IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts 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 cern , higgs boson , physics

Reply
Old 19th November 2012, 08:34 PM   #721
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,852
Over the last few weeks, I have spent some time with particle physics and QFT, so the discussion here has been of interest and the knowledgeable people here have provided some interesting and helpful perspectives. The Higgs mechanism is quite a discovery when one considers the abstract nature of the QFT mathematics that predicts its existence. Its a real challenge for a layman to grasp it all. Thanks to all for helping. Even Farside's home-spun pseudo-physics has resulted in some good responses that have been helpful.
__________________
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
- Richard P. Feynman

ξ
Perpetual Student 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 20th November 2012, 09:14 AM   #722
sol invictus
Philosopher
 
sol invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,613
Well, that's the main reason to respond to posters like Farsight. It's very rare that physics crackpots get convinced or learn anything - take Michael Mozina, for example - because they aren't posting here with any intention of learning, and if they were they would have understood the problems with their ideas long before. Instead, they're posting out of some combination of arrogant pride, Dunning-Kruger, and trollish "I'm going to see what kind of response I can get". But the responses they generate are sometimes educational, entertaining, or useful in organizing the thoughts of those that formulate them.
sol invictus 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 21st November 2012, 08:01 AM   #723
Cuddles
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 18,774
Indeed. I certainly didn't post because I expected Farsight to learn anything. But it can be an interesting subject even if you don't understand all the details of the physics. This is something that's been studied for over 50 years, with roots going back much further than that. Just looking at the history of how things were discovered and who did what first can be quite interesting., even before you throw in a bit of learning about what it all actually means and why it could be important. I've never understood why so many people seem to be desperate to live in their own fantasy world. Reality is so much more fascinating. It might be fun to pretend that you're a big fish, but what's so bad about being a small fish when there's such a big world out there to explore?
Cuddles 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 21st November 2012, 06:05 PM   #724
Farsight
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
Originally Posted by edd View Post
Let's use natural units then...
c^½ = 1
3π = 9.424778
c^½ / 3π = 1 / 9.424778
r = 0.106
Actual = 1836.15267245

Do you see the problem now? You wrote a completely nonsensical formula down.
No I didn't. You can't just set c to 1 without making provision elsewhere. It's the conversion factor between distance and time, and frequency is the reciprocal of time. Try reading this. Space is like the guitar string. When its length is x it vibrates with a first harmonic frequency of 1/x, not x. That's why the n is there in λ = 4π / n c^1½. The 4π is there because you're sweeping a sphere. The c^1½ is there because youre doing it like a moebius strip. You're going round the equator at c and over the pole at ½c. And there's only one size sphere where you can get the spherical harmonic. The c^½ and the 3π is something on top of that, and it's a bit more complicated. But hey, since you don't understand [i]the mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content[/url], you aren't going to understand quantum harmonics. Next!
Farsight 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 21st November 2012, 06:24 PM   #725
Mister Earl
Illuminator
 
Mister Earl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,504
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
words
I think it'd be just peachy if you'd respond to the issue of your not using units half the time.
Mister Earl 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 21st November 2012, 06:26 PM   #726
ben m
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
No I didn't. You can't just set c to 1 without making provision elsewhere.
Edd made this provision correctly. The problem lies in your equation, not edd's understanding of units.

Let's see *you* do it. Calculate the proton/electron mass ratio using a mile:hour unit system. The speed of light is 670,616,629 miles per hour.

Last edited by ben m; 21st November 2012 at 06:27 PM.
ben m 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 21st November 2012, 06:30 PM   #727
edd
Master Poster
 
edd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,120
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
No I didn't. You can't just set c to 1 without making provision elsewhere.
Oh dear. This looks frustratingly close to what we are trying to tell you. Just assume my distances are in light seconds and my times are in seconds. Is your formula still valid? If so why does it give a completely different answer? If not why does it care about some dead dudes in Paris slightly misestimating the size of the Earth?

Almost everything else you just said is gibberish.
__________________
When I look up at the night sky and think about the billions of stars out there, I think to myself: I'm amazing. - Peter Serafinowicz
edd 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 21st November 2012, 06:59 PM   #728
Farsight
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
Oh, I missed this one. If I've missed any others do flag them up.

Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
Why do you think this is useful? You either have a system of earth/cannonball with total momentum of 0, or you have a system of earth/cannonball/rocket exhaust of total momentum 0 It's still the case that in order to change the momentum of the cannonball something else's momentum has to change: that's what it means for momentum to be conserved.
It's because for every action there is a reaction. A force is only there if there's an interaction. I can't exert a force on you without you exerting a force on me. Vector momentum is just another way of saying that. But total momentum of zero just doesn't distinguish between two cannonballs sitting there going nowhere and two cannonballs flying apart at 2000m/s. Why can't people see that momentum is the time-based measure of energy-momentum interaction whilst kinetic energy is the distance-based measure of action? A cannonball coming at you at 1000m/s takes some stopping. You exert a force for a time and while you do the cannonball pushes you back a distance. You exert a force on it, and it exerts a force on you. But there's no such thing as negative distance, so kinetic energy isn't negative. There's no such thing as a negative time either, but people blather on about negative momentum, and fail to recognise that the sign is abusive term for direction.

Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
Here's a simple example of momentum and kinetic energy being different things: a bomb at t=0 the bomb is sitting somewhere out in space with nothing else around, at rest in our reference frame both it's kinetic energy and its momentum =0
So far so good.

Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
At t=1 it explodes, and pieces going flying off in various different directions The total momentum is still zero, but the total kinetic energy is certainly not zero
You try catching a piece. Exert a force for a time. Is that a zero time? No. It's a non-zero time, so the momentum of that piece isn't zero. Now I catch a piece on the other side of the bomb. And whaddya know, I didn't exert a force for zero time either. So the momentum of that piece isn't zero. But wait a minute, that's OK, force is a vector quantity too. You exerted a force, and I exerted a negative force? Did I suck or did I blow? Or was that the other way round? And if I can exert a negative force for a distance, is the result negative kinetic energy? Hey look at that cannonball! It's got negative kinetic energy! Don't think so.

Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
How is it possible that those two values are different?
It's like what I said. For every action there is a reaction. A force is an interaction. I can't exert a force on you without you exerting a force on me. Vector momentum is just another way of saying that. So the total always adds up to zero. But I still exerted a force on you and pushed you along for a hundred metres. And force x distance = energy, and distance is a scalar, and KE= ½mv² because there's an integral in it. That's a different value. You get two different values when you look at the same thing in two different ways. How long is it? How wide is it? Momentum is just one aspect of energy-momentum, and kinetic energy is another. And mass is another. Divide energy by c for momentum. Divide again by c for mass. But it's all just energy-momentum, like a cube coming at you, and you can see three faces.

Sheesh, look at the time. Bedtime.
Farsight 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 21st November 2012, 07:09 PM   #729
Mister Earl
Illuminator
 
Mister Earl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,504
I see one you've missed. You haven't responded to the criticism of your missing units in equations.
Mister Earl 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 21st November 2012, 07:15 PM   #730
Farsight
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
Originally Posted by edd View Post
Oh dear. This looks frustratingly close to what we are trying to tell you. Just assume my distances are in light seconds and my times are in seconds. Is your formula still valid? If so why does it give a completely different answer? If not why does it care about some dead dudes in Paris slightly misestimating the size of the Earth? Almost everything else you just said is gibberish.
Oh dear edd. I give physics, you just sneer. You know, there was a time when I thought you had some sincerity. Not any more. Not when your response is gibberish! That's no counteragument, now is it? In order to bring this home, I will look out for what you say, and I will carefully offer a counterargument that isn't gibberish. In addition I will provide surgical evidence and logic and references. And when you then exclaim "gibberish!", everybody will see that my surgical evidence took your gibberish apart.
Farsight 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 21st November 2012, 07:16 PM   #731
edd
Master Poster
 
edd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,120
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
But wait a minute, that's OK, force is a vector quantity too.
...
force x distance = energy, and distance is a scalar,
Being in your time zone I do agree it is bedtime. But first you do not see a teensy inconsistency above given energy is scalar?

Maybe a vector displacement rather than scalar distance combined with a vector dot product might make a touch more sense.

That bit at least is straightforwardly corrected anyway.
__________________
When I look up at the night sky and think about the billions of stars out there, I think to myself: I'm amazing. - Peter Serafinowicz
edd 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 21st November 2012, 08:26 PM   #732
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,852
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
Oh dear edd. I give physics, you just sneer. You know, there was a time when I thought you had some sincerity. Not any more. Not when your response is gibberish! That's no counteragument, now is it? In order to bring this home, I will look out for what you say, and I will carefully offer a counterargument that isn't gibberish. In addition I will provide surgical evidence and logic and references. And when you then exclaim "gibberish!", everybody will see that my surgical evidence took your gibberish apart.
Strong words! Is this merely empty bluster or will there be a substantive and mathematically based demonstration to follow?
__________________
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
- Richard P. Feynman

ξ
Perpetual Student 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 21st November 2012, 08:38 PM   #733
MattusMaximus
Intellectual Gladiator
 
MattusMaximus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,948
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
Oh, I missed this one. If I've missed any others do flag them up.
Oh my... there are so many errors in this one post it reads like a failing exam in my high school physics class.

Quote:
It's because for every action there is a reaction. A force is only there if there's an interaction. I can't exert a force on you without you exerting a force on me. Vector momentum is just another way of saying that.
No, it isn't. Vector momentum is not the same thing as Newton's Third Law of action/reaction. If you are referring to the impulse-momentum theorem (which is derived from Newton's Second Law), then you are doing it in a piss-poor manner.

Quote:
But total momentum of zero just doesn't distinguish between two cannonballs sitting there going nowhere and two cannonballs flying apart at 2000m/s. Why can't people see that momentum is the time-based measure of energy-momentum interaction whilst kinetic energy is the distance-based measure of action?
What? Do you just pull these things out of your nether region? According to the impulse-momentum theorem, a change in momentum is identical to force integrated over a time interval, and work (a transfer of energy) is identical to force integrated over a displacement.

Quote:
A cannonball coming at you at 1000m/s takes some stopping. You exert a force for a time and while you do the cannonball pushes you back a distance. You exert a force on it, and it exerts a force on you. But there's no such thing as negative distance, so kinetic energy isn't negative. There's no such thing as a negative time either, but people blather on about negative momentum, and fail to recognise that the sign is abusive term for direction.
Wow. Talk about misunderstanding the basics...

Farsight, when discussing impulse (what you call force x time) you need to remember that an impulse is equal to a change in momentum; so if the object loses momentum, the impulse is negative (because the force acting on the object is in the opposite direction of the motion). It has nothing to do with the concept of "negative time"!

You make a similar mistake with work and kinetic energy. According to the work-energy theorem, assuming no transfer of potential energy, the work done on an object is equal to the change in kinetic energy of the object. Therefore, if an object slows down (loses KE), then there is negative work done on it (i.e. energy is transferred away from the object); this is due to the fact that the work is defined as the scalar product of force and displacement, and if the force acting is in the opposite direction of the displacement then the work comes out negative. And, for the record, because displacement is a vector, it can be a negative quantity depending upon how it is oriented.

Quote:
So far so good.
No, you are just digging the hole even deeper. You are doing nothing more than displaying your ignorance of not only cutting edge physics but high school physics as well.

Quote:
You try catching a piece. Exert a force for a time. Is that a zero time? No. It's a non-zero time, so the momentum of that piece isn't zero. Now I catch a piece on the other side of the bomb. And whaddya know, I didn't exert a force for zero time either. So the momentum of that piece isn't zero. But wait a minute, that's OK, force is a vector quantity too. You exerted a force, and I exerted a negative force? Did I suck or did I blow? Or was that the other way round? And if I can exert a negative force for a distance, is the result negative kinetic energy? Hey look at that cannonball! It's got negative kinetic energy! Don't think so.
Again, the work done is equal to the change in kinetic energy in this case, not the kinetic energy. Therefore because the change in kinetic energy can be negative (i.e. the object loses KE), then the work can be negative.

Quote:
It's like what I said. For every action there is a reaction. A force is an interaction. I can't exert a force on you without you exerting a force on me. Vector momentum is just another way of saying that. So the total always adds up to zero. But I still exerted a force on you and pushed you along for a hundred metres. And force x distance = energy, and distance is a scalar, and KE= ½mv² because there's an integral in it. That's a different value. You get two different values when you look at the same thing in two different ways. How long is it? How wide is it? Momentum is just one aspect of energy-momentum, and kinetic energy is another. And mass is another. Divide energy by c for momentum. Divide again by c for mass. But it's all just energy-momentum, like a cube coming at you, and you can see three faces.
Saying the same wrong things over and over again doesn't make you any more correct, Farsight.

Quote:
Sheesh, look at the time. Bedtime.
Please, follow these steps:

1. Go to the library.

2. Get a book on basic physics.

3. Read the book, and work the problems.

4. Realize your errors.
__________________
Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher
"We ****** up the air, the water, we ****** up each other. Why don't we just finish the job by flushing our brains down the toilet?" -- John Trent, In the Mouth of Madness
MattusMaximus 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 21st November 2012, 08:45 PM   #734
MattusMaximus
Intellectual Gladiator
 
MattusMaximus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,948
Originally Posted by Perpetual Student View Post
Strong words! Is this merely empty bluster or will there be a substantive and mathematically based demonstration to follow?
Don't hold your breath. I'm still waiting for Farsight to mathematically prove in another thread his assertion that the potential energy associated with a gravitational field is positive.

*crickets chirp*
__________________
Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher
"We ****** up the air, the water, we ****** up each other. Why don't we just finish the job by flushing our brains down the toilet?" -- John Trent, In the Mouth of Madness
MattusMaximus 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 21st November 2012, 09:44 PM   #735
ben m
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
And when you then exclaim "gibberish!", everybody will see that my surgical evidence took your gibberish apart.
I have yet to see anyone "see" these things you think "everyone will see".

You keep bragging about this record-breaking score you're racking up on an imaginary scoreboard, and the huge imaginary crowds you think are cheering for you, in this match you're refereeing yourself.
ben m 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 22nd November 2012, 12:10 AM   #736
Kwalish Kid
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 509
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
Oh dear edd. I give physics, you just sneer. You know, there was a time when I thought you had some sincerity. Not any more. Not when your response is gibberish! That's no counteragument, now is it? In order to bring this home, I will look out for what you say, and I will carefully offer a counterargument that isn't gibberish. In addition I will provide surgical evidence and logic and references. And when you then exclaim "gibberish!", everybody will see that my surgical evidence took your gibberish apart.
The problem is that what you write simply is mostly gibberish. You need to seek professional help.
Kwalish Kid 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 22nd November 2012, 04:00 AM   #737
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
Originally Posted by Kwalish Kid View Post
You need to seek professional help.
From a good physics teacher!
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 22nd November 2012, 04:20 AM   #738
edd
Master Poster
 
edd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,120
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
Not when your response is gibberish! That's no counteragument, now is it?
I think it's a reasonably accurate description of what you wrote, and in some cases I think it's a sufficient counter. If I visit http://snarxiv.org/ and take an abstract from it:
Quote:
Clebsch-Gordon Decomposition in Chiral CFTs
D. Schwinger
Comments: 7 pages, reference added
Subjects: High Energy Physics - Theory (hep-th); General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology (gr-qc); Cosmology and Extragalactic Astrophysics (astro-ph.CO)
The cosmological constant problem offers the possibility of studying the extension of type IIA supported on a squashed symmetric space. Motivated by this, we check evidence for hypersurface defects at the GUT scale. We take an anomaly mediated approach. Therefore, the compactification of Clebsch-Gordon decomposition in M-Theory living on T^6 produces an intricate framework for constructing black branes at the Tevatron. We solve the mu/B_mu problem. Models of flavor are also analyzed. After constructing bubble nucleation at the center of the galaxy, we calculate that QCD deformed by local F-terms (involving orientifold planes at SNO) can be found from a massive black hole at $\Lambda_{QCD}$. Our results are similar to work done by Poincare.
then I don't believe I need to discuss the niceties of Clebsch-Gordon decomposition and M-theory and produce a detailed counterargument in order to declare it incomprehensible and incorrect.

edit to add: I accept however that my arxiv vs snarxiv score is sometimes less than perfect.
__________________
When I look up at the night sky and think about the billions of stars out there, I think to myself: I'm amazing. - Peter Serafinowicz

Last edited by edd; 22nd November 2012 at 04:22 AM.
edd 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 22nd November 2012, 05:17 AM   #739
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
Originally Posted by edd View Post
edit to add: I accept however that my arxiv vs snarxiv score is sometimes less than perfect.
I am about equivalent to a monkey . On the plus side I did discover that somebody has really written a paper entitled "Neutrino Counter Nuclear Weapon".
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 22nd November 2012, 09:33 AM   #740
MattusMaximus
Intellectual Gladiator
 
MattusMaximus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,948
Originally Posted by Tubbythin View Post
From a good physics teacher!
Hey, I've already tried. Farsight has shown that he is impervious to learning physics.
__________________
Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher
"We ****** up the air, the water, we ****** up each other. Why don't we just finish the job by flushing our brains down the toilet?" -- John Trent, In the Mouth of Madness
MattusMaximus 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 22nd November 2012, 10:59 AM   #741
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,852
It's instructive to review this discussion from its beginning (edited for clarity and continuity):
Quote:
Farsight
Quote:
Originally Posted by sol invictus
It's a matter of historical record that Einstein near the end of his life was trying to formulate a unified field theory that would explain both gravity and matter. One of his primary goals? Understanding the origin of mass, so as to account for the electron/proton mass ratio (the other particles were just beginning to be discovered in the 20s and 30s when he started on this). Did Einstein's own ideas about the origin of mass also violate E=mc^2, Farsight?
No. His ideas about the origin of mass gave us E=mc². As far as I know he never worked out the proton/electron mass ratio, which is c^½ / 3π with a small binding-energy adjustment:

c^½ = 17314.5158177
3π = 9.424778
c^½ / 3π = 17314.5158177 / 9.424778
r = 1837.12717877
Actual = 1836.15267245
OK, the debate begins:
Originally Posted by Tubbythin View Post
That's some nice numerology there. Shame one side of the equation has units and the other doesn't, rendering the whole thing absolutely meaningless.
Originally Posted by sol invictus View Post

You've got to be kidding. You've heard of "units", right?
The first convoluted response:
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
Sure. The c^½ / 3π expression sits on top of another expression λ = 4π / n c^1½ metres where n is a dimensionality conversion factor n with a value of 1. It's all to do with harmonics and ratios and spin ½, and everything is based on the motion of light. If you change your definition of c everything else changes too, but the sense of E=mc² and E=p/c still holds. It's the same for these expressions. The thing we call c isn't so much a speed as a conversion factor between our units of distance and time. They're both defined using the motion of light. Everything relates back to the motion of light. Check out the watt balance section of the wikipedia Kilogram article and note the bit that says this: "The Planck constant defines the kilogram in terms of the second and the meter. By fixing the Planck constant, the definition of the kilogram would depend only on the definitions of the second and the meter." The article goes on to say "the definition of the second depends on a single defined physical constant: the ground state hyperfine splitting frequency of the caesium 133 atom". However there's a little flaw in that in that you can't define the second using a frequency, which is cycles per second. Anyway, SI is the kilogram-metre-second system, and will end up being more of a metre-second system where everything relates back to the motion of light. Interesting stuff I think. A bit off topic mind, but I think we've almost exhausted it anyway.
Some dialog:
Originally Posted by sol invictus View Post
Measure c in units of feet/second or Smoots/century, and your expression would give a different result for the electron-proton mass ratio. Therefore, it's manifest nonsense.
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
Huff puff. It would give a different result for E=mc² too. It isn't manifest nonsense, you just don't understand spin ½, or that c^½ and c^1½ equates to c², or that everything hangs off the motion of light. Again, that's new-thread territory.
Originally Posted by sol invictus View Post
No, it would not.

It's quite clear that you don't understand units, at all. Units are the first thing you study in an introductory course in any physical science.
The hammers fall:
Originally Posted by edd View Post

Let's use natural units then...
c^½ = 1
3π = 9.424778
c^½ / 3π = 1 / 9.424778
r = 0.106
Actual = 1836.15267245

Do you see the problem now? You wrote a completely nonsensical formula down.
Originally Posted by ben m View Post
c^1/2 = 8.41529061292597326e+05 inches^1/2 minutes^-1/2
3π = 9.424778
Therefore the proton-electron mass ratio is 89000.

This works great!
Originally Posted by MattusMaximus View Post
Does anyone even know what the heck he was even trying to show with that "calculation"? I mean, besides his atrocious use (or non-use) of units...
More dialog:
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
No I didn't. You can't just set c to 1 without making provision elsewhere. It's the conversion factor between distance and time, and frequency is the reciprocal of time. Try reading this. Space is like the guitar string. When its length is x it vibrates with a first harmonic frequency of 1/x, not x. That's why the n is there in λ = 4π / n c^1½. The 4π is there because you're sweeping a sphere. The c^1½ is there because youre doing it like a moebius strip. You're going round the equator at c and over the pole at ½c. And there's only one size sphere where you can get the spherical harmonic. The c^½ and the 3π is something on top of that, and it's a bit more complicated. But hey, since you don't understand [i]the mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content[/url], you aren't going to understand quantum harmonics. Next!
Originally Posted by edd View Post
Oh dear. This looks frustratingly close to what we are trying to tell you. Just assume my distances are in light seconds and my times are in seconds. Is your formula still valid? If so why does it give a completely different answer? If not why does it care about some dead dudes in Paris slightly misestimating the size of the Earth?

Almost everything else you just said is gibberish.
A commitment to vanquish the opposition:
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
Oh dear edd. I give physics, you just sneer. You know, there was a time when I thought you had some sincerity. Not any more. Not when your response is gibberish! That's no counteragument, now is it? In order to bring this home, I will look out for what you say, and I will carefully offer a counterargument that isn't gibberish. In addition I will provide surgical evidence and logic and references. And when you then exclaim "gibberish!", everybody will see that my surgical evidence took your gibberish apart.
I am now anticipating a powerful response including some "surgical evidence."
__________________
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
- Richard P. Feynman

ξ
Perpetual Student 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 22nd November 2012, 02:09 PM   #742
Farsight
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
Originally Posted by edd View Post
Being in your time zone I do agree it is bedtime. But first you do not see a teensy inconsistency above given energy is scalar?
That's why I said But wait a minute, that's OK, force is a vector quantity too. You missed the hint of sarcasm. People say momentum is something very different to energy instead of referring to energy-momentum. They point to the fact that momentum is a vector quantity whilst energy is a scalar. When you then refer them to force x time and force x distance, for momentum they take force as a vector quantity but for energy they don't. it's like I said to Robo, conservation of momentum is there because for every action there is a reaction. A force is only there if there's an interaction, and if I exert force x time on you, you exert a force x time on me. Kinetic energy isn't generally conserved because collisions aren't generally elastic. Some of it gets converted into heat etc. Which is a form of kinetic energy as it happens, but not kinetic energy of the overall body.

Originally Posted by edd View Post
Maybe a vector displacement rather than scalar distance combined with a vector dot product might make a touch more sense.
That bit at least is straightforwardly corrected anyway.
You can't use displacement for energy because that's a vector quantity whilst distance is a scalar. You can have a negative displacement. You can't have a negative distance.
Farsight 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 22nd November 2012, 02:59 PM   #743
Farsight
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
Originally Posted by MattusMaximus View Post
Oh my... there are so many errors in this one post it reads like a failing exam in my high school physics class.
No there aren't.

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus View Post
No, it isn't. Vector momentum is not the same thing as Newton's Third Law of action/reaction. If you are referring to the impulse-momentum theorem (which is derived from Newton's Second Law), then you are doing it in a piss-poor manner.
I'm doing it really well. Momentum is conserved. In a collision between two bodies, the bodies exert the same force on each other for the same time. Body A doesn't exert a greater force on B than B exerts on A. And body A doesn't exert that force for a greater time than body B. One force we call the action, the other we call the reaction, and they are the two halves of an interaction. Simple.

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus View Post
What? Do you just pull these things out of your nether region? According to the impulse-momentum theorem, a change in momentum is identical to force integrated over a time interval
Yeah yeah, we all know about



Originally Posted by MattusMaximus View Post
..and work (a transfer of energy) is identical to force integrated over a displacement.
The usual expression is



Like I said to edd, energy (rather than the transfer of energy) shouldn't be associated with displacement, because that can be negative whilst distance can't.

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus View Post
..Wow. Talk about misunderstanding the basics...
I don't misunderstand the basics. I'm the one here who really undertands them.

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus View Post
Farsight, when discussing impulse (what you call force x time) you need to remember that an impulse is equal to a change in momentum; so if the object loses momentum, the impulse is negative (because the force acting on the object is in the opposite direction of the motion). It has nothing to do with the concept of "negative time"!
I know that, I pointed it out. And I also know that impulse is change in momentum, and has the same units as momentum. And do note that if a cannonball is just sitting there in front of you, it's got no momentum. But after you push it, now it does. And guess what, its momentum changed from zero! You're saying nothing Mattus.

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus View Post
You make a similar mistake with work and kinetic energy.
I'm not making mistakes.

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus View Post
According to the work-energy theorem, assuming no transfer of potential energy, the work done on an object is equal to the change in kinetic energy of the object.
And if the cannonball is just sitting there in front of you, it's got no kinetic energy. But after you push it, now it does. And guess what, it's kinetic energy changed from zero! Let's run that little exercise again shall we? But with a twist. Here's the cannonball just sitting there in front of you. Now try reducing its kinetic energy.

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus View Post
Therefore, if an object slows down (loses KE), then there is negative work done on it (i.e. energy is transferred away from the object); this is due to the fact that the work is defined as the scalar product of force and displacement, and if the force acting is in the opposite direction of the displacement then the work comes out negative. And, for the record, because displacement is a vector, it can be a negative quantity depending upon how it is oriented.
I've said displacement is a vector on plenty of previous occasions.

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus View Post
No, you are just digging the hole even deeper. You are doing nothing more than displaying your ignorance of not only cutting edge physics but high school physics as well.
LOL, in your dreams Mattus.

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus View Post
Again, the work done is equal to the change in kinetic energy in this case, not the kinetic energy. Therefore because the change in kinetic energy can be negative (i.e. the object loses KE), then the work can be negative.
Yawn. And the change in kinetic energy of the cannonball that was sitting there in front of you, the one you pushed, is the kinetic energy.

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus View Post
Saying the same wrong things over and over again doesn't make you any more correct, Farsight. Please, follow these steps:

1. Go to the library.

2. Get a book on basic physics.

3. Read the book, and work the problems.

4. Realize your errors.
Geddoutofit Mattus. You've got nothing. next!
Farsight 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 22nd November 2012, 03:18 PM   #744
MattusMaximus
Intellectual Gladiator
 
MattusMaximus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,948
Farsight,

As I pointed out before, work (a transfer of energy) is defined as the scalar product of force and displacement (technically, work is the scalar product of force integrated over displacement). A scalar product is a mathematical operation performed on two vectors which yields a scalar result. One would expect that a self-described expert on these topics would know what is a scalar product, wouldn't you? One would further expect that such an expert would also then realize the role that displacement (a vector) plays in work (a scalar), right?

But no, not you, Farsight. In your arrogance, you continue to ignore your basic mistakes on these and other points, yet you expect those of us trained (and those of us who teach the topic) in physics to bow to your self-declared superior knowledge?

Give me a break. I was willing to give you a fair shake, but now it is patently obvious to me that you have no idea what you're talking about, whether it be the Higgs mechanism or basic high school physics. Worse yet, you are not interested in learning anything - your loss, because there is much to learn here.

If I were handing out grades to posters on this thread, you would get an 'F'. Congratulations.
__________________
Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher
"We ****** up the air, the water, we ****** up each other. Why don't we just finish the job by flushing our brains down the toilet?" -- John Trent, In the Mouth of Madness
MattusMaximus 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 22nd November 2012, 03:25 PM   #745
edd
Master Poster
 
edd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,120
Originally Posted by MattusMaximus View Post
Farsight,

As I pointed out before, work (a transfer of energy) is defined as the scalar product of force and displacement (technically, work is the scalar product of force integrated over displacement). A scalar product is a mathematical operation performed on two vectors which yields a scalar result. One would expect that a self-described expert on these topics would know what is a scalar product, wouldn't you? One would further expect that such an expert would also then realize the role that displacement (a vector) plays in work (a scalar), right?

But no, not you, Farsight. In your arrogance, you continue to ignore your basic mistakes on these and other points, yet you expect those of us trained (and those of us who teach the topic) in physics to bow to your self-declared superior knowledge?

Give me a break. I was willing to give you a fair shake, but now it is patently obvious to me that you have no idea what you're talking about, whether it be the Higgs mechanism or basic high school physics. Worse yet, you are not interested in learning anything - your loss, because there is much to learn here.

If I were handing out grades to posters on this thread, you would get an 'F'. Congratulations.
This. The scalar product is commonly called the dot product. The above is exactly what I meant, and is extremely basic physics. Thanks for putting it so clearly MattusMaximus.
__________________
When I look up at the night sky and think about the billions of stars out there, I think to myself: I'm amazing. - Peter Serafinowicz
edd 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 22nd November 2012, 03:32 PM   #746
ben m
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
You can't use displacement for energy because that's a vector quantity whilst distance is a scalar.
Seriously? I mean, really? Amazing.
ben m 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 22nd November 2012, 04:14 PM   #747
Farsight
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
Originally Posted by Mister Earl
I think it'd be just peachy if you'd respond to the issue of your not using units half the time.
What, the quantum harmonics? As epitomised by ben's miles per hour and edd's grumblings and Perpetual Student's so-called review? Given that people here don't even understand the mass of a body is the measure of its energy-content let alone the Higgs mechanism, I'm not sure it's going to be productive. But OK, let's make a start. We'll take it one step at a time like we did when I explained why the Higgs mechanism contradicted E=mc².

First off look at what I said to sol in post 677 about the Watt balance. I included this quote: "by fixing the Planck constant, the definition of the kilogram would depend only on the definitions of the second and the meter". The dimensionality of energy is kg·m²/s², so if we're going to be defining the kilogram using the second and the metre, you need to understand how they're defined. The second is defined using the NIST caesium fountain clock. There's a reference to that on wikipedia:

"Since 1967, the second has been defined to be the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom..."

In the NIST caesium fountain clock, lasers and a microwave cavity are employed to cause hyperfine transitions, which are electron “spin flips”. These emit microwaves - light in the wider sense. The story goes that there’s a peak frequency which is found and measured by the detector. But note that frequency is measured in Hertz, which is defined as cycles per second, and the second isn't defined yet. When you haven't defined the second, you can't talk in terms of frequency! What's really happening here is that we count light waves coming at us in a wavetrain. When we get to 9,192,631,770 we say that's a second. Then the frequency is 9,192,631,770 Hertz by definition. Note that we used the motion of light to do this. You might challenge that and refer to the hyperfine transition, but that's an electromagnetic thing, so again that's light in the wider sense.

Now take a look at the definition of the metre:

Since 1983, it has been defined as "the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a second."

So we define the metre using the motion of light. Along with the second, which we also defined using the motion of light. Note that regardless of how fast light actually moves, this means that you always measure the motion of light to be 299,792,458 m/s. Because you use the motion of light to define the second and the metre, which you then use to measure the motion of light. Also note that frequency is the inverse of time, so wavelengths and frequencies are all based upon the motion of light. The units are derived from it. We quote c, the speed of light, in terms of the units derived from light moving through space.

Are you happy with this? This is what lies at the heart of it. You have to understand this to understand the rest. And if you don't, well, it is off-topic, so nevermind.
Farsight 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 22nd November 2012, 04:22 PM   #748
ben m
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
(three paragraphs mysteriously NOT containing the three lines of math it ought to take to explain a unit-conversion)
Farsight: Miles are units of length. Hours are units of time. The speed of light in miles per hour is 670,616,629 miles/hour. Go ahead, do the five lines of algebra you did with meters and seconds.
ben m 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 22nd November 2012, 04:24 PM   #749
MattusMaximus
Intellectual Gladiator
 
MattusMaximus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,948
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
You can't use displacement for energy because that's a vector quantity whilst distance is a scalar. You can have a negative displacement. You can't have a negative distance.
Nope, no mistakes there

Have fun with your delusions, Farsight.

ETA: Do you even know what a scalar/dot product is? Have you ever performed calculations with scalar/dot products?
__________________
Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher
"We ****** up the air, the water, we ****** up each other. Why don't we just finish the job by flushing our brains down the toilet?" -- John Trent, In the Mouth of Madness

Last edited by MattusMaximus; 22nd November 2012 at 04:28 PM.
MattusMaximus 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 22nd November 2012, 04:25 PM   #750
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
Originally Posted by MattusMaximus View Post
Hey, I've already tried. Farsight has shown that he is impervious to learning physics.
I said a good physi... only kidding
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 22nd November 2012, 04:28 PM   #751
MattusMaximus
Intellectual Gladiator
 
MattusMaximus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,948
Originally Posted by Tubbythin View Post
I said a good physi... only kidding
I see what you did there
__________________
Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher
"We ****** up the air, the water, we ****** up each other. Why don't we just finish the job by flushing our brains down the toilet?" -- John Trent, In the Mouth of Madness
MattusMaximus 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 22nd November 2012, 04:29 PM   #752
Farsight
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
Originally Posted by ben m View Post
Seriously? I mean, really? Amazing.
Yep. Seen any -511KeV electrons recently? Nope. You've seen me talking about binding energy, which is said to be negative energy. But all it really is, is less positive energy. You can't exert a force for a negative distance. When you push you might think you exert a positive force → whereas when you pull you exert a negative force ←. But just turn yourself around and now your push ← is like your pull was. It isn't really negative force. You can't reduce the kinetic energy of that motionless cannonball. Like I said, people get confused about direction and sign. Just as they get confused about positive and negative charges and positive and negative energy, like Zig did here.

Originally Posted by ben m View Post
Farsight: Miles are units of length. Hours are units of time. The speed of light in miles per hour is 670,616,629 miles/hour. Go ahead, do the five lines of algebra you did with meters and seconds.
Pay attention and maybe you'll get to understand this. See my post 747. Do you you understand what I said, and do you agree with it?

Last edited by Farsight; 22nd November 2012 at 04:34 PM.
Farsight 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 22nd November 2012, 04:34 PM   #753
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
List of basic school-level physics Farsight doesn't understand:
  • Scalar
  • Vector
  • Scalar product
  • First law of thermodynamics
  • Conservation of momentum
  • Difference between energy and momentum
  • When to use E=pc and when to use E2=(pc)2+(mc2)2

Any more?
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 22nd November 2012, 04:39 PM   #754
MattusMaximus
Intellectual Gladiator
 
MattusMaximus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,948
From another thread, Farsight also seems to think that the potential energy associated with gravitational fields is positive. I see that he is also extending this misunderstanding to the concept of binding energy as well.

The hits just keep on coming.
__________________
Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher
"We ****** up the air, the water, we ****** up each other. Why don't we just finish the job by flushing our brains down the toilet?" -- John Trent, In the Mouth of Madness

Last edited by MattusMaximus; 22nd November 2012 at 04:41 PM.
MattusMaximus 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 22nd November 2012, 04:41 PM   #755
edd
Master Poster
 
edd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,120
Originally Posted by MattusMaximus View Post
ETA: Do you even know what a scalar/dot product is? Have you ever performed calculations with scalar/dot products?
Scalar multiples of vectors (along with the associated basics you might expect for scalars and vectors of course) are typically in the mathematics GCSE syllabus at the higher end at least - GCSEs being exams taken at the age of ~16 in England and Wales by everyone, covering a wide range of abilities (so not everyone getting what is technically a pass at GCSE will be expected to know what a scalar product is, but those getting the better grades should).

Farsight says he has A-level mathematics and has tutored up to A-level mathematics, which is taught between the ages of 16 and 18, and only generally speaking to those that have done well at the GCSE level. A-level will certainly cover the vector product and harder problems, but probably not generally vector calculus (no grad, div, or curl), at least to any great extent. Then he has his CS degree.

On the other hand, we have the posts here.

[shrug]
__________________
When I look up at the night sky and think about the billions of stars out there, I think to myself: I'm amazing. - Peter Serafinowicz
edd 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 22nd November 2012, 04:42 PM   #756
MattusMaximus
Intellectual Gladiator
 
MattusMaximus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,948
I'm starting to think his supposed A-level performance in math is composed largely of two other letters: BS
__________________
Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher
"We ****** up the air, the water, we ****** up each other. Why don't we just finish the job by flushing our brains down the toilet?" -- John Trent, In the Mouth of Madness
MattusMaximus 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 22nd November 2012, 04:44 PM   #757
W.D.Clinger
Philosopher
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,759
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
What, the quantum harmonics? As epitomised by ben's miles per hour and edd's grumblings and Perpetual Student's so-called review?

Perpetual Student's "so-called review" mostly consisted of quotations from what you and others had written in this thread. By following the links, anyone can verify that Perpetual Student's quotations were accurate.

edd's "grumblings" have been spot on. You have not formulated any coherent response.

ben m's calculation involved inches per minute, not miles per hour. Not that it matters, but your inability to get even irrelevant details right illustrates your larger problems.

Snipping a bunch of related nonsense:

Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
....When you haven't defined the second, you can't talk in terms of frequency!....

phunk explained your mistake four days ago.

Most tellingly, you still have not acknowledged your sub-high-school-level misunderstanding of units.

Although we acknowledge your mastery of the Gish gallop, we aren't going to let you forget the hilarity of your numerological crackpottery.
W.D.Clinger 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 22nd November 2012, 04:46 PM   #758
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,852
Originally Posted by Perpetual Student View Post
It's instructive to review this discussion from its beginning (edited for clarity and continuity):

OK, the debate begins:

The first convoluted response:

Some dialog:

The hammers fall:

More dialog:

A commitment to vanquish the opposition:

I am now anticipating a powerful response including some "surgical evidence."
Still waiting for the surgical evidence. Maybe one more bag of popcorn...
__________________
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
- Richard P. Feynman

ξ
Perpetual Student 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 22nd November 2012, 04:47 PM   #759
edd
Master Poster
 
edd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,120
Wait, rewind. I misread the syllabuses I was looking at. A scalar product of two vectors should be an A-level topic (but a pretty basic one in it). GCSE may only cover the product of a scalar and a vector. Sorry. Still... most of the [shrug] is still there.
__________________
When I look up at the night sky and think about the billions of stars out there, I think to myself: I'm amazing. - Peter Serafinowicz
edd 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 22nd November 2012, 04:51 PM   #760
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
Originally Posted by MattusMaximus View Post
I'm starting to think his supposed A-level performance in math is composed largely of two other letters: BS
Maybe we all misunderstood and the reference to A-level was the most recent letter of the alphabet that his tutees understood?
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
Reply

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

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 03:26 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, 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.