Speed of Light and Energy...?

[colubridae]

I'm proposing a new syndrome, very widespread, and I'm calling it the '' Child in a Zoo Syndrome'' . Children in zoos pull faces and mock Lions and Tigers when they are seperated by four inch toughened glass, or steel bars.
It's the same online, the mildest people become agressive and insulting, when they are protected by the anonymity of a forum.
It's the same behind the steering wheel, people rant and rave, but as soon as they are face to face with someone, they couldn't be more polite.
I include myself in those observations, but I do try to fight it.
Farsight may be right or wrong, but boy I admire his restraint.

Fuck me I just figured it out! It was sarcasm....
Dude really…


I am deeply, deeply, deeply, deeply hurt

The gravitational field I cartooned is roughly morphologically correct.
The MM face is my little whimsy.
The idea that I would ridicule someone whose ideas I respect.


No-one is forcing hyperopia to post.
Once again, if he is correct then FS go get that nobel prize.

You still decline to answer my question?

[Twiglet]

The mickeymouse field... a personal friend of the FSM. Less well known, perhaps, but gaining a following all the same.

[Twiglet]

...The farsight paradox can be seen operating in many other scientific fields and disciplines, where non-scientific fantasy theories have been wrapped up in scientific jargon and gained a wide following. The most obvious of these is Intelligent design, but perhaps the most successful has the the climate change deniers movement, whose publicist has been so successful that around 20% of laypeople changed their opinions on the causes of global warming, in the US, in the last year alone...

Shrug. You can't deal with the science, you can't explain anything, and you resent anybody who can because this presents some form of challenge to your perceived status. So out come the ad-hominems. Why do supposedly rational scientific people feel the need to do this? Do try to address the scientific evidence and the peer-reviewed papers along with the logical argument. If you can't, fine, but being abusive makes you sound convictional and dogmatic, not me.

Now guys, can we please try to have a sincere discussion here?

I am being dogmatic about relativity, you're quite right. That's because it's an established theory with an enormous base of experimental evidence to support it. I actually have proved something in this thread - that the KE added in a closed classical system is independent of the speed of the observer. A mathematical proof using the conservation of Energy & Momentum.

As opposed to your random cut/paste of wiki articles which don't even support your ideas.

Suggesting that your ideas only gain traction amongst people without a relevant research background isn't an adhominem, it's a statement of the bleedin'-obvious, which is why nobody with any credibility will publish them. There is a difference between abusing you and abusing your ideas, but I'm beyond abusing your ideas in this thread or the other two in which you've been parading them. They have degenerated in my estimation to willful acts of misrepresentation for which the most appropriate responses are scorn and humour.

NB Is mistermack a sockpuppet of farsight? Can someone with the ability to check please do so?

[mistermack]

Two things wrong with this. Firstly, it has not been established that time began at the big bang, and indeed the idea has been increasingly falling out of favour in recent years. Secondly, and as has been stated, the universe has no centre, not of gravity, nor of anything else.

I would say that it has been established that time began with the big bang, and dis-established again. If you're talking about the 'established position'.
I never believed it, nor that everything arose from nothing, so I'll wait for the established position on that.
If the Universe is not infinite, the four dimensional spacetime universe will have a centre of mass, which is a theoretical point. Until other dimensions are proved to exist anyway. I've looked before, and found nothing that showed or proved otherwise.

That bit about nothing really touching is another straw man, it's not what I was saying. I was argueing that saying there is 'no space' is a meaningless concept, unless you can show that there is a type of 'nothing' that can still occupy distances, even if it contains no spacetime.

No, because I'm not saying there is no space in the centre, but that there is no centre.

I would appreciate any references for that. ( I'm not arguing here, I really would like to read on it ). I searched before and found nothing.
To me, a theoretical centre is still a centre, even if we could never interact with it.
If the big bang theory is correct, we interact with it in the time dimension.

Twiglet, don't waste your time. I know nothing about farsight, and not much past A level phyics. My real interest is human evolution, but I enjoy the concepts of physics.

I liked the Dawkins site, till it closed, but got irritated with the level of some of the debating, and that's what did for that site. That's why I made those comments, nothing to do with farsight.
If you want intelligent people to read what you write, I think you have to make it to the point and a bit more adult, otherwise you just end up yakking to each other like kids between lessons.
I think Timonen had the right idea, even if he did make a pigs ear of it.

[colubridae]

Twiglet, don't waste your time. I know nothing about farsight, and not much past A level phyics. My real interest is human evolution, but I enjoy the concepts of physics.

I liked the Dawkins site, till it closed, but got irritated with the level of some of the debating, and that's what did for that site. That's why I made those comments, nothing to do with farsight.

Definitely...
Being a sockpuppet would be telling lies
and everyone knows when you tell a lie baby jesus cries.

If you want intelligent people to read what you write, I think you have to make it to the point and a bit more adult, otherwise you just end up yakking to each other like kids between lessons.

Absolutely.
But of course if you post drivel. People will pour derision and scorn on it.
By my count:-

mass field.jpg (51.38 KiB) Viewed 1573 times

Needs three near singularities.

I think Timonen had the right idea, even if he did make a pigs ear of it.

Fucking ace hockey player too…

[Farsight]

Twiglet, I'm John Duffield, I'm not mistermack, and the relativity I describe is faithful to Einstein. I prove it via references to what he actually said, along with the experimental evidence that backs this up. I would ask you to be rational and examine the material on offer and discuss it instead of slinging ad-hominem accusations in a vain attempt to discredit merely because you've been taught something different. This is a rational discussion forum, not a faith school.

[Twiglet]

Twiglet, I'm John Duffield, I'm not mistermack, and the relativity I describe is faithful to Einstein. I prove it via references to what he actually said, along with the experimental evidence that backs this up. I would ask you to be rational and examine the material on offer and discuss it instead of slinging ad-hominem accusations in a vain attempt to discredit merely because you've been taught something different. This is a rational discussion forum, not a faith school.

***Yawn***...

yes you are right farsight... it all makes much so much sense.... which is why you've been published in all theright places and have a string of Nobel prizes to your name

As for ad hominems, I have, until now, steered clear of them. You are a troll farsight, of the weirdest kind. A physics fanboi troll, which I have to say puts you in a rare cateogry of being utterly weird.

Do you argue with designers at Intel over how to manufacture transistors on microchips? Perhaps you prefer hassling structural engineers about where to position the cables on suspension bridges? Or do you just confine your idiocy to whining endlessly at physicists about how you have "reunderstood" relativity.

Reunderstood is rather a generous concession actually. The evidence so far suggests you didnt understand it in the first place.

Abba Eban has the perfect quote for you "His ignorance is encyclopedic. "

Now *THAT* is an ad hominem, you pathetic dropkick

[FBM]

Gee, wouldn't this be a great thread if we had less SARCASM and more REASONING?

[Twiglet]

Gee, wouldn't this be a great thread if we had less SARCASM and more REASONING?

There's been about 8 pages of reasoning.

If this thread was about evolution, and farsight was advocating intelligent design, how long would forum members be expected to stay reasonable?

The subject matter is more opaque, I guess, but the analogy holds well enough.

[FBM]

I would hope and expect everyone to remain reasonable as long as the thread lasted. In serious discussion, sarcasm only muddies the water. Sarcasm is fine in non-serious discussion threads, but here it does nothing but reduce the discussion to playground politics and dick-waving.

Anyway...back to serious discussion of speed of light and energy, anyone?????

[Twiglet]

I would hope and expect everyone to remain reasonable as long as the thread lasted. In serious discussion, sarcasm only muddies the water. Sarcasm is fine in non-serious discussion threads, but here it does nothing but reduce the discussion to playground politics and dick-waving.

Anyway...back to serious discussion of speed of light and energy, anyone?????

Sure, here is a direct quote from wiki which explains why the speed of light constitutes an absolute limt:

Upper limit on speeds

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_l ... _on_speeds

According to special relativity, the energy of an object with rest mass m and speed v is given by γmc2, where γ is the Lorentz factor defined above. When v is zero, γ is equal to one, giving rise to the famous E = mc2 formula for mass-energy equivalence. Since the γ factor approaches infinity as v approaches c, it would take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate an object with mass to the speed of light. The speed of light is the upper limit for the speeds of objects with positive rest mass.

Here is the graphical representation of same (click link)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lorentz_factor.svg

The rest of this "discussion" is just delibaration between farsights fantasy and modern science.

Have at it.

[FBM]

Just off the top of my grey matter, I'd first be interested in discussing the work done on the possible superluminal communication between paired (entangled) particles. I'd cite something such as:

http://www.hep.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/ ... 240_86.pdf

[Twiglet]

Just off the top of my grey matter, I'd first be interested in discussing the work done on the possible superluminal communication between paired (entangled) particles. I'd cite something such as:

http://www.hep.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/ ... 240_86.pdf

I skimmed the paper, and the importanrt aspects to draw from it are around page 32, V & VI.

The experiment is essentially a test of Bells hypothesis, with suggestions for an experimental setup, Ill explain in a moment, but it's ***really*** important in the context of this thread to understand something about what is inferred by "superluminal" here - it is not the movement of a particle, necessarily, but the transfer of information. Bell hypothesis tests were an attempt to bring QM back towards determinism. Anyway here goes.

QP states that when pair production occurs, particules produced have opposite spins (to conserve angular momentum) but.. the state of a particles spin is described by a wave function until a measurement takes place. Assuming you let the particles drift apart, then measure one, how does the other particle "know" what direction to spin in, given that it would need to acquire the information from the collapsing wavefront faster than the speed of light?

Classically, there is no problem, because on pair production one spins one way, and the other spins the opposite way and it's just that simple, but in Quantum mechanics, prior to measurement, both particles spin both ways with equal probability and are only constrained to spin one way with 100% certainty when a meausrement takes place.

One "solution" to this was to propose a faster-than-light transfer of information in order to sustain the inherent randomness required by Quantum theory.

Bells theorem sets out to prove that there are "no hidden variables" - you can find a paper on it here, http://quantumtantra.com/bell2.html

[colubridae]

Fine FBM,

If you want to play the game..

explain what causes the photon to follow the 'hubius helix' geodesic.

it's here

http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 75#p438336


Mickey's ear-singularities cause the orbits on the 'limbs' of the helix. His head singularity causes the bend across the ‘limbs’.

That’s understandable.

So the simple ‘reasoning’ task for you now is where did the singularities come from?
Why have they not coalesced?
Why is the photon exactly balanced in this gyration?

And remember hyperopia will take no notice of any physics you use

That’s for starters.

Never mind ‘time doesn’t exist it’s all motion’

Let's see if you manage without sarcasm.

[Farsight]

I'm not fond of superluminal transfers. There is the "no time passes for the photon" aspect from which one can infer that within a photon no elapsed time can be measured. From this one can then propose that entangled particles are akin to the interior of a photon, and that an event occurs instantaneously. I don't like it. If pushed I might suggest that the entangled particles are spatially connected, but I'd be speculating.

I'm happier on firmer ground, namely the speed of light. How fast does light travel in vacuo? Here's what I think, and I challenge anybody to construct an argument that demonstrates where this is incorrect:

Light in vacuo moves at the speed that it does. It doesn't move at twice this speed, or half this speed. In natural units, we say this speed is 1, and say c=1. That's just another way of saying light moves at the speed that it does. As for why its speed is 299,792,458 metres per second, that's just choice of units. And it's very important to appreciate that these units are defined using the motion of light. See http://tf.nist.gov/cesium/fountain.htm to read about the NIST fountain clock and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second for the definition of the second:

"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."

The NIST fountain clock employs lasers and a microwave cavity to cause hyperfine transitions, which are electron spin-flips within caesium atoms. The electron is electromagnetic, it's literally "made from light" in pair production, and the spin-flip is an electromagnetic phenomenum. It emits microwaves, light in the wider sense, of a given "frequency". These microwaves are then received by a detector:



But note that frequency is measured in Hertz, which is defined as cycles per second, and we haven't defined a second yet. Instead, we're defining the second. What the detector actually does, is count incoming microwave peaks. When it gets to 9,192,631,770, then that's a second. Hence the frequency is 9,192,631,770 Hertz by definition. Then we define the metre, and this too is defined via the motion of light:

"The metre is defined as the distance travelled by light in free space in 1⁄299,792,458th of a second."

Then we use our second and our metre to measure the speed of light in vacuo. And we measure it to be 299,792,458 m/s. We always do, because our units are derived from the motion of light. It doesn't matter how fast the light is moving, you count 9,192,631,770 incoming microwave peaks, and that's a second. Then you watch light moving for a fraction of this second to mark out a metre. Then you use these units derived from the motion of light, to measure the motion of light.

If you could press some magic button that makes all electromagnetic phenomena proceed at half their former speed, including the electromagnetic hyperfine transition and the propagation of electromagnetic waves, you would still measure 299,792,458 m/s. Because when the light goes slower the second is bigger, and the slower light and the bigger second cancel each other out. You don't notice it locally, because like your rods and clocks, you're made of electrons. And other things too, but the same principle applies. It's an "immersive scale change". Plunge a clockwork clock into an oil bath, and it goes slower. But if you're the clockwork man who's in there with it, you can't tell, because you go slower too.