whether they are accurate can be sorted out later on, he provides such an easy conceptual route into a broad range of physics that usually takes years for each aspect..im not bothered to think some "time" needs to be put aside later to check it out.ChildInAZoo wrote:Given some of the very gross inaccuracies in his posts, I think it would be unwise to base your knowledge of physics on what Farsight has written.Mr Jobby wrote:No problem..we should be paying you for these lessons.
If you are recalling events from the past or planning into the future, a whole cascade of events you are unaware off, takes over your present orientation. i.e. Your processing of whats going on now. You want to remember how to carry out a complex task like rebuild an engine for example, which is a bit fuzzy, as the last time was ten years ago.LaMont Cranston wrote:MrJobby, From what I can tell, you totally misunderstood what I'm writing about. If you're remembering the past or considering possibilities for the future, you are experiencing that in present time. When you make reference to "present orientation," that sounds a lot like woo. Or, if I'm incorrect about this, can you please tell me exactly how considering the past or the future are actually experienced any other time and place than here and now?
As you can see the past and future, requires recruiting other parts of the brain that produce different kinds of consciousness, than taking in whats going on right now. The recall and planning recruited by these can then impinge on each others reality and so changes in reality will exist outside your mind as a result. Say the engine you built turns out to be capable of powering a ship to go to the sun and set of a bomb, which then alters our gravitational orbit, one shared reference point of time can be altered by the different types of consciousness enabled by the past and future facilities of our brain.Among the questions I asked is whether or not the concept of past and future require consciousness. Once again, the state of the cosmos, at this very moment, is what it is. It exists as it exists. Do you think that the concept of past or future orientation exist outside of our consciousness? If your answer is "yes," just how do those things exist?
It's just a 'what-if?'. What-ifs are perfectly legitimate in science, we'd be lost without them. In any case, the scenario is not ruled out by the theory, it's ruled out by the real-life limit of c. The theory then rules it out because of that limit. So it's circular really, I'm saying 'what if L2 existed, that wasn't limited by c?' and you're effectively saying 'it's impossible because c is the limit'.ChildInAZoo wrote: OK, so you are basing your view of what "REAL reality" is on a science fiction scenario ruled out by our best theory of space and time.
I'd say no. What exists exists. The past doesn't actually exist, and nor does the future. The future is a mental or mathematical construct that is undoubtedly a valuable idea, and we do need to be able to plan and predict for our own well-being. But people do rather think of it as something we're travelling into at the rate of one second per second. They think of it as the "place" that we're heading towards. This is a false concept. What actually exists is space and motion through it. The thing we call the future is this selfsame space, but wherein things have moved to different places within it.LaMont Cranston wrote:If this is true, do the past and the future require consciousness to exist? Do these other tenses of time exist outside the mind of somebody's subjectivity? The state of the cosmos is what it is at this moment...what exists exists...but, above and beyond that, do the past and future exist?
LaMont Cranston wrote:If this is true, do the past and the future require consciousness to exist? Do these other tenses of time exist outside the mind of somebody's subjectivity? The state of the cosmos is what it is at this moment...what exists exists...but, above and beyond that, do the past and future exist?
It isn't saying that, mistermack. That just what people say it says. Read The Other Meaning of Special Relativity by Robert A Close, and don't forget that SR was subsumed by GR, and then Godel and Einstein got to the bottom of time in 1949.mistermack wrote:Farsight, I accept all that. It's exactly what I've thought all along. BUT, SR is saying that I'm a ring, I'm a short cylinder, I'm a million billion different cylinders all simultaneously. That's my problem.
Farsight, you got it all backward. Time is not a byproduct of motion, it's the motion that is used to measure time. The "motion" being something that changes as a function of time, preferably cyclically.Farsight wrote:This is an axiomatic assumption, and it's wrong. Look at the official definition of the second and the NIST fountain clock. We count 9,192,631,770 incoming microwave peaks and then we define a second. Time is defined using the motion of light. When the light moves slower, the second is bigger. You might try to say the motion of light is nothing to do with it, and point back to the hyperfine transition of the caesium atom.lpetrich wrote:However, motion is defined in terms of time...
Which you interpret as meaning that electrons have tiny sort-of-gyroscopes in them. Without bothering to try to explain why the Dirac equation works so well for electrons, other charged leptons, and quarks. Neutrinos are a special case; they could follow a similar sort of equation, the Majorana equation, or they could follow a mixture of the two.But the hyperfine transition is an electron spin-flip, the Einstein-de Haas effect, where a current rotates a coil, tells us "spin angular momentum is indeed of the same nature as the angular momentum of rotating bodies as conceived in classical mechanics".
I ought to read it again I suppose. But I'm a little reticent anyway to be too critical of a guy like that on a public forum. As far as I can recall he made a genuine attempt to offer understanding, and doesn't come over in the same way as some of the other self-promotional celebrity "gurus" one finds on one's TV. Naming no names, of course!Brain Man wrote:Barbour doesn't do away with time completely. He states that time is localized into capsules by common points of reference he calls alpha points within a space called platonia and time is motion within that referenced to the alpha point. So thats useful in itself, but i get the impression he takes it too far and does away with time completely for a cocktail of intellectual challenge and perhaps there may be a touch of scientific sensation seeking in there, whether public or personal is anybody's guess.
Heck, no need. It's a discussion forum promoting rationality, and it's good to talk.Brain Man wrote:No problem..we should be paying you for these lessons.
There are no gross inaccuracies in my posts. If there were, then they would have been pointed out.ChildInAZoo wrote:Given some of the very gross inaccuracies in his posts, I think it would be unwise to base your knowledge of physics on what Farsight has written.
I haven't got it backwards, lpetrich. Look above at how we define time. We really do define it using motion. When we "measure time", what we're actually measuring, is motion. Clocks clock up motion, not time. You can't see time, you can't see time flowing, you can't see any "travel through time". Hold your hand up a metre apart. There's a gap between them. A space. You can see this. Now waggle your hands. Make them move. You can see this too. You can see space and motion through it. Hence you assign the primacy not to time, but to motion, because you can see it.lpetrich wrote:Farsight, you got it all backward. Time is not a byproduct of motion, it's the motion that is used to measure time. The "motion" being something that changes as a function of time, preferably cyclically.Farsight wrote:This is an axiomatic assumption, and it's wrong. Look at the official definition of the second and the NIST fountain clock. We count 9,192,631,770 incoming microwave peaks and then we define a second. Time is defined using the motion of light. When the light moves slower, the second is bigger. You might try to say the motion of light is nothing to do with it, and point back to the hyperfine transition of the caesium atom.lpetrich wrote:However, motion is defined in terms of time...
It can't be worked out mathematically. Mathematical expressions are great at telling you how terms relate to one another, but they don't actually tell you what the terms really mean, and they don't give you a picture of the underlying reality. Take a simple little expression like E=mc². Now, ask yourself What is Energy? and What is Mass? and What is c? or What is C? Mathematics doesn't give you the answers. Instead it gives you circular definitions like Energy is the Capacity to do Work and Work is the Transfer of Energy. It tells you what it does, not what it is. And it gives you mysteries too.lpetrich wrote:Farsight, why don't you try to work it out mathematically? You won't get taken seriously unless you can do at least as well as mainstream physics in getting LOTS of VERY precise numbers.
I didn't say that. I said the electron is literally made from light, and the scientific evidence for that is pair production. Then I said the electron exhibits magnetic dipole moment, which is a display of real rotation. Then I said that the Stern-Gerlach experiment fits with two spin components in two orientations, and the Einstein-de Haas effect demonstrates that spin angular momentum is indeed of the same nature as the angular momentum of rotating bodies as conceived in classical mechanics. You're disregarding this scientific evidence in favour of what? Other scientific evidence? No. You dismiss it in favour of what you think you know.lpetrich wrote:Which you interpret as meaning that electrons have tiny sort-of-gyroscopes in them.
It's the first time it's come up here, and I've got to explain other simpler things first, like t and E and m and c and C and G.lpetrich wrote:Without bothering to try to explain why the Dirac equation works so well for electrons, other charged leptons, and quarks.
Yes, pesky neutrinos muddy the waters. Perhaps interestingly (or perhaps not!) nowadays I'm seeing the neutrino as more like a photon than an electron. I found Joao Magueijo's book A Brilliant Darkness on Majorana an interesting read.lpetrich wrote:Neutrinos are a special case; they could follow a similar sort of equation, the Majorana equation, or they could follow a mixture of the two.
The 'qualitative' accounts supplied by Farsight add up to precisely 0. Conceptual routes were dropped by science about 400 years ago. Current models are under test...Brain Man wrote:whether they are accurate can be sorted out later on, he provides such an easy conceptual route into a broad range of physics that usually takes years for each aspect..im not bothered to think some "time" needs to be put aside later to check it out.ChildInAZoo wrote:Given some of the very gross inaccuracies in his posts, I think it would be unwise to base your knowledge of physics on what Farsight has written.Mr Jobby wrote:No problem..we should be paying you for these lessons.
The Standard model has 3 neutrino generations (electron, muon, tau). Their invariant mass is tiny. How many neutrino groups are there in total? What are their properties? How does 1 test this twist-turn model against observations, Farsight?Farsight wrote:Yes, pesky neutrinos muddy the waters.
Since your (“pair creation”) model requires “the sacred distinction between matter and antimatter” do you feel obliged to incorporate supersymmetry next?We are at an amazing moment in the history of particle physics. The Higgs boson, the mysterious object that fills our universe and disturbs particles, will be found sometime this decade, and evidence for neutrino mass appears very strong. The Standard Model, which was established in late 1970s and has withstood all experimental tests, has finally been found to be incomplete. To incorporate neutrino mass into the theory – and to explain why it is so small – requires major changes to the Standard Model. We may need to invoke extra dimensions or we may need to abandon the sacred distinction between matter and antimatter. If the latter is the case, neutrino mass may reveal the very origins of our existence. One thing is certain, we are sure to learn a lot more about neutrinos in the coming years.
LaMont Cranston wrote:colubridae, I'm glad you're enjoying the ride! Like I've told you before...in "past time orientation"...whatever the fuck that is..."I can float like a butterfly and sting like a bee..."
Of course, Muhammed Ali said that.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests
