Speed of Light and Energy...?

[colubridae]

Laughing at things I find funny… Surely that’s a good habit.

Farsight has been flogging his ‘time doesn't exist it's only motion’ all over the internet like a plague....

But why no publication?

That last question is the all important one.

There is a publication. It's full of references to bona-fide peer-reviewed papers, and it was advertised on the Institute of Physics PhysicsWorld website. This is it:

Dude what you are ‘postulating’ is worth 3-4 nobel prizes.
The maths is way beyond me… But should be within reach of a research fellowship.
So why no takers?

Imagine a swimming pool. Every morning you swim from one end to the other in a straight line. In the dead of night I truck in a load of gelatine powder and tip it all down the left hand side. This starts diffusing across the breadth of the pool, imparting a viscosity gradient from left to right. The next morning when you go for your swim, something's not right, and you find that you're veering to the left. If you could see your wake, you'd notice it was curved. That's your curved spacetime, because the pool is like the space round a planet, the viscosity gradient is like Einstein's non-constant gμν, and you're a photon. As to how the gradient attracts matter, consider a single electron. We can make an electron along with a positron from light, via pair production. Since the electron also has spin, think of it as light trapped in a circular path. So if you're swimming round and round in circles, whenever you're swimming up or down the pool you're veering left. Hence you find yourself working over to the left. That's why things fall down.

You still haven’t answered why I found this hysterical.

Remember this is the clue:-

“how would you steer a magic carpet round a tight curve?”

[Twiglet]

Dude what you are ‘postulating’ is worth 3-4 nobel prizes.
The maths is way beyond me… But should be within reach of a research fellowship.
So why no takers?

You have just proposed a question, which I think rightlfully now deserves a title.

"The Farsight Paradox"

Stated thusly: Anyone with a relevant research background will dismiss your ideas, but many without a relevant research background will venomously defend their possible validity.

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 aroun 20% of laypeople changed their opinions on the causes of global warming, in the US, in the last year alone.

Recent less successful attempts at devising "theories" to gain populist appeal include the "flat earth revivalists". doubtless inspired by the Churchs dominion for a thousand and odd years. They neglected the key point that anyone who has been on a long haul flight, or knows someone else who has - would probabluy count as having a "sufficient research background" to be just a teensy bit skeptical.

[mistermack]

Twiglet, someone talks about gravity and particles, and you attack him on intelligent design, climate change and a flat earth?
You're picking pretty safe ground there, but isn't it just a teeny bit irrelevant?

And Colubridae, you talk mysteriously about magic carpets, it's a clue all right.
So is saying dude all the time.

[Twiglet]

Twiglet, someone talks about gravity and particles, and you attack him on intelligent design, climate change and a flat earth?
You're picking pretty safe ground there, but isn't it just a teeny bit irrelevant?

It's entirely relevant.

If you genuinely want to understand the subject matter mistermack, you'd be well advised to attend a lecture course on special relativity. If you have the pre-requisites, which in the UK would be A level maths & physics, then such a course would take around 20 hours. Obviously, if you don't have the maths you need, it'll take more, but the basics are not that hard. It's algebra. What is tougher to grasp is a conceptual understanding of special relativity, because it is pretty alien to our everyday experience.

If you do that, then you can speak from a position of knowledge, and could likely easily identify the fundamental conceptual flaws in farsights understanding of why the speed of light constitutes an absolute limit. If he does understand the reasoning behind conventional theory, he is ignoring it in the body of his "arguments" in favour of speculation to promote his own agenda. Very much like those pushing intelligent design are.

If you want to be able to evaluate the argument mistermack, then what you need to do, IMO is to go and actually learn the shit we're talking about so that you can contribute something more solid than "be nice to each other" or sympathising that farsight might have a point or whatever. Everyone might have a right to their opinion, but it doesn't mean all opinions are equally right. The question is, do you want to understand the topic, or just cheerlead?

[colubridae]

Twiglet, someone talks about gravity and particles, and you attack him on intelligent design, climate change and a flat earth?
You're picking pretty safe ground there, but isn't it just a teeny bit irrelevant?

And Colubridae, you talk mysteriously about magic carpets, it's a clue all right.
So is saying dude all the time.

Dude, non-dude, sir, miss, 'oi you'!, Dr, non-dr, neutral person, creationist, god-botherer, scientist...
any patronimic you want.

Try answering the question 'Why is what farsight posted so funny?'

(hint: “how would you steer a magic carpet round a tight curve?”)

[colubridae]

Ok Once again this goes against the grain for me...

But I have worked out the approximate mass 'field' which will generate a gravitational field, which will give the photon a hubius helix geodesic.

Be warned it is strangely familiar...

Trigger Warning!!!1! :

mass field.jpg (51.38 KiB) Viewed 1853 times

[mistermack]

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.

[Twiglet]

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.

Doubtless the same could be said of numerous proponents of intelligent design, or flat earthers.

It's always nice to find something to admire in others.

[Farsight]

...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?

[hackenslash]

Hackenslash, thinking about your reply on the previous page, you hit me with a straw man really, because I didn't argue for a point that existed before the big bang. I argued for the centre of gravity of the universe being a constant, SINCE the big bang, ie, for all of time. If there is no spcace, as we know it, in the centre of the universe, I'm not sure what that means.

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.

In the world as we know it, if there is no space between you and me, we are touching.

Yes, except no. This isn't really relevant to the thread, but it should be pointed out nonetheless. Nothing ever touches anything else. Indeed, touch is impossible, as there is always space between things. In reality, you're not actually sitting on the chair you're sitting on, but hovering above it at a height of one angstrom, supported by an electromagnetic field.

So saying there is no space in the centre isn't really saying anything. Unless there is a different kind of nothing, that has three dimenional space, without any spacetime.

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

[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 1591 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…