Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #382075 > unrolled thread

Particle Physics

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Particle Physics Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-04-21 17:09 -0700
    Re: Particle Physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-21 19:42 -0700
      Re: Particle Physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-04-22 06:42 +0200
        Re: Particle Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-22 07:14 -0500
          Re: Particle Physics David Fuller <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-22 07:01 -0700
          Re: Particle Physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-04-22 19:49 +0200
            Re: Particle Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-22 13:06 -0500
              Re: Particle Physics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-04-23 01:37 +0200
            Re: Particle Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-04-22 13:35 -0500
              Re: Particle Physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-04-22 22:29 +0200
                Re: Particle Physics Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2016-04-22 23:32 +0200
                  Re: Particle Physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-04-23 06:15 +0200
                    Re: Particle Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-04-22 22:25 -0700
                      Re: Particle Physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-04-23 23:18 +0200
                    Re: Particle Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-24 13:55 -0500
                Re: Particle Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-23 08:33 -0500
                  Re: Particle Physics Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2016-04-23 15:53 +0200
                  Re: Particle Physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-04-23 20:36 +0200
                    Re: Particle Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-24 13:59 -0500
                Re: Particle Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-04-23 16:43 -0500
                  Re: Particle Physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-04-24 07:16 +0200
                    Re: Particle Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-24 14:02 -0500
                      Re: Particle Physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-04-25 06:55 +0200
                        Re: Particle Physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-25 06:07 -0500
                          Re: Particle Physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-04-26 22:24 +0200

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#382075 — Particle Physics

You seem to have a memory problem: Rutherford used alpha particles, which 
are the positive nuclei of helium atoms.  And, yes they would be stopped 
by the thinnest thickness of steel.  IIRC, Tom was talking about muons. 
High energy muons might lose about 5 MeV/cm, if my guesstiment is in the 
ballpark.  So, yes, 60 MeV muons can indeed go through 2 inches of steel. Michael Moroney 1:01 PM 4-20-2016.




_______________________________________________________________________



 



"Muons arriving on the Earth's surface are created indirectly as decay products of collisions of cosmic rays with particles of the Earth's atmosphere." Wiki 



.................................................




What do muons have to do with subatomic particles propagating through 2 inches of the steel of the bubble chamber, forming the bubble tracks? This is similar to Bodkin (4/19/2016 9:50 AM) argument that Rutherford experiment's beta particles propagating through a gold foil to justify subatomic particles propagating through two inches of steel. It appears that the photographs that are used in particle physics, to represent the hydrogen liquid bubble tracks, are derived using computer imagery similar to the photographs of the Milky way and black holes.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#382081

On Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 6:09:14 PM UTC-6, Carl Susumu wrote:
>
> I wrote:
> You seem to have a memory problem: Rutherford used alpha particles, which 
> are the positive nuclei of helium atoms.  And, yes they would be stopped 
> by the thinnest thickness of steel.  IIRC, Tom was talking about muons. 
> High energy muons might lose about 5 MeV/cm, if my guesstiment is in the 
> ballpark.  So, yes, 60 MeV muons can indeed go through 2 inches of steel. > 
> _______________________________________________________________________
>
> What do muons have to do with subatomic particles propagating through 2 inches of the steel of the bubble chamber, forming the bubble tracks?

Why are you such a lazy ignoramus that you can't look up the answers to
your brainless questions?  Why do you have to come squealing to this
group for help?  Here's your answer, but you're probably too lazy to
read it:

http://www.physics.csbsju.edu/tk/370/bubble.pdf

> This is similar to Bodkin (4/19/2016 9:50 AM) argument that Rutherford
> experiment's beta particles propagating through a gold foil to justify
> subatomic particles propagating through two inches of steel.

Man, your skull must be denser than steel to keep on making the same stupid
mistakes over and over and over again.

[Arrogant stupidity deleted]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#382086

Am 22.04.2016 04:42, schrieb Gary Harnagel:
> On Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 6:09:14 PM UTC-6, Carl Susumu wrote:
>>
>> I wrote:
>> You seem to have a memory problem: Rutherford used alpha particles, which
>> are the positive nuclei of helium atoms.  And, yes they would be stopped
>> by the thinnest thickness of steel.  IIRC, Tom was talking about muons.
>> High energy muons might lose about 5 MeV/cm, if my guesstiment is in the
>> ballpark.  So, yes, 60 MeV muons can indeed go through 2 inches of steel.>
>> _______________________________________________________________________
>>
>> What do muons have to do with subatomic particles propagating through 2 inches of the steel of the bubble chamber, forming the bubble tracks?
>
> Why are you such a lazy ignoramus that you can't look up the answers to
> your brainless questions?  Why do you have to come squealing to this
> group for help?  Here's your answer, but you're probably too lazy to
> read it:
>
> http://www.physics.csbsju.edu/tk/370/bubble.pdf
>

Quote from this text:

"Of course, technically the momentum of the particle would be 5 MeV/c 
and the mass 938 MeV/c2. Basically what we are doing is redefining 
“momentum” to be pc and “mass” to be mc2. Since the “c” has disappeared, 
this re-naming is sometimes called “setting c = 1”.)"

There the particle physicists admit, they do something very questionable.

Of course the value of the length  contained in c could be set to 1, but 
this would make the length unit 'light second' necessary.

Since a unit of energy also contains a unit of length, you must not use 
a different unit for this length. Instead the Joule should be redefined 
with lightseconds as well, since otherwise the equation would contain 
two different units for the same measurement.

But after all, you must not leave out the units for speed as well, since 
you can only adjust the numbers, but cannot leave out the associated 
dimensions (length/time interval).

Since '1' is a simple number, it has no dimension. But c HAS dimensions, 
which are left out for no obvious reasons.


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#382103

On 4/21/2016 11:42 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Quote from this text:
>
> "Of course, technically the momentum of the particle would be 5 MeV/c
> and the mass 938 MeV/c2. Basically what we are doing is redefining
> “momentum” to be pc and “mass” to be mc2. Since the “c” has disappeared,
> this re-naming is sometimes called “setting c = 1”.)"
>
> There the particle physicists admit, they do something very questionable.
>
> Of course the value of the length  contained in c could be set to 1, but
> this would make the length unit 'light second' necessary.
>
> Since a unit of energy also contains a unit of length, you must not use
> a different unit for this length. Instead the Joule should be redefined
> with lightseconds as well, since otherwise the equation would contain
> two different units for the same measurement.
>
> But after all, you must not leave out the units for speed as well, since
> you can only adjust the numbers, but cannot leave out the associated
> dimensions (length/time interval).
>
> Since '1' is a simple number, it has no dimension. But c HAS dimensions,
> which are left out for no obvious reasons.

What you have encountered is something you can look up: "natural units".

It's really not very complicated. In reality, all it is, is the 
recognition that the units of meters and seconds are historical 
accidents. Meters arose from some arbitrary division of the 
circumference of the Earth by the French, and seconds arose from some 
arbitrary division of the length of the day by the Babylonians. There is 
no special significance to them. So the question is whether there is a 
more "natural" system of units where length and time can be measured 
with the same unit (and this is indeed very possible), and then of 
course in this system of units, the value of c is 1 and dimensionless.

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#382109

What you have encountered is something you can look up: "natural units". 

It's really not very complicated. In reality, all it is, is the 
recognition that the units of meters and seconds are historical 
accidents. Meters arose from some arbitrary division of the 
circumference of the Earth by the French, and seconds arose from some 
arbitrary division of the length of the day by the Babylonians. There is 
no special significance to them. So the question is whether there is a 
more "natural" system of units where length and time can be measured 
with the same unit (and this is indeed very possible), and then of 
course in this system of units, the value of c is 1 and dimensionless. 

The obstacle with your "more "natural" system of units" is it returns erroneous data because it assumes space time to be flat, straight & infinite.
The square root of one is one. 
Natural numbers assume "a space time that is not already length contracted or time dilated by gravitational acceleration. 

1 could really be 1/50 or 1/1.5*10^10 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#382115

Am 22.04.2016 14:14, schrieb Odd Bodkin:

>> But after all, you must not leave out the units for speed as well, since
>> you can only adjust the numbers, but cannot leave out the associated
>> dimensions (length/time interval).
>>
>> Since '1' is a simple number, it has no dimension. But c HAS dimensions,
>> which are left out for no obvious reasons.
>
> What you have encountered is something you can look up: "natural units".
>
> It's really not very complicated. In reality, all it is, is the
> recognition that the units of meters and seconds are historical
> accidents. Meters arose from some arbitrary division of the
> circumference of the Earth by the French, and seconds arose from some
> arbitrary division of the length of the day by the Babylonians. There is
> no special significance to them. So the question is whether there is a
> more "natural" system of units where length and time can be measured
> with the same unit (and this is indeed very possible), and then of
> course in this system of units, *the value of c is 1 and dimensionless*.
>

I regard this behaviour as disgusting!

I cannot real see how physicists justify to sweep the dimensions of a 
unit under the rug.

You may call the *numbers* random human choice. But 1 lightsecond per 
second as value of c is certainly possible.

BUT now you have a circular definition of the dimensions of the type 
length, since c is contained twice in the statement above:

- once in the term light-second
- which is used to make a statement about the value of c

Now the question: how long is a lightsecond ?

It's roughly 300.000.000 meters.

So: how long is a meter?

It's roughly 1/300.000.000 of a light second.


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#382116

On 4/22/2016 12:49 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 22.04.2016 14:14, schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>
>>> But after all, you must not leave out the units for speed as well, since
>>> you can only adjust the numbers, but cannot leave out the associated
>>> dimensions (length/time interval).
>>>
>>> Since '1' is a simple number, it has no dimension. But c HAS dimensions,
>>> which are left out for no obvious reasons.
>>
>> What you have encountered is something you can look up: "natural units".
>>
>> It's really not very complicated. In reality, all it is, is the
>> recognition that the units of meters and seconds are historical
>> accidents. Meters arose from some arbitrary division of the
>> circumference of the Earth by the French, and seconds arose from some
>> arbitrary division of the length of the day by the Babylonians. There is
>> no special significance to them. So the question is whether there is a
>> more "natural" system of units where length and time can be measured
>> with the same unit (and this is indeed very possible), and then of
>> course in this system of units, *the value of c is 1 and dimensionless*.
>>
>
> I regard this behaviour as disgusting!
>
> I cannot real see how physicists justify to sweep the dimensions of a
> unit under the rug.

Dimensions and units are two separate things.

Suppose you lived in a town where north-south distances were measured in 
miles and east-west distances were measured in kilometers. Would you say 
that the dimensions of the east-west distances were different than the 
dimensions of the north-south distances? No, of course not. In fact, 
you'd say it's rather ungainly and a bit foolish to have two different 
units to try to come up with an interval between any two places. There'd 
be all those conversion factors and what-not. Why not just go with miles 
and be done with it? Or kilometers and be done with it?

>
> You may call the *numbers* random human choice. But 1 lightsecond per
> second as value of c is certainly possible.

Not a lightsecond. Just a second. A second of distance. To get from a 
meter of distance to a second of distance, all you need is a conversion 
factor. Just like you'd convert miles to kilometers.

The conversion factor is 1 second = 300,000,000 m.

So now if you're measuring speeds, that has units seconds per second.

By the way, this conversion factor is commonly written as (300,000,000 
m/s). Look familiar? That's right, c is just a conversion factor.

Of course, once you move to sensible units in town, you don't need the 
conversion factor for kilometers/mile. Likewise if you stick with the 
same units (seconds) for distance and time, then you won't need that 
pesky conversion factor of c, either. The conversion factor is just 1.

>
> BUT now you have a circular definition of the dimensions of the type
> length, since c is contained twice in the statement above:
>
> - once in the term light-second
> - which is used to make a statement about the value of c
>
> Now the question: how long is a lightsecond ?
>
> It's roughly 300.000.000 meters.
>
> So: how long is a meter?
>
> It's roughly 1/300.000.000 of a light second.
>
>
> TH


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#382128

Odd Bodkin wrote:

> On 4/22/2016 12:49 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> You may call the *numbers* random human choice. But 1 lightsecond per
>> second as value of c is certainly possible.
> 
> Not a lightsecond. Just a second. A second of distance. To get from a
> meter of distance to a second of distance, all you need is a conversion
> factor.

Your “second of distance” is equivalent to a light-second, therefore Thomas 
Heger is on the right track for a change: the meter is currently defined in 
terms of the speed of light in vacuum.  It is “the length of the path 
travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1∕299 792 458 of a 
second” [1] (and the second is currently defined as “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”; ibid.)
 
> Just like you'd convert miles to kilometers.

No, not like that.

> The conversion factor is 1 second = 300,000,000 m.

No; 1 light-second ≡ 299 792 458 m.

(You would also be well-advised not to use ambiguous thousands separators.  
Different countries use different delimiters – for example, in Thomas 
Heger’s supposed and mine the comma is used for the decimal point instead –, 
and this is an international newsgroup.)


PointedEars
___________
[1] <http://www.bipm.org/en/measurement-units/>
-- 
Q: Why is electricity so dangerous?  
A: It doesn't conduct itself.

(from: WolframAlpha)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#382117

On 4/22/16 4/22/16 - 12:49 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> [use of natural units]
> I regard this behaviour as disgusting!

That says far more about you than about the use of natural units.

It seems you simply do not understand what units actually are. They are NOT some 
mystical quantity that make physical calculations come out right. They are 
simply a standard value to which ratios are made.

So when we say something has a length of 1 meter, what we actually mean is that 
the ratio of its length to the standard length of a meter is 1.


> I cannot real see how physicists justify to sweep the dimensions of a unit under
> the rug.

No "justification" is needed, and there is no "sweeping", either.

All that is happening is that a more convenient set of standards is chosen so 
that various conversion factors are 1, rather than some historical value (such 
as 299,792,458 m/s for the speed of light in vacuum).


> 1 lightsecond per second as
> value of c is certainly possible.

Sure. But that is not unitless. The way physicists actually do this is to use 
centimeters for the unit of time, so c becomes 1 cm/cm = 1.

	1 cm of time is approximately 1/30 ns. That is, the definition
	of "1 cm of time" is such that c=1 in these units.


Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#382121

Am 22.04.2016 20:35, schrieb Tom Roberts:
> On 4/22/16 4/22/16 - 12:49 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> [use of natural units]
>> I regard this behaviour as disgusting!
>
> That says far more about you than about the use of natural units.
>
> It seems you simply do not understand what units actually are. They are
> NOT some mystical quantity that make physical calculations come out
> right. They are simply a standard value to which ratios are made.
>
> So when we say something has a length of 1 meter, what we actually mean
> is that the ratio of its length to the standard length of a meter is 1.

No!

If we take the meter as unit for measurements of the type length, then a 
certain length is a product of a number and the standard unit '1 m'.

It can be a small number or a large number. So we could measure tiny 
distances and extremely large ones with the same unit.

For convenience we could measure atoms in very small units and stars 
with light-years. But that's is not necessary. Meters are possible for 
all possible distances.

To leave out the meter in a measurement would make things difficult, 
since nobody could interpret a certain number (say 453), if we do not 
declare, which kind of units we would like to count with it.

>
>> I cannot real see how physicists justify to sweep the dimensions of a
>> unit under
>> the rug.
>
> No "justification" is needed, and there is no "sweeping", either.
>
> All that is happening is that a more convenient set of standards is
> chosen so that various conversion factors are 1, rather than some
> historical value (such as 299,792,458 m/s for the speed of light in
> vacuum).

Agreed: '1' is much more convenient than '299,792,458'.

But what do have against 'm/s' (or another type of dimension)?

>
>> 1 lightsecond per second as
>> value of c is certainly possible.
>
> Sure. But that is not unitless. The way physicists actually do this is
> to use centimeters for the unit of time, so c becomes 1 cm/cm = 1.
>

I wonder if universities have a special department for caring  about the 
subsequent mental trauma of physics student, after they went through an 
introduction into theoretical physics.


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#382126

Op 22-apr-2016 om 22:29 schreef Thomas Heger:

[snip]

> I wonder if universities have a special department for caring  about the
> subsequent mental trauma of physics student, after they went through an
> introduction into theoretical physics.

Yes, they have such a department. It's called the Administration
Department. It presents to the student a document to inform
them that they have failed to pass the introduction to
theoretical physics. The idea is that the student realizes that
they don't have what it takes.
There must be *some* kind of filter, no?

Dirk Vdm

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#382139

Am 22.04.2016 23:32, schrieb Dirk Van de moortel:
> Op 22-apr-2016 om 22:29 schreef Thomas Heger:
>
> [snip]
>
>> I wonder if universities have a special department for caring about the
>> subsequent mental trauma of physics student, after they went through an
>> introduction into theoretical physics.
>
> Yes, they have such a department. It's called the Administration
> Department. It presents to the student a document to inform
> them that they have failed to pass the introduction to
> theoretical physics. The idea is that the student realizes that
> they don't have what it takes.
> There must be *some* kind of filter, no?


Let's assume, that 'The Physics department' operates similar to a 
satanic sect.

There should be filters, of course, that keep insufficient candidates 
from peeping into the inner sanctum.

Such filters are the 'Eat shit tests'.

Once the candidate swallows all bs, put in from of them, they are worthy 
to promote to the next level.

Who does not absorb any nonsense or even rejects illogic assumptions - 
let alone question the authority of the master druids - gets kicked out 
of the Holy Sect.

The bullshit is carefully crafted to generate metal trauma and make 
candidates grab any kind of resting spot, where they could eventually 
sort things out.

But rest is not granted, neither cure, since the candidate must REALLY 
believe the nonsense and be able to reproduce it convincingly at any 
given moment.

That is another test. And once the candidate masters to utter crap 
convincingly, he gets to yet another level in that multi-leveled 
bullshit castle.

Sure, some basic techniques are also required, like knowing ho to turn a 
knob on a device and how to multiply two numbers.

These techniques are useful by themselves, but not by the content on 
what they are trained.

The 'real thing' (the inner sanctum) is entered only, if at least a few 
levels are mastered and once to candidate has proven loyalty to the 
superior sorcerers.

Than eventually there will be a few bits of real wisdom spread sparsely 
upon the apprentices of witchcraft.

TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#382144

On Friday, April 22, 2016 at 9:15:18 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 22.04.2016 23:32, schrieb Dirk Van de moortel:
> > Op 22-apr-2016 om 22:29 schreef Thomas Heger:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> >> I wonder if universities have a special department for caring about the
> >> subsequent mental trauma of physics student, after they went through an
> >> introduction into theoretical physics.
> >
> > Yes, they have such a department. It's called the Administration
> > Department. It presents to the student a document to inform
> > them that they have failed to pass the introduction to
> > theoretical physics. The idea is that the student realizes that
> > they don't have what it takes.
> > There must be *some* kind of filter, no?
> 
> 
> Let's assume, that 'The Physics department' operates similar to a 
> satanic sect.
> 
> There should be filters, of course, that keep insufficient candidates 
> from peeping into the inner sanctum.
> 
> Such filters are the 'Eat shit tests'.
> 
> Once the candidate swallows all bs, put in from of them, they are worthy 
> to promote to the next level.
> 
> Who does not absorb any nonsense or even rejects illogic assumptions - 
> let alone question the authority of the master druids - gets kicked out 
> of the Holy Sect.
> 
> The bullshit is carefully crafted to generate metal trauma and make 
> candidates grab any kind of resting spot, where they could eventually 
> sort things out.
> 
> But rest is not granted, neither cure, since the candidate must REALLY 
> believe the nonsense and be able to reproduce it convincingly at any 
> given moment.
> 
> That is another test. And once the candidate masters to utter crap 
> convincingly, he gets to yet another level in that multi-leveled 
> bullshit castle.
> 
> Sure, some basic techniques are also required, like knowing ho to turn a 
> knob on a device and how to multiply two numbers.
> 
> These techniques are useful by themselves, but not by the content on 
> what they are trained.
> 
> The 'real thing' (the inner sanctum) is entered only, if at least a few 
> levels are mastered and once to candidate has proven loyalty to the 
> superior sorcerers.
> 
> Than eventually there will be a few bits of real wisdom spread sparsely 
> upon the apprentices of witchcraft.
> 
> TH

A standard rant of a guy frustrated by his lack of talent for this sort of thing. Just pick
a different hobby.

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#382170

Am 23.04.2016 07:25, schrieb JanPB:

>>>
>>>> I wonder if universities have a special department for caring about the
>>>> subsequent mental trauma of physics student, after they went through an
>>>> introduction into theoretical physics.
>>>
>>> Yes, they have such a department. It's called the Administration
>>> Department. It presents to the student a document to inform
>>> them that they have failed to pass the introduction to
>>> theoretical physics. The idea is that the student realizes that
>>> they don't have what it takes.
>>> There must be *some* kind of filter, no?
>>
>>
>> Let's assume, that 'The Physics department' operates similar to a
>> satanic sect.
>>
>> There should be filters, of course, that keep insufficient candidates
>> from peeping into the inner sanctum.
>>
>> Such filters are the 'Eat shit tests'.
>>
>> Once the candidate swallows all bs, put in from of them, they are worthy
>> to promote to the next level.
>>
>> Who does not absorb any nonsense or even rejects illogic assumptions -
>> let alone question the authority of the master druids - gets kicked out
>> of the Holy Sect.
>>
>> The bullshit is carefully crafted to generate metal trauma and make
>> candidates grab any kind of resting spot, where they could eventually
>> sort things out.
>>
>> But rest is not granted, neither cure, since the candidate must REALLY
>> believe the nonsense and be able to reproduce it convincingly at any
>> given moment.
>>
>> That is another test. And once the candidate masters to utter crap
>> convincingly, he gets to yet another level in that multi-leveled
>> bullshit castle.
>>
>> Sure, some basic techniques are also required, like knowing ho to turn a
>> knob on a device and how to multiply two numbers.
>>
>> These techniques are useful by themselves, but not by the content on
>> what they are trained.
>>
>> The 'real thing' (the inner sanctum) is entered only, if at least a few
>> levels are mastered and once to candidate has proven loyalty to the
>> superior sorcerers.
>>
>> Than eventually there will be a few bits of real wisdom spread sparsely
>> upon the apprentices of witchcraft.
>>
>> TH
>
> A standard rant of a guy frustrated by his lack of talent for this sort of thing. Just pick
> a different hobby.

I compare parts of the 'physics community' to an occult sect. This is my 
impression, since I know a few physicists, that behave similar to how 
occultists behave.

The 'community' seems to follow certain patterns, which I assume to be 
common among sects. This is why I try to estimate, whether or not 
certain patterns fall also into what I assume about satanism.

Well, this is - to say the least - not a 'usual rant'.

So lets compare physics to religion.

First question would be, if physics has anything in common with 
religious believes.

And, sure, religion HAS certain aspects, which are also covered by 
natural sciences (like origin of the universe).

But do academic circles share similarities to a sect?

Actually I would say: yes they do.

The entire academic system resembles somehow an obscure 'church'. And 
the higher echelons of physics look and behave quite like sorcerers.

If there also brain-washing techniques used, then this would make the 
science similar to a sect, which is not based on the real world, but 
tries to perpetuate the occult society itself.


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#382222

On 4/22/2016 11:15 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 22.04.2016 23:32, schrieb Dirk Van de moortel:
>> Op 22-apr-2016 om 22:29 schreef Thomas Heger:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> I wonder if universities have a special department for caring about the
>>> subsequent mental trauma of physics student, after they went through an
>>> introduction into theoretical physics.
>>
>> Yes, they have such a department. It's called the Administration
>> Department. It presents to the student a document to inform
>> them that they have failed to pass the introduction to
>> theoretical physics. The idea is that the student realizes that
>> they don't have what it takes.
>> There must be *some* kind of filter, no?
>
>
> Let's assume, that 'The Physics department' operates similar to a
> satanic sect.
>
> There should be filters, of course, that keep insufficient candidates
> from peeping into the inner sanctum.
>
> Such filters are the 'Eat shit tests'.
>
> Once the candidate swallows all bs, put in from of them, they are worthy
> to promote to the next level.
>
> Who does not absorb any nonsense or even rejects illogic assumptions -
> let alone question the authority of the master druids - gets kicked out
> of the Holy Sect.
>
> The bullshit is carefully crafted to generate metal trauma and make
> candidates grab any kind of resting spot, where they could eventually
> sort things out.
>
> But rest is not granted, neither cure, since the candidate must REALLY
> believe the nonsense and be able to reproduce it convincingly at any
> given moment.
>
> That is another test. And once the candidate masters to utter crap
> convincingly, he gets to yet another level in that multi-leveled
> bullshit castle.
>
> Sure, some basic techniques are also required, like knowing ho to turn a
> knob on a device and how to multiply two numbers.
>
> These techniques are useful by themselves, but not by the content on
> what they are trained.
>
> The 'real thing' (the inner sanctum) is entered only, if at least a few
> levels are mastered and once to candidate has proven loyalty to the
> superior sorcerers.
>
> Than eventually there will be a few bits of real wisdom spread sparsely
> upon the apprentices of witchcraft.

This smacks a little of sour grapes.
When someone suffers rejection or failure, it is tempting to say, "Well, 
I didn't want membership into your stinking club anyway. I don't know 
why I bothered to apply."

But then there are some people who just can't let go, and they end up 
hanging on anyway.


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#382152

On 4/22/2016 3:29 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> No!
>
> If we take the meter as unit for measurements of the type length, then a
> certain length is a product of a number and the standard unit '1 m'.
>
> It can be a small number or a large number. So we could measure tiny
> distances and extremely large ones with the same unit.
>
> For convenience we could measure atoms in very small units and stars
> with light-years. But that's is not necessary. Meters are possible for
> all possible distances.
>
> To leave out the meter in a measurement would make things difficult,
> since nobody could interpret a certain number (say 453), if we do not
> declare, which kind of units we would like to count with it.

Fine, so keep the meter. Use it for time, too. One meter of time is a 
little over 3 ns. Now you have ONE unit that you can use to measure both 
time and space. There's absolutely no reason to retain two.



-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#382153

Op 23-apr-2016 om 15:33 schreef Odd Bodkin:
> On 4/22/2016 3:29 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> No!
>>
>> If we take the meter as unit for measurements of the type length, then a
>> certain length is a product of a number and the standard unit '1 m'.
>>
>> It can be a small number or a large number. So we could measure tiny
>> distances and extremely large ones with the same unit.
>>
>> For convenience we could measure atoms in very small units and stars
>> with light-years. But that's is not necessary. Meters are possible for
>> all possible distances.
>>
>> To leave out the meter in a measurement would make things difficult,
>> since nobody could interpret a certain number (say 453), if we do not
>> declare, which kind of units we would like to count with it.
>
> Fine, so keep the meter. Use it for time, too. One meter of time is a
> little over 3 ns. Now you have ONE unit that you can use to measure both
> time and space. There's absolutely no reason to retain two.

Provided they can wrap their mind around local light
speed invariance. Which they obviously can't. Bet?

Dirk Vdm

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#382157

Am 23.04.2016 15:33, schrieb Odd Bodkin:

>> If we take the meter as unit for measurements of the type length, then a
>> certain length is a product of a number and the standard unit '1 m'.
>>
>> It can be a small number or a large number. So we could measure tiny
>> distances and extremely large ones with the same unit.
>>
>> For convenience we could measure atoms in very small units and stars
>> with light-years. But that's is not necessary. Meters are possible for
>> all possible distances.
>>
>> To leave out the meter in a measurement would make things difficult,
>> since nobody could interpret a certain number (say 453), if we do not
>> declare, which kind of units we would like to count with it.
>
> Fine, so keep the meter. Use it for time, too. One meter of time is a
> little over 3 ns. Now you have ONE unit that you can use to measure both
> time and space. There's absolutely no reason to retain two.
>

Only: 'time' and 'space' do not denote the same subject.

If GR is correct and space and time are in fact linked together, then, 
nevertheless, you must not use the same unit for different entities.

'Space' is somehow associated with 'distance'.

'Time' is more connected with 'events' and about their order.

If we order events in space in depth of space, then a beam of light 
passes by events in space. Those events are perceived as simultaneous, 
even if they aren't.

If we use the term 'time' for the imaginary 'movement' between events at 
the same location and use the term 'distance' for real movement in real 
space, we have a consistent use of these terms. But they do not denote 
the same entity, since 'imaginary movement' and 'real movement' are not 
identical.

So I wonder, why you would like to use the same unit for things, that 
would deserve their own units.


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#382225

On 4/23/2016 1:36 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Only: 'time' and 'space' do not denote the same subject.

Oh, but they do. What you are saying is equivalent to someone saying 
"Only: north-south distances and east-west distances do not denote the 
same subject."

>
> If GR is correct and space and time are in fact linked together, then,
> nevertheless, you must not use the same unit for different entities.
>
> 'Space' is somehow associated with 'distance'.
>
> 'Time' is more connected with 'events' and about their order.

And the two are both coordinates of events, and they are mixed. There is 
no PHYSICAL distinction between them except for the sign in the metric. 
Your PREJUDICES that they are fundamentally different is just an 
ingrained habit.

>
> If we order events in space in depth of space, then a beam of light
> passes by events in space. Those events are perceived as simultaneous,
> even if they aren't.
>
> If we use the term 'time' for the imaginary 'movement' between events at
> the same location and use the term 'distance' for real movement in real
> space, we have a consistent use of these terms. But they do not denote
> the same entity, since 'imaginary movement' and 'real movement' are not
> identical.
>
> So I wonder, why you would like to use the same unit for things, that
> would deserve their own units.
>
>
> TH


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#382173

On 4/22/16 4/22/16   3:29 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 22.04.2016 20:35, schrieb Tom Roberts:
>> So when we say something has a length of 1 meter, what we actually mean is
>> that the ratio of its length to the standard length of a meter is 1.
>
> No! If we take the meter as unit for measurements of the type length, then a
> certain length is a product of a number and the standard unit '1 m'.

You say "No!", and then say something equivalent to what I said.
You REALLY need to learn basic logic.


> But what do have against 'm/s' (or another type of dimension)?

Nothing. But 1 is indeed more convenient than 299,792,458 m/s.

> Only: 'time' and 'space' do not denote the same subject.

What God whispered in your ear and told you this?

While we humans do experience them differently, our best models of the world put
them on equal footings (i.e. as the same "subject").


> So I wonder, why you would like to use the same unit for things, that would
> deserve their own units.

Because:
  A) "Deserve different units" is a HISTORICAL claim, not based on the PHYSICS
  B) Natural units reflect a symmetry of our best model of the world
  C) Natural units simplify many calculations
  D) Natural units are CONCEPTUALLY simpler


Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web