at what you've done. You have to do even more than this in order to get your theory to be considered a better theory than QED.

Are you even trying to do the first step?

Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
why do it in this forum JERF because it is the most hostile, and intolerant to new ideas.
One reason to do it at the JREF forums is that people here are actually willing to discuss bad ideas. A thread like this would be locked very quickly at physicsforums.com for example.

Last edited by Fredrik; 3rd October 2008 at 02:58 AM.
Fredrik 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, 02:56 AM   #295
ozziemate
Graduate Poster
 
ozziemate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,240
Originally Posted by Fredrik View Post
Sigh...I can't resist this one.


You talk about photons like others talk about "absolute time" or "three dimensions of space". Those are ideas get stuck in our heads when we're kids and it can be very difficult to see beyond them. But the theory of photons isn't like that at all. It takes a lot of hard work to even understand what a photon is.

First you have to understand both special relativity and quantum mechanics, the two most counter-intuitive theories science has ever found. (Not counting nonsense "theories" that can't even make predictions, or bad theories that just disagree with experiments). When you combine SR with QM, the notion of "particles" (as it's used in relativistic quantum mechanical theories) arises in a very natural way. Now, if you just write down a few of the simplest possible theories of interacting particles, one of them happens to agree with experiments to an almost absurd degree of accuracy. This is the theory called quantum electrodynamics, QED. It describes electrons, positrons and photons, and many consider it the best theory that science has ever come up with. (In my opinion, the only theory that can compete with it for that title is general relativity). The reason for that is that it's capable of predicting the outcome of a very wide range of experiments with a ridiculous accuracy.

If you want people to take ideas about light consisting of something other than photons seriously, this is what has to happen:
  • You have to turn your incoherent ramblings into an actual theory, i.e. an unambiguous set of statements that can predict the outcome of some kind of experiment.
  • The range of experiments that your theory predicts the outcome of must be at least as large as the range of experiments that QED predicts the outcome of.
  • The agreement of those predictions with experiments must be at least as good as the agreement between QED and experiments.
This is just a minimum of requirements. Even if you succeed with this, you'd still have problems because QED is a part of the standard model, which includes other particles and also agrees with experiments. So this is just a list of things that need to happen before anyone will even bother to look at what you've done. You have to do even more than this in order to get your theory to be considered a better theory than QED.

Are you even trying to do the first step?


One reason to do it at the JREF forums is that people here are actually willing to discuss bad ideas. A thread like this would be locked very quickly at physicsforums.com for example.
ahh so you can quote other forums....yes the Harry Ziegler issue was discussed at physicsforums.com

http://www.physicsforums.com/archive...p/t-37816.html

and yes I thank you for your time Fedrik however it has all been said many times before and yes this may very well be part of the first steps.....
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, 02:58 AM   #296
PixyMisa
Persnickety Insect
 
PixyMisa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sunny Munuvia
Posts: 16,346
Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
thanks pixs you have just made it post #270
That's it. I've put you on ignore.

You have reality on ignore, so it only seems fair.
__________________
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, 02:58 AM   #297
ozziemate
Graduate Poster
 
ozziemate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,240
Originally Posted by Blackadder View Post
I finally know the sole reason why these nut cases are good for us. We learn so much in these threads.

I learned a lot about photons today thanks to the responses. Without ozzie I would be less knowledgeable.

Thanks ozzie
nice thank you I am glad that you make it post #296
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, 03:00 AM   #298
PixyMisa
Persnickety Insect
 
PixyMisa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sunny Munuvia
Posts: 16,346
Originally Posted by Fredrik View Post
Don't you know that time is like a big ball of wibbly wobbly, timey wimey...stuff?

(If you haven't seen episode 3x10 of Doctor Who, "Blink", you should do it as soon as possible, even if you haven't seen any of the other episodes).
I've seen every epsiode of the new series. Love it. And Blink is one of the best.

Quote:
I've been thinking about contributing something to this discussion, but it seems pointless. It's interesting that someone who's this interested in both philosophy and physics doesn't seem to understand what a theory is. (No, I don't mean you Pixy ).
Yeah. After I posted a 30-line response and he completely ignored it, I agree with you.
__________________
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, 03:01 AM   #299
ozziemate
Graduate Poster
 
ozziemate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,240
Originally Posted by PixyMisa View Post
That's it. I've put you on ignore.

You have reality on ignore, so it only seems fair.
as you keep saying ad nausium....thanks for post #290 something or other

and besides I have always been on your ignore but play games anyway list
which I might add is a real pity as seriously, I believe you are one hell of smart person.

Last edited by ozziemate; 3rd October 2008 at 03:07 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, 03:36 AM   #300
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 45,476
Am I the only one to wonder what gendankens means? Or shouldn't I ask?
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking 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, 03:39 AM   #301
PixyMisa
Persnickety Insect
 
PixyMisa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sunny Munuvia
Posts: 16,346
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
Am I the only one to wonder what gendankens means? Or shouldn't I ask?
From context, it means "I don't have any data, and can't do the maths, so I just made some stuff up".
__________________
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, 04:01 AM   #302
tesscaline
Illuminator
 
tesscaline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 4,024
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
Am I the only one to wonder what gendankens means? Or shouldn't I ask?
Well, first of all it's a misspelling. The actual word is gedanken -- the german word for thought. When it comes to science (or more specifically physics), it is the abbreviation for gedankenexperiment, meaning "thought experiment." Schrödinger's Cat was a gedanken.

However, in this particular thread, Pix seems to have nailed it quite soundly
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 3rd October 2008, 04:07 AM   #303
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 45,476
Thanks for that. Not that it helps my understanding of this thread.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking 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, 04:09 AM   #304
ozziemate
Graduate Poster
 
ozziemate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,240
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
Am I the only one to wonder what gendankens means? Or shouldn't I ask?
the same as gedanken ....
mis-spelling ..duh....but as Skeptic Chic states is a thought experiment that primary purpose is to test a hypothesis or theory that can;t be tested due to issues pf practicality. The operative word in my definition is "test" as with showdingalings cat.

and besides you could have used a wiki or dictionary or something any ways yes?


amazing how offensive you guys try to be....hmmmmm says alot about all sorts of things.

never heard of the word discussion I guess maybe a definition of that is in order.....
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, 04:10 AM   #305
paximperium
Penultimate Amazing
 
paximperium's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 10,696
Originally Posted by SkeptiChick View Post
Well, first of all it's a misspelling. The actual word is gedanken -- the german word for thought. When it comes to science (or more specifically physics), it is the abbreviation for gedankenexperiment, meaning "thought experiment." Schrödinger's Cat was a gedanken.

However, in this particular thread, Pix seems to have nailed it quite soundly
"If it makes sense in my head; it must therefore be true."
__________________
"The method of science is tried and true. It is not perfect, it's just the best we have. And to abandon it with its skeptical protocols is the pathway to a dark age." -Carl Sagan
"They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance."-Terry Pratchett
paximperium 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, 04:11 AM   #306
ozziemate
Graduate Poster
 
ozziemate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,240
btw how long has JREF been running for...just curious?
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, 04:24 AM   #307
sleepy_lioness
Muse
 
sleepy_lioness's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 565
To be really pedantic, it's actually Gedanken (following the rule that German nouns all have an initial capital).

As you were ...

Last edited by sleepy_lioness; 3rd October 2008 at 04:24 AM. Reason: changed punctuation to make sense clearer
sleepy_lioness 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, 04:29 AM   #308
tesscaline
Illuminator
 
tesscaline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 4,024
Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
the same as gedanken ....
mis-spelling ..duh....but as Skeptic Chic states is a thought experiment that primary purpose is to test a hypothesis or theory that can;t be tested due to issues pf practicality. The operative word in my definition is "test" as with showdingalings cat.

and besides you could have used a wiki or dictionary or something any ways yes?


amazing how offensive you guys try to be....hmmmmm says alot about all sorts of things.

never heard of the word discussion I guess maybe a definition of that is in order.....
Hello Pot, meet Kettle.

People here have been extremely patient in explaining things to you that you, by all rights, should be able to look up for yourself in Wiki and the dictionary. To turn around and then throw someone else's request for information in their face is quite hypocritical, and totally uncalled for. After all, the E in JREF stands for Educational.
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 3rd October 2008, 04:34 AM   #309
tesscaline
Illuminator
 
tesscaline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 4,024
Originally Posted by sleepy_lioness View Post
To be really pedantic, it's actually Gedanken (following the rule that German nouns all have an initial capital).

As you were ...
This is true. As gedanken is also a verb (Ich habe gedanken) I sometimes fail to capitalize appropriately
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 3rd October 2008, 04:35 AM   #310
Mashuna
Ovis ex Machina
 
Mashuna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,856
While I appreciate the explanatory power of a good thought experiment (Schrodinger's Cat, Einstien riding a beam of light), they are not designed to be a replacement for an understanding of the mathematical underpinnings of a theory.
__________________
I’d rather be a rising ape than a falling angel. - Sir Terry Pratchett

Last edited by Mashuna; 3rd October 2008 at 04:38 AM.
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, 04:36 AM   #311
ozziemate
Graduate Poster
 
ozziemate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,240
Originally Posted by SkeptiChick View Post
Hello Pot, meet Kettle.

People here have been extremely patient in explaining things to you that you, by all rights, should be able to look up for yourself in Wiki and the dictionary. To turn around and then throw someone else's request for information in their face is quite hypocritical, and totally uncalled for. After all, the E in JREF stands for Educational.
Lion King has a bit more nouse than you take him for check all his posts to this forum and find out for yourself. So I have no reason to believe his post is anything but a flame, and if I am mistaken I apologise.
You need to define educational and what it means to be a good educator.
Tolerance of other peoples handicaps is one thing, forebearance is another and ability to invite studentship and provide leadership is also.
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, 04:36 AM   #312
paximperium
Penultimate Amazing
 
paximperium's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 10,696
Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
amazing how offensive you guys try to be....hmmmmm says alot about all sorts of things.
It is always interesting to note how these nuts always believe that they deserve respect.

Coming from someone who has been insulting anyone who does not agree with him, refusing to answer questions and being proud of his ignorance his hypocrisy knows no bounds.
__________________
"The method of science is tried and true. It is not perfect, it's just the best we have. And to abandon it with its skeptical protocols is the pathway to a dark age." -Carl Sagan
"They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance."-Terry Pratchett
paximperium 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, 04:39 AM   #313
ozziemate
Graduate Poster
 
ozziemate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,240
Originally Posted by paximperium View Post
It is always interesting to note how these nuts always believe that they deserve respect.

Coming from someone who has been insulting anyone who does not agree with him, refusing to answer questions and being proud of his ignorance his hypocrisy knows no bounds.
when you are ready to discuss physics paxi let someone know...ok but don't tell me ok
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, 04:40 AM   #314
ozziemate
Graduate Poster
 
ozziemate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,240
Originally Posted by paximperium View Post
It is always interesting to note how these nuts always believe that they deserve respect.

Coming from someone who has been insulting anyone who does not agree with him, refusing to answer questions and being proud of his ignorance his hypocrisy knows no bounds.
and if you think disgreement is insulting then i am sorry I disagree with you
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, 04:41 AM   #315
paximperium
Penultimate Amazing
 
paximperium's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 10,696
Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
when you are ready to discuss physics paxi let someone know...ok but don't tell me ok
I've been ready for a long time.

When you're actually ready to discuss physics instead of your fantasies, go on ahead.
__________________
"The method of science is tried and true. It is not perfect, it's just the best we have. And to abandon it with its skeptical protocols is the pathway to a dark age." -Carl Sagan
"They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance."-Terry Pratchett
paximperium 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, 04:44 AM   #316
paximperium
Penultimate Amazing
 
paximperium's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 10,696
Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
and if you think disgreement is insulting then i am sorry I disagree with you
That was one very lame attempt at a joke.
__________________
"The method of science is tried and true. It is not perfect, it's just the best we have. And to abandon it with its skeptical protocols is the pathway to a dark age." -Carl Sagan
"They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance."-Terry Pratchett
paximperium 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, 04:45 AM   #317
ozziemate
Graduate Poster
 
ozziemate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,240
Originally Posted by paximperium View Post
That was one very lame attempt at a joke.
I thought you'd be amused...and it didn't cost you anything except....one extra post....
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, 04:58 AM   #318
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 45,476
Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
the same as gedanken ....
mis-spelling ..duh....but as Skeptic Chic states is a thought experiment that primary purpose is to test a hypothesis or theory that can;t be tested due to issues pf practicality. The operative word in my definition is "test" as with showdingalings cat.

and besides you could have used a wiki or dictionary or something any ways yes?


amazing how offensive you guys try to be....hmmmmm says alot about all sorts of things.

never heard of the word discussion I guess maybe a definition of that is in order.....
"Offensive"? Do you need a dictionary? The really sad thing about your entire contribution to this forum is that you are (or claim to be) an Australian.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking 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, 05:00 AM   #319
ozziemate
Graduate Poster
 
ozziemate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,240
It has been often stated that ideas have to be developed into forrmal hypothesis and then on to theory. Or something like that.
Yet of course it is a progression of work and development that needs to take place, from idea to theory takes quite some doing.

It has been asked countless times for me to put up or shut up and the E in JREF stands for education.....you know of course that I have no formal education in physics - non what so ever [ not even completed highschool]. You know of course that that can actually be a blessing because I am not stuck in the dogma and belief system that is obviously so precious to some as displayed in this thread.

It is not possible to present new ideas or approaches to very old and difficult issues when currently declared impossible [ quoting from one poster in particular] then invited to present a case by same poster in same post.

The offer to explore the ambiguity surrounding the evidence of a travelling photon still stands of course.

Effect is not proof of cause it is simply proof of something happening....and it is in the happening that needs to be validated and proved and that is where the ambiguity of proof of the modelled travelling photon comes into question.

so why not explore the issue in a professional way?
because you can't maybe... excuse internet anonymity maybe....

Last edited by ozziemate; 3rd October 2008 at 05:01 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, 05:03 AM   #320
Mashuna
Ovis ex Machina
 
Mashuna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,856
Originally Posted by ozziemate View Post
you know of course that I have no formal education in physics - non what so ever [ not even completed highschool]. You know of course that that can actually be a blessing because I am not stuck in the dogma and belief system that is obviously so precious to some as displayed in this thread.
I guess it could be a blessing. If you want to progress any further with your ideas though, it's going to be a large hinderance.
__________________
I’d 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
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 12:03 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.