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 electromagnetism , quantum mechanics , relativity

Reply
Old 29th July 2013, 02:12 PM   #1161
DeiRenDopa
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,582
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
Originally Posted by me
Here's something mighty strange I've noticed, Farsight: as far as I can tell, these sorts of opinions are held by just one person (you). Why is that?
I'm afraid it isn't true, DeiRenDopa.
Hmm, I think I may have found at least part of the answer.

Is English not your native language, Farsight?

My statement again, with some added emphasis: Here's something mighty strange I've noticed, Farsight: as far as I can tell, these sorts of opinions are held by just one person (you).

In your reply, you stated that what I noticed (as far as I could tell), was "not true".

How can that be? Are you some kind of psychic? You have an insight into what I notice that I myself don't?

Quote:
Quote:
Or perhaps because, despite your millions (?) of words, in thousands of posts, over many years (and in many forums), you have failed so incredibly spectacularly, to communicate The Truth?
Nope.
I see that this is, without a doubt, your firmly expressed opinion.

It is also not backed by any evidence. Can you point to even a single post which shows that a JREF member agrees with what you posted AND disagrees with what sol and/or RC posted? I had a look back over the last dozen or so pages of this thread and could not find any such posts.
DeiRenDopa 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 29th July 2013, 02:31 PM   #1162
Farsight
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
Originally Posted by ctamblyn View Post
Show that TQFT is relevant to this discussion about electric charge.
TQFT is a variant of QFT which incorporates QED which is a QM restatement of classical electromagnetism.

Originally Posted by ctamblyn
Show that the book you just mentioned supports your view (hint: it doesn't).
See the title. It's the Geometry of Electromagnetic Systems. Electromagnetism involves geometry.

Originally Posted by ctamblyn
(Regarding the context - the existence of negative curvature in spatial slices through spacetime...)

"Then you're talking about electromagnetism."

Nope, gravitation.
Yes, electromagnetism. How many times do I have to draw your attention to The role of the potentials in electromagnetism where you can read "We conclude that the field describes the curvature that characterizes the electromagnetic interaction." There's a curvature associated with gravitomagnetism which is different to the spacetime curvature associated with gravity. Gravitomagnetism is related to electromagnetism. There's a curvature associated with that too.

Originally Posted by ctamblyn
(Regarding the large-scale curvature of the observable universe...)

"I say it's zero"

Possibly, but it would be very remarkable if it were exactly zero. It isn't relevant to my next point, so I'll put that aside for now.
It's exactly zero, and it isn't remarkable at all. Because on the large scale, space is homogeneous, so there no gravitational field, and expansion apart, spacetime is therefore flat.

Originally Posted by ctamblyn
(Regarding my pointing out that spatial slices through the Schwarzschild solution have negative curvature...)

"You can plot the Flamm paraboloid using light clocks in an equatorial plane. The curvature isn't actually curved space, it's a curvature in your measurements. Your metric."

No, it's genuine honest-to-goodness spatial curvature.
No, it isn't. GR refers to the geometry of spacetime. The space around the Earth isn't curved, it's inhomogeneous, and therefore motion through it over time is curved. Again see this article on John Baez's website, where you can read this: "Similarly, in general relativity gravity is not really a 'force', but just a manifestation of the curvature of spacetime. Note: not the curvature of space, but of spacetime. The distinction is crucial." You know that it isn't curved space, because if it was, a ball would travel the same arc regardless of how fast you threw it.

Originally Posted by ctamblyn
You can measure it without any clocks at all like so:

Create a very large circle out of string (or dental floss or whatever) centred around a star, being careful to ensure that it is stationary with respect to the star, and measure the circumference Cinner of the circle. Now, create a second circle by moving each point of the first circle radially outwards by a short distance a (small in comparison with Cinner), measured locally using standard metre sticks. This will require you to either stretch the string, if it allows, or splice in some extra. Now measure the circumference Couter of the new circle.

If there were no spatial curvature, the circumference of the second circle could only be
Couter = Cinner + 2πa .
This formula must hold if the spatial geometry is Euclidean - most teenagers could provide the proof. However, according to GR if you perform this experiment you will find that
Couter = Cinner + 2πa√(1 - 4πM/Cinner)
where M is the mass of the gravitating body in units where G = c = 1. Thus, the space is not Euclidean.
Wrong. See above. You defined your metre using the motion of light through space. That's the most fundamental way to do it, and it takes you right back to those the light clocks on the equatorial plane. The motion of light through space is not constant, so your metric is not Euclidean. Because space is inhomogeneous. And as a result the motion of light through space over time is curved. It's what Einstein said, ctamblyn. He said light curves because the speed of light varies with position, not because space is curved, and not because spacetime is curved either. Learn to distinguish cause and effect.
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 29th July 2013, 02:42 PM   #1163
ctamblyn
Data Ghost
 
ctamblyn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: The Library
Posts: 2,898
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
TQFT is a variant of QFT which incorporates QED which is a QM restatement of classical electromagnetism.
No, don't hand-wave. Show that TQFT incorporates QED.

Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
See the title. It's the Geometry of Electromagnetic Systems. Electromagnetism involves geometry.
No, don't hand-wave. Show that the book itself supports you, not that you can pick words out of a title.

Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
Yes, electromagnetism.
Nope, it's still gravitation. This started when W.D.Clinger pointed out that negative curvature exists in GR (ETA: here), not e/m, and you objected. I then pointed out that negative curvature exists all over the place in GR.

Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
It's exactly zero,
Evidence?

Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
...and it isn't remarkable at all. Because on the large scale, space is homogeneous, so there no gravitational field,
Non sequitur.

Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
and expansion apart, spacetime is therefore flat.
Non-sequitur.

(Regarding me showing that the spatial sections throught the Schwarzschild solution exhibit negative curvature.)
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
No, it isn't.
Then you are using (useless) private definitions of curvature which no-one else in the field uses. According to the standard definitions as understood by every mathematician since Gauss and every physicist since Einstein the spatial sections through the Schwarzschild geometry have negative curvature.

(Regarding an explicit calculation done within the framework of GR, showing the existence of curvature in the spatial slices through the Schwarzschild solution.)
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
Wrong. See above. You defined your metre using the motion of light through space.
...
I'm sorry, but you simply don't know what you're talking about here. Whatever length standard you use will show the discrepancy in the circumference measurements I calculated. You can use the wavelength of light emitted in a particular atomic transition if you want, but you can also use mean travel distance of beta-decaying particles (with no e/m involved). It doesn't matter. The same formulae apply, because the curvature is actually there.
__________________
Join Team 13232 - Folding@Home

Last edited by ctamblyn; 29th July 2013 at 02:45 PM.
ctamblyn 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 29th July 2013, 02:46 PM   #1164
Farsight
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
Originally Posted by ctamblyn View Post
You do actively promote it, in the sense that you are more then merely mentioning as a possibility, you are claiming that it is the The Truth
Stop banging on about it. I give the explanation and the logic, and you can't offer anything to counter it apart from vague toroidal abstraction that fails to satisfy Toontown along with everybody else including yourself.

Originally Posted by ctamblyn
No, yet again, because expansion occurs in the infinite FLRW models too, and those have the great benefit of actually being solutions of the GR field equations, unlike your fantastical finite flat universe.
It isn't fantastical. WMAP etc evidence indicates that the universe is flat, and the standard model of cosmology does not say the early universe was infinite. And as I said, two out of three of those FLRW "solutions" are definitely wrong. They can't all be right. And it is a non-sequitur for you to insist that the flat solution demands an infinite universe that was even infinite when the big bang occurred.

Originally Posted by ctamblyn
The evidence is currently inadequate to answer that question definitively. However, you are attempting to shift the burden of proof. You claim the universe must be finite because (a) GR and (b) it is expanding, and you cannot support that claim (because it is utterly wrong).
I've explained it in simple terms that everybody can understand: GR features the stress-energy-momentum tensor. It has a pressure diagonal. Phil Plait likened dark energy to pressure. If the pressure is counterbalanced at all locations, expansion cannot occur. You have no counter to this. You are reduced to saying "utterly wrong". It cuts no ice.

Originally Posted by ctamblyn
Yep.
No, the infinite universe isn't consistent with the standard model of cosmology. If you think it is, please refer to a description of the such which features a universe that was already infinite when the big bang occurred, and then give your evidential or logical support for any such assertion. There isn't any, and you know it. Which is why I smell another "utterly wrong" coming on.
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 29th July 2013, 02:54 PM   #1165
ctamblyn
Data Ghost
 
ctamblyn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: The Library
Posts: 2,898
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
Stop banging on about it. I give the explanation...
You posted a lot of stuff, repeatedly. However, Friedmann, Lemaître, Robertson and Walker demolished your "explanation" with their explicit solutions to the GR field equations, long before the internet existed.

(As for the toroidal thing, I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up. That was a conversation between Toontown and I, which has already finished.)

Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
It isn't fantastical.
It is fantastical to claim that expansion proves the universe is finite within the framework of GR. Again, see: FLRW solutions.
__________________
Join Team 13232 - Folding@Home
ctamblyn 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 29th July 2013, 03:01 PM   #1166
Farsight
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa View Post
Hmm, I think I may have found at least part of the answer.

Is English not your native language, Farsight?
English is my first language. I'm John Duffield, I live in Poole. That's in England. I was born in Manchester. That's in England too.

Originally Posted by DeirenDopa
My statement again, with some added emphasis: Here's something mighty strange I've noticed, Farsight: as far as I can tell, these sorts of opinions are held by just one person (you).

In your reply, you stated that what I noticed (as far as I could tell), was "not true".

How can that be? Are you some kind of psychic? You have an insight into what I notice that I myself don't?

I see that this is, without a doubt, your firmly expressed opinion.

It is also not backed by any evidence. Can you point to even a single post which shows that a JREF member agrees with what you posted AND disagrees with what sol and/or RC posted? I had a look back over the last dozen or so pages of this thread and could not find any such posts.
You didn't do any such thing. If you did you would have seen edd's post on page 27, only three pages back. So your dishonesty is exposed. People do agree with me. Here, feast your eyes on this:

"this wouldn't be the first time I've expressed a small very carefully worded element of agreement with you".

When people agree with me, some have been forced to concede, whereupon they go quiet on us, Dopa. As ctamblyn will do shortly, when I force his confusion between curved space and curved spacetime down his throat. I can see from his latest post that he's getting desperate, bleating about "hand waving" and the like. So utterly unconvincing. You best not look Dopa, it isn't going to be pretty.

But ah, look at the time. Time for bed.
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 29th July 2013, 03:04 PM   #1167
ctamblyn
Data Ghost
 
ctamblyn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: The Library
Posts: 2,898
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
I can see from his latest post that he's getting desperate, bleating about "hand waving" and the like.
Well, how unfair of me to expect someone to actually support their questionable assertions with something more than cherry picking words out of a book title!

Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
See the title. It's the Geometry of Electromagnetic Systems. Electromagnetism involves geometry.
__________________
Join Team 13232 - Folding@Home

Last edited by ctamblyn; 29th July 2013 at 03:12 PM.
ctamblyn 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 29th July 2013, 03:18 PM   #1168
Farsight
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
Ah, now it's "cherry picking". Now that's a convincing counterargument.

I will nail you on your curved space error, ctamblyn. You would be best to concede now. People think more highly of people who say Sorry, my mistake. They don't think highly of people who demonstrate insincerity and keep digging themselves into a hole.

Anyway, like I said, time for bed, so mañana.
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 29th July 2013, 03:25 PM   #1169
ctamblyn
Data Ghost
 
ctamblyn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: The Library
Posts: 2,898
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
Ah, now it's "cherry picking". Now that's a convincing counterargument.
"Counterargument" would imply that I was responding to an actual argument. In fact, when asked to show that a book supported your position about the nature of electromagnetism, all you did was say "see the title!"

I suggest that is because you unable to show that the actual contents support you.
__________________
Join Team 13232 - Folding@Home

Last edited by ctamblyn; 29th July 2013 at 03:26 PM.
ctamblyn 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 29th July 2013, 03:41 PM   #1170
DeiRenDopa
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,582
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
English is my first language.
OK, so I guess the next best hypothesis for your - screamingly obvious - inability to understand simple English is that your reading comprehension is about the same as no better than that of a Grade 8 (?) student.

Quote:
I'm John Duffield, I live in Poole. That's in England. I was born in Manchester. That's in England too.
Yes, I see that you've said this.

Many times.

Quote:
Originally Posted by me
It is also not backed by any evidence. Can you point to even a single post which shows that a JREF member agrees with what you posted AND disagrees with what sol and/or RC posted? I had a look back over the last dozen or so pages of this thread and could not find any such posts.
You didn't do any such thing. If you did you would have seen edd's post on page 27, only three pages back. So your dishonesty is exposed.
Hmm, so that - I think - constitutes pretty darn good evidence for what I wrote.

Yes, edd did write that (and yes, I did see it).

However, it does not seem to be relevant.

Why?

Because of this: "AND disagrees with what sol and/or RC posted".

Farsight's reading comprehension 0, DeiRenDopa's statement 1.

Quote:
People do agree with me. Here, feast your eyes on this:

"this wouldn't be the first time I've expressed a small very carefully worded element of agreement with you".
Yeah, there's that reading comprehension thing again. Pesky, it is.

Of course, I could be quite wrong (I often am); it may well be that you engage in these sorts of 'quote out of context' games often, and coldly deliberately. It may well be that this is your MO, one that you've refined over many years.

Quote:
When people agree with me, some have been forced to concede,
[irrelevant text snipped]
I do not doubt that, not for one second.

However, it's completely unrelated, and irrelevant, to what I wrote. Honestly, what would you rate your own reading comprehension level to be? Grade 6?
DeiRenDopa 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 29th July 2013, 03:50 PM   #1171
ctamblyn
Data Ghost
 
ctamblyn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: The Library
Posts: 2,898
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
I will nail you on your curved space error, ctamblyn.
Sure. Let's make sure we remember where we are in the morning.

1. I claimed that spatial sections through the Schwarzschild geometry have negative curvature.

2. You claimed that it wasn't actually spatial curvature.

3. I showed how GR predicts a departure from Euclidean-ness in the spatial part of metric, using a measurement which doesn't depend on clocks.

4. You tried to claim that my rods were dependent on the motion of light through space.

5. I pointed out that many choices of rod are possible, not just light-based ones, and all will agree because they are all responding to the same curvature of the same space.

For a ruler, just to avoid confusion, I will use a near-monochromatic source of neutral delta baryons, and measure the distance they need to travel before half the the particles have decayed via the strong force. That way we get a perfectly good ruler without needing to appeal to electromagnetic interactions.
__________________
Join Team 13232 - Folding@Home
ctamblyn 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 29th July 2013, 05:19 PM   #1172
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
Yes. Of course I do. I've understood it for decades.
That is strange because you seem ignorant about this "kid's stuff" having of space-time intervalsbeing positive, zero or negative.
You need to read the question again:
Do you now understand the meaning of Space-time interval and its values (positive, zero and negative)?
First asked 26 July 2013 - 4 days and counting.

Wow, Farsight. Your answer to
Farsight: Do you now understand the meaning of infinity?
is to cite the Wikipedia article I cite to you !
At last we will not longer see the mistake of treating infinity as a number from you.

Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
I've told you already. It's Einstein's Leyden Address where he referred to a gravitational field as inhomogeneous space.
That is wrong in so many ways, Farsight:
  • A speech is not a good source. A paper or text book is a good source.
  • That speech never mentions your claim that "a homogeneous universe is a flat universe"
Farsight: Source for "a homogeneous universe is a flat universe"
First asked 26 July 2013 - 4 days and counting.
Remember - "The statements are wrong" is an answer!

Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
1. Expansion
The inanity of a one word unsupported assertion should be obvious even to you, Farsight !
This is especially true when the standard cosmological models are of an infinite expanding universe so expansion is not evidence for finiteness.

Farsight: Can you list the evidence for a finite universe?
First asked 26 July 2013 - 4 days and counting.

Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
But I can say it can't be infinite, because if it was it couldn't expand.
...snipped irrelevant gibberish....
...snipped irrelevant stuff about black holes ....
Farsight Show mathematically that an infinite universe in GR cannot expand.
First asked 26 July 2013 - 4 days and counting.

Farsight: Support your assertion that GR conserves energy
First asked 26 July 2013 - 4 days and counting.
This is GR in general not the case of black holes.

Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
All: Reality Check will now say I haven't answered his questions at all, and will keep on repeating them.
All:
Reality Check actually says that Farsight wrote replies to all of the questions.
Reality Check actually says that Farsight answered a trivial part of 1 question (he knows the space-time intervals exist) and parroted a citation that I gave him. The rest of the replies are either wrong or irrelevant.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th July 2013, 05:29 PM   #1173
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
And like I said, the volume of the ball isn't negative.
Farsight, everyone knows that that volume of the ball is not negative - really needs a duh!

What everyone (except you evidently) knows is that Ricci curvature is not the volume of a ball . Read what you quote:"represents the amount by which the volume of a geodesic ball in a curved Riemannian manifold deviates from that of the standard ball in Euclidean space".
Which reminds me:
Farsight: Do you now understand the meaning of Ricci curvature? 26th July 2013 - 4 days and counting.
That is Ricci curvature represents a difference between volumes of 2 balls, not the volume of one of the 2 balls mentioned.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th July 2013, 05:39 PM   #1174
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
Wrong. If the energy-density is uniform, there is no gravity.
Wrong, Farsight.
A non zero "energy-density" always produces curvature of space-time. According to GR (and you!) curvature of space-time is gravity.
See this article on John Baez's website, where you can read this: "Similarly, in general relativity gravity is not really a 'force', but just a manifestation of the curvature of spacetime. Note: not the curvature of space, but of spacetime. The distinction is crucial."

Light always goes "straight", i.e. follows a geodesic.

Curvature of space-time is never caused by "delta" energy density - see the Einstein field equations where there is only the stress-energy tensor, not any difference between any energy densities.

ETA:
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
How an infinite universe can possible square with the standard model of cosmology absolutely beats me.
Luckily it does not beat cosmologists or people who actually learn about the standard model of cosmology.
The basic concept is quite simple. You first ask how can you define the size of a universe. The answer is that you cannot if the universe is infinite. So instead you basically look at distances between points which is good because
  • that is how the geometry of space-time is defined in GR (via metrics).
  • this includes finite universes.
Add in the assumptions that this infinite or finite universe is isotropic and homogeneous and there is an exact GR solution: Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric.

Last edited by Reality Check; 29th July 2013 at 05:52 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th July 2013, 01:11 AM   #1175
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,852
Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa View Post

(Regarding Mr. Duffield)

Of course, I could be quite wrong (I often am); it may well be that you engage in these sorts of 'quote out of context' games often, and coldly deliberately. It may well be that this is your MO, one that you've refined over many years.
You are not wrong. But no one here has been fooled; it's a tired debating tactic that has become quite transparent to all.
__________________
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 4th August 2013, 07:25 AM   #1176
lpetrich
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 762
About GR, Farsight thumps Einstein's Leyden Address as if it was some inspired book, inspired in the theological sense of the word. I think that Einstein was being less-than-precise in a nontechnical sort of lecture. Nontechnical expositions are *not* the primary statements of physical theories, and one will get into a *lot* of trouble by supposing that they are.

Even worse, rejecting Farsight's interpretations of Einstein's works he interprets as rejecting Einstein.

Farsight also notes the NIST page Current advances: The fine-structure constant and how it states that the FSC is a "running" constant. He ignores the details of its running, details that some of us have tried to explain to him, details mentioned in that page itself. He even waves away calculation of this running as somehow a distraction from the fact of the running itself.

That's the sort of arguments that I call arguing like a theologian.
lpetrich is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2013, 02:59 AM   #1177
Farsight
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
I'm no theologian, lpetrich. Au contraire, it was you who referred to intelligent design on the multiverse thread. There's just as much evidence for the multiverse as there is for intelligent design. And puhlease, I don't ignore details of running constants. I'm the one who is forever pointing them out. As for interpretations of Einstein, see arXiv. I'm no book thumper. You're the book thumper round here, I'm the skeptic.
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 5th August 2013, 05:47 PM   #1178
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
I'm no theologian, lpetrich. Au contraire, it was you who referred to intelligent design on the multiverse thread.
Not quite right, Farsight.
lpetrich's reference was to intelligently designed universes not the creationist intelligent design:
Originally Posted by lpetrich View Post
As to our Universe being intelligently designed, for all we know, our Universe could be part of a lab experiment in making universes. That is also consistent with the Universe being borderline habitable -- the experimenters haven't figured out a simple way to make a super habitable Universe.
This is a common speculation about the nature of the universe, i.e. the universe as a computer simulation. The nature of computer simulations is that they are usually run multiple times with different parameters and often in parallel. Thus "universe as a computer simulation" means many universes being simulated, i.e. a multiverse.

What you ignore about the details of running constants is a couple of basic facts.
  • Change the value of the running constants at zero energy and you change them for all energy.
  • We can think about universes with different running constants. This is usually expressed in terns such as "let us look at what happens in a universe where the fine-structure constant is different from our universe".

Last edited by Reality Check; 5th August 2013 at 05:48 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2013, 01:29 AM   #1179
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,852
Mr. Duffield is a man of dogma. There is no place for speculation in his universe of physics based on book titles, descriptive notes, speeches and pretty pictures.
__________________
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 6th August 2013, 02:25 AM   #1180
Farsight
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
So says the guy who started the multiverse thread.

RC: the universe is not some computer simulation!

Why is it that JREF is infested by cuckoo-in-the-nest suckers who believe in woo with such utter conviction that they reject simple straightforward relativity backed by Einstein references and hard scientific evidence? Answers on a postcard please.
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 6th August 2013, 02:41 AM   #1181
edd
Master Poster
 
edd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,120
People don't reject simple straightforward relativity. They reject your frequently erroneous misunderstanding of it.
__________________
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 6th August 2013, 06:43 AM   #1182
lpetrich
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 762
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
I'm no theologian, lpetrich. Au contraire, it was you who referred to intelligent design on the multiverse thread.
About Reality Check,
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
So says the guy who started the multiverse thread.
Farsight, those "arguments" are both ad hominems.

Quote:
RC: the universe is not some computer simulation!
Empty assertion. How would you be able to tell whether it is or not?

Quote:
Why is it that JREF is infested by cuckoo-in-the-nest suckers who believe in woo with such utter conviction that they reject simple straightforward relativity backed by Einstein references and hard scientific evidence? Answers on a postcard please.
Originally Posted by edd View Post
People don't reject simple straightforward relativity. They reject your frequently erroneous misunderstanding of it.
Quite correct.

Let's consider space and time.

Farsight:
Space is primary
Motion is primary
Time is secondary, being derived from space

Relativity:
Space and time are coequal, part of a space-time continuum
However, there are five types of direction:
  • Forward timelike
  • Backward timelike
  • Forward null (lightlike)
  • Backward null (lightlike)
  • Spacelike
Space-time can be split into space and time using an orthonormal set of 4 directions: 3 spacelike, 1 timelike

So Farsight's beliefs about space and time are contrary to relativity.
lpetrich 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 6th August 2013, 08:37 AM   #1183
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,852
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
So says the guy who started the multiverse thread.

RC: the universe is not some computer simulation!

Why is it that JREF is infested by cuckoo-in-the-nest suckers who believe in woo with such utter conviction that they reject simple straightforward relativity backed by Einstein references and hard scientific evidence? Answers on a postcard please.
So, you have succeeded in providing a demonstration of my point. You are not able to distinguish scientific speculation (the multiverse conjecture as described by Sussking -- an acomplisded physicists and cosmologist) from woo. This inability is a definitive characteristic of crackpots. Good job!
__________________
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 6th August 2013, 11:11 AM   #1184
ctamblyn
Data Ghost
 
ctamblyn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: The Library
Posts: 2,898
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
...
I will nail you on your curved space error, ctamblyn. You would be best to concede now. People think more highly of people who say Sorry, my mistake. They don't think highly of people who demonstrate insincerity and keep digging themselves into a hole.

Anyway, like I said, time for bed, so mañana.
Originally Posted by ctamblyn View Post
Sure. Let's make sure we remember where we are in the morning.

1. I claimed that spatial sections through the Schwarzschild geometry have negative curvature.

2. You claimed that it wasn't actually spatial curvature.

3. I showed how GR predicts a departure from Euclidean-ness in the spatial part of metric, using a measurement which doesn't depend on clocks.

4. You tried to claim that my rods were dependent on the motion of light through space.

5. I pointed out that many choices of rod are possible, not just light-based ones, and all will agree because they are all responding to the same curvature of the same space.

For a ruler, just to avoid confusion, I will use a near-monochromatic source of neutral delta baryons, and measure the distance they need to travel before half the the particles have decayed via the strong force. That way we get a perfectly good ruler without needing to appeal to electromagnetic interactions.
Ah, mañana. Always a day away, I guess.
__________________
Join Team 13232 - Folding@Home
ctamblyn 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 6th August 2013, 05:50 PM   #1185
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
RC: the universe is not some computer simulation!
Wow - a Nobel prize waits for you Farsight with your amazing proof that the universe is not a computer simulation !
Oh ... you do not have one .

Why is it that JREF is infested by at least one cuckoo-in-the-nest crank who cannot even read?
Farsight: There exists a common speculation about the universe is a computer simulation.
Simulated reality
Quote:
Simulated reality is the hypothesis that reality could be simulated—for example by computer simulation—to a degree indistinguishable from "true" reality, and may in fact be such a simulation. It could contain conscious minds which may or may not be fully aware that they are living inside a simulation.
The fact is that computer simulations can be run in parallel with differing parameters so the simulated reality hypothesis implies a multiverse.
This is related to Max Tegmark's Mathematical universe hypothesis.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2013, 05:55 PM   #1186
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Exclamation These questions are still outstanding Farsight

These questions are still outstanding Farsight:
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Do you now understand the meaning of Space-time interval and its values (positive, zero and negative)?
First asked 26 July 2013 - 4 12 days and counting.
...
Farsight: Source for "a homogeneous universe is a flat universe"
First asked 26 July 2013 - 4 12 days and counting.
Remember - "The statements are wrong" is an answer!
...
Farsight: Can you list the evidence for a finite universe?
First asked 26 July 2013 - 4 12 days and counting.

Farsight Show mathematically that an infinite universe in GR cannot expand.
First asked 26 July 2013 - 4 12 days and counting.

Farsight: Support your assertion that GR conserves energy
First asked 26 July 2013 - 4 12 days and counting.
This is GR in general not the case of black holes.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th August 2013, 12:05 PM   #1187
ctamblyn
Data Ghost
 
ctamblyn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: The Library
Posts: 2,898
Originally Posted by ctamblyn View Post
Ah, mañana. Always a day away, I guess.
It beginning to look like the promised response will never materialise, almost two weeks having passed since John Duffield claimed he could "nail" me on my "curved space error".

On a different Relativity+-related note, John Duffield, author of the 200-odd page self-published book after which this thread is named, has begun writing about his ideas on physics (its theories and its execution) in a regular Sunday spot on bogpaper.com:

Science Sundays with John Duffield - Fairytale Physics

Science Sundays with John Duffield - Bankrupting Physics

It's the usual mix of rants against the establishment, multiverse theories and Higgs mechanism, combined with his pet ideas about general relativity and electrodynamics.
__________________
Join Team 13232 - Folding@Home

Last edited by ctamblyn; 11th August 2013 at 12:08 PM.
ctamblyn 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 11th August 2013, 02:17 PM   #1188
edd
Master Poster
 
edd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,120
So this bogpaper is strongly associated with Delingpole?
__________________
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 11th August 2013, 02:25 PM   #1189
ctamblyn
Data Ghost
 
ctamblyn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: The Library
Posts: 2,898
Originally Posted by edd View Post
So this bogpaper is strongly associated with Delingpole?
Seems so:

YouTube - James Delingpole introduces Bogpaper.com (pt 1)
__________________
Join Team 13232 - Folding@Home
ctamblyn 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 11th August 2013, 04:10 PM   #1190
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Originally Posted by ctamblyn View Post
It's the usual mix of rants against the establishment, multiverse theories and Higgs mechanism, combined with his pet ideas about general relativity and electrodynamics.
A quick look does see the usual rants, e.g. thinking that an established scientists like Jim Baggott does not know about the purpose of peer-review (as a filter of obviously wrong science). Instead John Duffield gets a bit paranoid by accusing peer-review of "muzzling the press"!

The Fairytale Physics gives a good list of the fairy tales that John Duffield believes in.
  • A delusion that that mathematics of GR and waterfalls being similar cannot lead to the waterfall analogy.
  • The usual obsession with Einstein (as if scientific progress in relativity stopped with him)!
  • Lying about Einstein, e.g. "He said the speed of light was constant in 1905, but retracted that in 1911 and never went back".
    As any undergraduate physics student knows, Special Relativity (1905) has the postulate that the speed of light is constant in an inertial frame of reference. General Relativity (1915) has the same postulate locally and allows the coordinate speed of light to vary globally.
  • John Duffield is mistaken about Wikipedia where Pair production does not contain his quoted text. The Wikipedia article is faithful to the actual physics:
    Quote:
    Pair production refers to the creation of an elementary particle and its antiparticle, usually when a photon (or another neutral boson) interacts with a nucleus or another boson.
    .
  • What does contain his quoted text is Two-photon physics
    Quote:
    Two-photon physics, also called gamma-gamma physics, is a branch of particle physics that describes the interactions between two photons. If the energy at the center of mass system of the two photons is large enough, matter can be created.[1]
    ...
    A photon can, within the bounds of the uncertainty principle, fluctuate into a charged fermion-antifermion pair, to either of which the other photon can couple.
    This is basic physics - the uncertainly principle means that any particle can become a particle-anti-particle pair.
  • Based on this ignorance, he then goes onto a rant about virtual particles (not involved in actual particle production!). This is just a semantic argument. People who know what virtual particles are know that they are not actually particles - they are excitations of the underlying field.
  • Later John Duffield has a similar rant about electrons being point particles.
    QED treats electrons as point particles -that is the physics, John Duffield, it works - live with it !
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th August 2013, 11:27 PM   #1191
lpetrich
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 762
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
A quick look does see the usual rants, e.g. thinking that an established scientists like Jim Baggott does not know about the purpose of peer-review (as a filter of obviously wrong science). Instead John Duffield gets a bit paranoid by accusing peer-review of "muzzling the press"!
"How persecuted I am!"
Originally Posted by Martin Gardner
Consider the following quotation: "To me truth is precious.... I should rather be right and stand alone than to run with the multitude and be wrong... . The holding of the views herein set forth has already won for me the scorn and contempt and ridicule of some of my fellowmen. I am looked upon as being odd, strange, peculiar. ... But truth is truth and though all the world reject it and turn against me, I will cling to truth still."

These sentences are from the preface of a booklet, published in 1931, by Charles Silvester de Ford, of Fairfield, Washington, in which he proves the earth is flat. Sooner or later, almost every pseudo-scientist expresses similar sentiments.
From his 1952/1956 book Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science.
lpetrich 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 12th August 2013, 02:08 AM   #1192
Farsight
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
There's a lot of issues with the Standard Model, more than people appreciate. lpetrich's summary doesn't even come close to getting this across. That's not to say the standard model is all wrong, it's more like it's woefully, abysmally, incomplete.

For an example of this, take a look at two-photon physics on Wikipedia. It concerns something called gamma-gamma pair production, where we convert light into matter. The article is faithful to the standard model when it says this: “A photon can, within the bounds of the uncertainty principle, fluctuate into a charged fermion-antifermion pair, to either of which the other photon can couple”.

But think about it. That’s saying pair production occurs because pair production occurs, spontaneously, like worms from mud. And that a photon of light, a single wave, spends its time constantly morphing into an electron and a positron, which then magically morph back into a single photon, which nevertheless manages to keep on going at the speed of light! It just isn’t true. QED and the standard model employ virtual particles as “field quanta”, they’re like accounting units. They’re virtual particles, not real particles. A photon doesn’t really turn into a real electron-positron pair all on its own all the time.

The upshot is that the standard model doesn't offer any explanation of how pair production works, and it doesn't tell you what the electron is. Instead it cops out with "the electron is an excitation of the electron field" along with "the electron is a fundamental particle". This is like a hole you can drive a coach and horses through. Fill this hole and you reduce the number of free parameters by deriving electron mass, and you improve the model, and take it from there. But for some strange reason this sort of thing tends to be totally overlooked, and theoretical physicists then build on non-existent foundations and propose things like SUSY along with selectrons etc. This is futile when you don't have an electron model in the standard model. It's "fairytale physics".
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 12th August 2013, 03:23 AM   #1193
edd
Master Poster
 
edd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,120
From another thread
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
The upshot is that the standard model doesn't offer any explanation of how pair production works, and it doesn't tell you what the electron is. Instead it cops out with "the electron is an excitation of the electron field" along with "the electron is a fundamental particle". This is like a hole you can drive a coach and horses through. Fill this hole and you reduce the number of free parameters by deriving electron mass, and you improve the model, and take it from there. But for some strange reason this sort of thing tends to be totally overlooked, and theoretical physicists then build on non-existent foundations and propose things like SUSY along with selectrons etc. This is futile when you don't have an electron model in the standard model. It's "fairytale physics".
Farsight, if you can derive the electron mass then I think people would sit up and take notice a bit more. Please, go ahead. I trust you won't try to use Worsley numerology.
__________________
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 12th August 2013, 05:17 AM   #1194
Farsight
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
I can't add much to what Andrew Worsley came up with, edd. And if I could, people wouldn't sit up and take notice. lpetrich would call me a theologian, ctamblyn would call me a crackpot, and Reality Check would accuse me of ranting. There's always some diversionary ad-hominems from the fairy-tale quacks to deter you from the real physics.

I hope you liked my little articles by the way. Farewell to Reality and Bankrupting Physics are two books that I'd definitely recommend.
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 12th August 2013, 05:19 AM   #1195
ctamblyn
Data Ghost
 
ctamblyn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: The Library
Posts: 2,898
Originally Posted by edd View Post
From another thread

Farsight, if you can derive the electron mass then I think people would sit up and take notice a bit more. Please, go ahead. I trust you won't try to use Worsley numerology.
Another approach to avoid would be "the electron mass is 511 keV because it is a self-trapped photon of a particular frequency, and it has to be that particular frequency because otherwise the energy wouldn't be 511 keV." Yes, that argument has been used in this very thread.

ETA:

Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
I can't add much to what Andrew Worsley came up with, edd.
I don't think anyone can add anything constructive to Worsley's numerology. It makes Eddington's numerology look halfway respectable.
__________________
Join Team 13232 - Folding@Home

Last edited by ctamblyn; 12th August 2013 at 05:24 AM.
ctamblyn 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 12th August 2013, 05:39 AM   #1196
edd
Master Poster
 
edd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,120
Indeed. I mean I have come to expect some pretty bad physics from Farsight, but refusing to distance himself from that boggling standard of wrongness for such an extended period of time really takes the biscuit. It's not hard to understand why Worsley cannot be right.

It is damning evidence against you, Farsight, that you cannot see why the chance of Worsley's formula being correct is precisely zero.
__________________
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 12th August 2013, 06:25 AM   #1197
Farsight
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
We'll have to agree to differ on this, edd. To restate my position, Wheeler referred to the geon, which is "an electromagnetic or gravitational wave which is held together in a confined region by the gravitational attraction of its own field energy". But as we know, he was confused about curved space v curved spacetime, and didn’t follow it through using displacement current.

The typical electromagnetic sine wave is the spatial and time derivatives of a “hump” of four-potential, see this picture. Midway along the hump where the E and M sine waves go to zero, four-potential is at a maximum. You can liken it to a guitar-string wire. The elastic properties of the wire are analogous to ε0 and μ0 which combine as c=√(1/ε0μ0) akin to the mechanics expression v=√(G/ρ). The reduced Planck's constant ħ relates to the "pluck" or displacement, since action is momentum times distance. The fine structure constant α=e²/4πε0ħc gives the ratio of electromagnetic versus strong coupling, and is like “how easy it is to bend the wire versus stretching it”. Note that α includes the Coulomb constant 1/4πε0 which relates to the area of a sphere. Because what you need to do is not just bend a wire into a circle, but curve a lattice of wires representing space into something resembling a sphere. Then it's something like a "closed string".

You know from atomic orbitals that "electrons exist as standing waves". And you know that Planck length is l=√(ћG/c³). Replace √(ћG) with 4πn where n is a suitable value. Now set n to 1, and work out 4πn/√(c³). There’s a bit of a binding energy adjustment to make related to the g-factor, but there's the electron Compton wavelength. Take the usual steps from that to frequency to energy to mass. Note that changing your definition of c to furlongs per annum doesn't actually change the Planck length, and nor does it change the speed of light, or Planck's constant, or the electron Compton wavelength.

Have a read of the Watt balance section of the wikipedia kilogram article, wherein the proposal is to define the kilogram using h and c and not much else. If you can do that for the kilogram, you should be able to do something similar for electron mass too. As I've said before, Andrew Worsley might not have everything quite right, but the wave nature of matter is beyond doubt, as is spherical harmonics. I think the guy is onto something, and that we're dealing with spherical harmonics* and thus ratios for the particles themselves. After all, a particle is sometimes called a "resonance".


* Or toroidal harmonics. See Dirac's belt along with rounding the electron, which indicates that it has a toroidal topology and a spherical geometry. Something like a twisted inner tube inflated so much it looks not just apple-like, but spherical. Only it has no surface, it's just field variation going at c in a standing-wave or stationary configuration that yields a standing field. Guys like lpetrich will call me a crackpot for this, and then he'll tell you all about the multiverse.

Last edited by Farsight; 12th August 2013 at 06:27 AM.
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 12th August 2013, 06:53 AM   #1198
edd
Master Poster
 
edd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,120
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
We'll have to agree to differ on this, edd.
That's an understatement.
Quote:
Replace √(ћG) with 4πn where n is a suitable value. Now set n to 1, and work out 4πn/√(c³).
No, don't do that. It won't work.

I will work out 4πn/√(c³) for you though. It's 2.418x10-12 s1.5/m1.5. Does that look like a wavelength to you?
It certainly doesn't to me. The Compton wavelength is 2.426x10-12 m. Do you see the difference? Hint: it's not 8x10-15.

You are right that
Quote:
Note that changing your definition of c to furlongs per annum doesn't actually change the Planck length, and nor does it change the speed of light, or Planck's constant, or the electron Compton wavelength.
This is because the formulae for them aren't dimensionally incorrect, like Worsley's are.
__________________
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 12th August 2013, 06:54 AM   #1199
ctamblyn
Data Ghost
 
ctamblyn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: The Library
Posts: 2,898
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
...
You know from atomic orbitals that "electrons exist as standing waves". And you know that Planck length is l=√(ћG/c³). Replace √(ћG) with 4πn where n is a suitable value. Now set n to 1, and work out 4πn/√(c³). There’s a bit of a binding energy adjustment to make related to the g-factor, but there's the electron Compton wavelength.
...
Let's remove all the obfuscation. What you're saying amounts to this: if you invent a new parameter (n = 1.0 m2.5s-1.5) you can almost write another parameter (the electron Compton wavelength) in terms of it (ETA: ) and a hand-picked selection of other constants. However, even with the unlimited powers of nonsense in play you (or Worsley) got the value wrong and had to pretend that one can fudge it into correctness with a "binding energy adjustment", which you know full well you can't calculate. This is about as underwhelming as things get.

ETA: I see I was more generous than edd, in putting the units of n in for you. As written, your argument is even wronger than I took it to be.


ETAA:

n = 3.1 x 107 mm2.5s-1.5.

Somehow, that doesn't look as special in terms of millimetres, does it?
__________________
Join Team 13232 - Folding@Home

Last edited by ctamblyn; 12th August 2013 at 08:17 AM.
ctamblyn 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 12th August 2013, 07:54 AM   #1200
ctamblyn
Data Ghost
 
ctamblyn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: The Library
Posts: 2,898
I'm not sure whether this has been posted in this thread before, but here xkcd demonstrates just what you can achieve by mucking around with factors of e, pi and so forth. The electron/proton mass ratio approximation, good to 1 part in 5,000,000, puts Worsley's effort to shame:

__________________
Join Team 13232 - Folding@Home

Last edited by ctamblyn; 12th August 2013 at 08:03 AM. Reason: Spoiler tags
ctamblyn 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 03:59 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, 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.