Is Relativity Reality?

Post Reply
User avatar
colubridae
Custom Rank: Rank
Posts: 2771
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 12:16 pm
About me: http://www.essentialart.com/acatalog/Ed ... Stars.html
Location: Birmingham art gallery
Contact:

Re: Is Relativity Reality?

Post by colubridae » Tue Jul 13, 2010 8:30 am

ChildInAZoo wrote:mistermack, you again ignore the fact that we have different kinds of clocks in the form of physical systems that act according to different kinds of principles. They all agree on time dilation, so you cannot simply appeal to some kind of common physical operation to explain time dilation.

For fuck sake give it up! It's been over 100 pages on various threads. He is never going to understand it. He never will. A chimpanzee would have understood it by now. he simply hasn't got the the brain power. :whisper:


He cannot understand that reality is not Newtonian, not absolute.
Nothing anyone says can convince him otherwise.


By the way this is a person, (on his own early posting) who's main interest is primarily human evolution. :funny: :funny: :funny:
And knows nothing of science. :funny:
After all this time it speaks volumes for his honesty that he has shown practically zero interest in his 'preferred' interest, yet flogs twaddle science as if he understanda it and no-one else does. :dono:


Yeah yeah I know I am supposed to debate him rationally etc. but after all these pages of patient explanation the only valid response is ridicule. :hilarious:
(It has been from the start, but never mind).
I have a well balanced personality. I've got chips on both shoulders

User avatar
mistermack
Posts: 15093
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
About me: Never rong.
Contact:

Re: Is Relativity Reality?

Post by mistermack » Tue Jul 13, 2010 9:07 am

The last comment posted on this site about evolution was by feck, one full week ago. I don't think I'm missing a lively debate.

You do get interesting opinions on this thread. Whether I agree or not, I appreciate them. But it seems to be the rule that there's always one dumb buffoon on every discussion site, who imagines he's witty. You've chosen that role for yourself, colubridae, and you do it very well.

It doesn't matter, I still like reading the comments from the others.
.
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.

User avatar
colubridae
Custom Rank: Rank
Posts: 2771
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 12:16 pm
About me: http://www.essentialart.com/acatalog/Ed ... Stars.html
Location: Birmingham art gallery
Contact:

Re: Is Relativity Reality?

Post by colubridae » Tue Jul 13, 2010 9:17 am

mistermack wrote:The last comment posted on this site about evolution was by feck, one full week ago. I don't think I'm missing a lively debate.

You do get interesting opinions on this thread. Whether I agree or not, I appreciate them. But it seems to be the rule that there's always one dumb buffoon on every discussion site, who imagines he's witty. You've chosen that role for yourself, colubridae, and you do it very well.

It doesn't matter, I still like reading the comments from the others.
.
Awww. is that the best you can summon up mm_ii or MM_I, iii lose track. But it's not very sharp is it. :console:

I mean, jesyus fucking christ on a fork, it's been hundreds of explanations and you still haven't got it - the biggest fucking retard on the planet would have given up by now. :flog:

As to evolution i expected you to start some lively debates (it is your primary interest :whisper: --- and, please, no more wiki condensates:yawn: . Something a bit more challenging :begging: ).
I have a well balanced personality. I've got chips on both shoulders

lpetrich
Posts: 303
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 8:59 pm
Contact:

Re: Is Relativity Reality?

Post by lpetrich » Tue Jul 13, 2010 8:05 pm

mistermack wrote:
ChildInAZoo wrote:mistermack, you again ignore the fact that we have different kinds of clocks in the form of physical systems that act according to different kinds of principles. They all agree on time dilation, so you cannot simply appeal to some kind of common physical operation to explain time dilation.
Read that back to yourself, and try to see how illogical it is.
If you have many very different things behaving in an identical manner, you would obviously suspect something common to them all, would you not?
.
CIAZ's point is that the effect must be common to many different mechanisms. Space-time geometry fits. But just for the Hades of it, let's see what physical mechanisms were used to test time dilation.

I'll be using hbar = c = 1, and the fine-structure constant a = e2/(4*pi) in typical particle-physics units. I'll be including the effects of various other parameters, like particle masses, but omitting factors independent of these, factors which may require large amounts of numerical computation.

Ives-Stilwell - time dilation of atomic spectral lines. Those lines' energies is a result of electrons orbiting nuclei, and to lowest order, those energy values are proportional to mea2.

Atomic-Clock Experiments and GPS - atomic clocks, which use hyperfine transitions: electron-nucleus magnetic-dipole and electric-quadrupole effects.

The magnetic-dipole effects have sizes (electron magnetic-dipole moment) * (nuclear magnetic-dipole moment) / (separation)3 and are about
me(me/mN)a4
The electron magnetic-dipole moment can be from its orbit as well as from its spin. Likewise for the nucleus, with contributions from both nucleons' spin and protons' orbits.

The electric-quadrupole effects have sizes (electron charge) * (nuclear electric-quadrupole moment) / (separation)3 and are about
me(me/mN)2a4

Muon Decay - it happens by way of weak interactions, and its rate is
mmu(mmu/mV)4

where mV is the Higgs vacuum-field strength in the Standard Model, which is about 300 GeV.

Further Details. To sum up, we have two electromagnetic effects and one weak-interaction effect.

Furthermore, the masses are determined by other interactions. Lepton and quark masses are y*mV, where y is the coupling constant between each flavor of elementary fermion and the Higgs particle. For multiple Higgs multiplets, it gets more complicated, but the overall principle is the same. Nucleon masses and sizes, however, are dominated by the QCD energy scale, where the effective QCD coupling constant is around 1.

User avatar
mistermack
Posts: 15093
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
About me: Never rong.
Contact:

Re: Is Relativity Reality?

Post by mistermack » Tue Jul 13, 2010 10:33 pm

The example of sound-in-water time dilation is so simple, you don't need maths to confirm it. It's self evident, once you consider it. The question is , is it the same thing that is happening to particles that move in spactime?

If a particle was totally divorced in nature from wave motion in spactime, I would say no. An ordinary clock on the sub wouldn't slow, only the one that worked by sound-in-water. So in effect, I'm making a claim that fundamental particles are so closely allied to energy, or wave motion in spacetime, that they undergo the same process as the water time dilation.

What can I use to back that assertion?
1) A particle can TOTALLY be converted to energy. And back again, ad infinitum. You have to ask yourself, what happens to energy that becomes a particle. Does it lose it's wave properties, or are they still there, inside the package? I would say, in view of it's perpetual convertability, those attributes persist, and are just contained in the particle.

2) Look at the example of a photon trapped between two mirrors. There you have a direct similarity to the sound clock on the sub. The sound wave bounces back and forwards, and is the cause of the time dilation in the water clock.
The photon is doing the same thing, but low and behold, it acts like a particle, it loses it's overall momentum, and gains real mass.
So there you have a 'particle', with mass, that has to undergo time dilation in exactly the same way as the sound-in-water clock.
The mechanism is there for all to see.
Surely it's perverse to reject it for no reason, and claim that time dilation happens for some other mysterious reason, that nobody yet knows?
.
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.

User avatar
Twiglet
Posts: 371
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 1:33 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Is Relativity Reality?

Post by Twiglet » Wed Jul 14, 2010 1:29 am

mistermack wrote:The example of sound-in-water time dilation is so simple, you don't need maths to confirm it. It's self evident, once you consider it. The question is , is it the same thing that is happening to particles that move in spactime?

If a particle was totally divorced in nature from wave motion in spactime, I would say no. An ordinary clock on the sub wouldn't slow, only the one that worked by sound-in-water. So in effect, I'm making a claim that fundamental particles are so closely allied to energy, or wave motion in spacetime, that they undergo the same process as the water time dilation.

What can I use to back that assertion?
1) A particle can TOTALLY be converted to energy. And back again, ad infinitum. You have to ask yourself, what happens to energy that becomes a particle. Does it lose it's wave properties, or are they still there, inside the package? I would say, in view of it's perpetual convertability, those attributes persist, and are just contained in the particle.

2) Look at the example of a photon trapped between two mirrors. There you have a direct similarity to the sound clock on the sub. The sound wave bounces back and forwards, and is the cause of the time dilation in the water clock.
The photon is doing the same thing, but low and behold, it acts like a particle, it loses it's overall momentum, and gains real mass.
So there you have a 'particle', with mass, that has to undergo time dilation in exactly the same way as the sound-in-water clock.
The mechanism is there for all to see.
Surely it's perverse to reject it for no reason, and claim that time dilation happens for some other mysterious reason, that nobody yet knows?
.
It doesn't really matter what you use to back your assertions. The experiments can easily be conducted in the real world, and have been. They do not support your version of reality.

Farsight
Posts: 437
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2010 10:52 am
Contact:

Re: Is Relativity Reality?

Post by Farsight » Wed Jul 14, 2010 10:57 am

Oh yes they do. The experiments back up what mistermack is saying. We see pair production and annihilation, including low-energy proton/antiproton annihilaiton to neutral pions thence gamma photons, and we have experimental confirmation of time dilation. If you think we don't, explain why. When you can't, concede.

ChildInAZoo
Posts: 257
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 4:53 pm
Contact:

Re: Is Relativity Reality?

Post by ChildInAZoo » Wed Jul 14, 2010 12:07 pm

mistermack is saying that all energy is electromagnetism. Do you agree with this claim? Do either of you have any scientific work that shows that electromagnetism can work to hold the nucleus together?

User avatar
mistermack
Posts: 15093
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
About me: Never rong.
Contact:

Re: Is Relativity Reality?

Post by mistermack » Wed Jul 14, 2010 12:10 pm

Twiglet wrote: It doesn't really matter what you use to back your assertions. The experiments can easily be conducted in the real world, and have been. They do not support your version of reality.
Like I said, I'm open to and interested in any correction or contradiction, so I'd be interested in exactly what experiments you mean, and do they contradict what I think, or just not support it?
.
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.

User avatar
mistermack
Posts: 15093
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
About me: Never rong.
Contact:

Re: Is Relativity Reality?

Post by mistermack » Wed Jul 14, 2010 1:19 pm

ChildInAZoo wrote:mistermack is saying that all energy is electromagnetism. Do you agree with this claim? Do either of you have any scientific work that shows that electromagnetism can work to hold the nucleus together?
I don't think I've said that. But I will point out that energy seems to be just as convertible and interchangeable as matter. Kinetic becomes heat, electromagnetic becomes potential, etc etc etc. So describing energy as different kinds is not telling the whole story. Energy is changing form all the time, with no help from humans. And matter is becoming energy all the time, or we wouldn't be here.
So I'm asking the question, what is the nature of the change? After all, when water becomes ice, it seems very different, but it's still water, still fundamentally the same.
When energy becomes matter, or changes form, is it fundamentally the same, undergoing time dilation for the same reason?
.
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.

User avatar
colubridae
Custom Rank: Rank
Posts: 2771
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 12:16 pm
About me: http://www.essentialart.com/acatalog/Ed ... Stars.html
Location: Birmingham art gallery
Contact:

Re: Is Relativity Reality?

Post by colubridae » Wed Jul 14, 2010 1:53 pm

mistermack wrote: Like I said, I'm open to and interested in any correction or contradiction,
.
This is a complete falsehood. You have been given this information over and over again.

You either don't understand it or do and deliberately ignore it to promote your woo.

What's particularly despicable is that a lot of people have gone to great lengths to explain and help you, only to have it thrown back in their faces.

I salute you. Your ability to jerk decent people off is phenomenal.



mistermack wrote:After all, when water becomes ice, it seems very different, but it's still water, still fundamentally the same.
This one is particularly telling.
I have a well balanced personality. I've got chips on both shoulders

ChildInAZoo
Posts: 257
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 4:53 pm
Contact:

Re: Is Relativity Reality?

Post by ChildInAZoo » Wed Jul 14, 2010 2:38 pm

mistermack wrote:
ChildInAZoo wrote:mistermack is saying that all energy is electromagnetism. Do you agree with this claim? Do either of you have any scientific work that shows that electromagnetism can work to hold the nucleus together?
I don't think I've said that.
Then you need to go back and read what you wrote.

User avatar
colubridae
Custom Rank: Rank
Posts: 2771
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 12:16 pm
About me: http://www.essentialart.com/acatalog/Ed ... Stars.html
Location: Birmingham art gallery
Contact:

Re: Is Relativity Reality?

Post by colubridae » Wed Jul 14, 2010 3:29 pm

ChildInAZoo wrote:
mistermack wrote:
ChildInAZoo wrote:mistermack is saying that all energy is electromagnetism. Do you agree with this claim? Do either of you have any scientific work that shows that electromagnetism can work to hold the nucleus together?
I don't think I've said that.
Then you need to go back and read what you wrote.
He's not interested in debate, discussion or anyone's opinion. he is :flog:

He's selling farsight's bullshit book. :whisper:

Pure and simple. :hehe:

I can say this because, like MM ignores the posts people have done for him, I can ignore what he posts/denies. :hehe:

He will probably insult me again, as an idignant cover :funny: :funny: :funny:
I have a well balanced personality. I've got chips on both shoulders

User avatar
mistermack
Posts: 15093
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:57 am
About me: Never rong.
Contact:

Re: Is Relativity Reality?

Post by mistermack » Wed Jul 14, 2010 4:27 pm

ChildInAZoo wrote:
mistermack wrote:
ChildInAZoo wrote:mistermack is saying that all energy is electromagnetism. Do you agree with this claim? Do either of you have any scientific work that shows that electromagnetism can work to hold the nucleus together?
I don't think I've said that.
Then you need to go back and read what you wrote.
I don't need to, I know I didn't say it. But if you disagree, you can point it out.
Or perhaps you've changed my words?
.
While there is a market for shit, there will be assholes to supply it.

ChildInAZoo
Posts: 257
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 4:53 pm
Contact:

Re: Is Relativity Reality?

Post by ChildInAZoo » Wed Jul 14, 2010 5:14 pm

mistermack wrote:
ChildInAZoo wrote:
mistermack wrote:
ChildInAZoo wrote:mistermack is saying that all energy is electromagnetism. Do you agree with this claim? Do either of you have any scientific work that shows that electromagnetism can work to hold the nucleus together?
I don't think I've said that.
Then you need to go back and read what you wrote.
I don't need to, I know I didn't say it. But if you disagree, you can point it out.
Or perhaps you've changed my words?
.
I hope you're on a respirator, because I don't even think your brain stem can be working.
mistermack wrote:It boils down to what you believe matter is.
As e=mc2, I'm saying it's energy, locked up. ie, a disturbance in electromagnetic fields, locked into a loop

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests