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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #387488 > unrolled thread

QM and GR.

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

Contents

  QM and GR. Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-09 08:20 -0700
    Re: QM and GR. Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-07-09 18:02 +0200
      Re: QM and GR. "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-09 16:51 -0700
        Re: QM and GR. "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-09 17:55 -0700
    Re: QM and GR. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-10 07:16 +0200
      Re: QM and GR. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-11 06:04 +0200
    Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-10 08:25 -0500
    Re: QM and GR. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-10 10:28 -0500
      Re: QM and GR. Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-11 08:00 -0700
        Re: QM and GR. Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 17:08 +0200
          Re: QM and GR. Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-11 08:12 -0700
        Re: QM and GR. Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-11 08:08 -0700
          Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 13:42 -0500
            Re: QM and GR. Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-11 12:07 -0700
              Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 14:15 -0500
                Re: QM and GR. Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-11 12:29 -0700
            Re: QM and GR. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-14 22:48 +0200
              Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-14 16:30 -0500
                Re: QM and GR. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-15 07:03 +0200
                  Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 07:37 -0500
                    Re: QM and GR. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-15 22:56 +0200
                      Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-16 13:02 -0500
                        Re: QM and GR. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-16 22:17 +0200
                          Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-16 16:47 -0500
                            Re: QM and GR. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-18 07:09 +0200
                          Re: QM and GR. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-17 10:17 -0500
                            Re: QM and GR. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-18 06:56 +0200
      Re: QM and GR. Jack Chardy <jackc@outlool.org> - 2016-07-11 15:27 +0000
        Re: QM and GR. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-07-16 15:31 +1000
          Re: QM and GR. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-07-16 12:15 -0700
            Re: QM and GR. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-07-18 15:01 +1000
          Re: QM and GR. Greg Buttler <grgb@novotnysite.org> - 2016-07-22 16:09 +0000
            Re: QM and GR. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-07-25 12:21 +1000
              Re: QM and GR. Tsvetana Kasatkina <tzve@noemail.info> - 2016-07-29 20:23 +0000
          Re: QM and GR. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-22 22:39 -0500
            Re: QM and GR. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-23 08:14 +0200
              Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-23 10:43 -0500
              Re: QM and GR. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-23 12:33 -0500
                Re: QM and GR. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-23 22:41 +0200
                  Re: QM and GR. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-24 07:12 +0200
                  Re: QM and GR. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-26 09:21 +0200
                Re: QM and GR. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-27 07:11 +0200
            Re: QM and GR. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-07-23 11:21 -0700
              Re: QM and GR. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-24 22:39 -0500
                Re: QM and GR. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-07-25 09:12 +0200
                  Re: QM and GR. paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 07:02 -0700
                    Re: QM and GR. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-07-25 16:23 +0200
                      Re: QM and GR. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 12:44 -0700
                Re: QM and GR. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-07-25 10:22 -0700
                  Re: QM and GR. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-27 12:15 -0500
                    Re: QM and GR. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-07-29 13:51 -0700
                      Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 16:04 -0500
                        Re: QM and GR. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-07-31 11:32 -0700
                          Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 14:19 -0500
                            Re: QM and GR. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-07-31 12:35 -0700
                              Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 14:56 -0500
                                Re: QM and GR. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-07-31 13:37 -0700
                                  Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 16:09 -0500
                                    Re: QM and GR. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-07-31 15:03 -0700
                                      Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 17:11 -0500
                                        Re: QM and GR. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-07-31 16:05 -0700
                                          Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 08:17 -0500
                                            Re: QM and GR. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-08-01 12:30 -0700
                                              Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 15:11 -0500
                                                Re: QM and GR. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-08-01 13:36 -0700
                                                  Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 17:02 -0500
                      Re: QM and GR. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-30 08:27 -0500
                        Re: QM and GR. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-07-31 12:25 -0700
                          Re: QM and GR. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 13:47 -0700
                            Re: QM and GR. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-08-01 14:17 -0700
                            Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 17:04 -0500
                              Re: QM and GR. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-08-01 18:01 -0700
                                Re: QM and GR. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 19:57 -0700
                                  Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 07:04 -0500
                                    Re: QM and GR. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-06 12:37 -0700
                                  Re: QM and GR. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-08-05 08:37 -0700
                                    Re: QM and GR. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-06 12:40 -0700
                                      Re: QM and GR. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-08-06 14:47 -0700
                                        Re: QM and GR. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 13:16 -0700
                                          Re: QM and GR. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-08-08 13:25 -0700
                                            Re: QM and GR. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 14:16 -0700
                                              Re: QM and GR. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-08-10 10:52 -0700
            Re: QM and GR. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-07-25 16:45 +1000
              Re: QM and GR. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-07-25 16:46 +1000
              Re: QM and GR. Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 11:08 +0200
              Re: QM and GR. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-25 12:28 -0500
                Re: QM and GR. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-07-25 10:51 -0700
                Re: QM and GR. wugi <brol@brol.be> - 2016-07-26 12:11 +0200
                  Re: QM and GR. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-07-27 12:11 -0500
                    Re: QM and GR. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-07-29 10:20 +0200
                      Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 07:13 -0500
                      Re: The rate at which the time axis grows, relative to the spatial dimensions. Adlbifhr Mjduhgfks <am@random.us> - 2016-08-07 15:36 +0000
                        Re: The rate at which the time axis grows, relative to the spatial dimensions. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-08-07 11:16 -0700
                          Re: The rate at which the time axis grows, relative to the spatial dimensions. JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 13:21 -0700
                            Re: The rate at which the time axis grows, relative to the spatial dimensions. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-08-08 13:36 -0700
                      Re: The rate at which the time axis grows, relative to the spatial dimensions. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-07 12:31 -0500
                        Re: The rate at which the time axis grows, relative to the spatial dimensions. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-08 06:57 -0500
                      Re: The rate at which the time axis grows, relative to the spatial dimensions. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-08 07:18 +0200
                        Re: _Nothing_ can change the future, present or past. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-08 10:10 -0700
                        Re: _Nothing_ can change the future, present or past. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-08-08 11:02 -0700
                          Re: _Nothing_ can change the future, present or past. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-08 13:14 -0500
                        Re: _Nothing_ can change the future, present or past. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-08 22:52 +0200
                          Re: Nature decides _everything_. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-09 08:42 +0200
                            Re: Nature decides _everything_. "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-09 07:16 -0700
                              Re: Nature decides _everything_. "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-09 07:49 -0700
                            Re: Nature programmed you to choose one over the other. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-08-09 12:09 -0700
                              Re: Nature programmed you to choose one over the other. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-08-09 13:35 -0700
                                Re: Nature programmed you to choose one over the other. Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-08-09 23:53 +0200
                              Re: Nature programmed you to choose one over the other. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-09 18:17 -0400
                          Re: _Nothing_ can change the future, present or past. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-09 06:51 -0500
                            Re: _Nothing_ can change the future, present or past. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-09 17:51 -0400
                Re: QM and GR. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-02 06:41 -0700
                  Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-02 23:55 -0500
                    Re: QM and GR. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-03 05:27 -0700
                      Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 07:39 -0500
                        Re: QM and GR. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-05 05:25 -0700
                          Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 08:07 -0500
                            Re: QM and GR. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-06 07:51 -0700
                              Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-06 15:57 -0500
                                Re: QM and GR. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-08-06 14:49 -0700
                                  Re: QM and GR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-06 17:30 -0500
    Re: QM and GR. astrofoton@interia.pl - 2016-07-15 17:06 -0700

Page 3 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7  Next page →

#388441

Am 23.07.2016 22:41, schrieb Thomas Heger:

>>> As far as we know, nature behaves unpredictable.
>>
>> NONSENSE! Mostly nature behaves very predictably. We have excellent
>> models that have great predictive power over large domains of interest
>> to us.
>>
>> However it is true that in the quantum domain there is
>> considerable randomness. Usually for macroscopic objects
>> this randomness averages away....
>>
>>
>>> E.g. we cannot predict the path, a certain fly would take.
>>
>> You confuse complexity with unpredictability. A fly is FAR too complex
>> for our models of nature to be applied. But there are lots of situations
>> for which we can accurately predict how an individual atom will
>> behave....
>>


Quantum mechanics is actually responsible for predictions in the realm 
of the very small items, like atoms and particles.

But QM uses statistical methods as main tool and has invented the 
'uncertainty principle', to express the impossibility to do, what you 
believe they actually can.

Actually QM can NOT predict the path of an individual particle or atom.

One reason: particles are not individuals.

IOW: you cannot number particles and find the same particle under the 
same number again.

And if you do and try to confine the realm of investigation to a 
specific particle, the uncertainty principle comes into play.




> No. I want to express, that the input into a system, which we try to
> model, is not known completely.
>
> This is so, because we have only access to a subset of all influences,
> that have an impact on the outcome of something.


If you take a certain spot and calculate, to which form all influences 
onto this point would overlap in the future, you would obviously need to 
estimate all possible influences.

Only you cannot do this, since only a subset of what is possible in 
principle is known and could be measured.

But e.g. neutrinos are hard to measure, but may eventually have an impact.

So you are obliged to restrict the model to simple cases, where most of 
the influences are known and under control.

Only this is not, what we usually want to measure and what predictions 
are about.

Predictions are from the realm, we have interest in and that is our 
usual scale in the macroscopic range.

But macroscopic systems contain really large amounts of smaller items 
and these small entities are actually, what drives the process, we try 
to model.

The overall shape is of no particular interest (for these small items) 
since they simply to not know.

So we want to predict, what is actually generated by statistical 
processes. And that will not work.

TH

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

#388491

Am 23.07.2016 19:33, schrieb Tom Roberts:

>> As far as we know, nature behaves unpredictable.
>
> NONSENSE! Mostly nature behaves very predictably. We have excellent
> models that have great predictive power over large domains of interest
> to us.
>
> However it is true that in the quantum domain there is
> considerable randomness. Usually for macroscopic objects
> this randomness averages away....


If an object behaves randomly only at the particle level, but is 'clean' 
on the macroscopic level, then randomness from the particles would 
average out.


This would only be the case, if the environment is also 'clean' and 
under tight control.

Such states are not that common in the real world, since common objects 
in common environments are subject to randomness of this environment.

Usually things age, get broken, rot, oxidise and so forth.

This is usually ascribed to age and second law of thermodynamics, but is 
actually the influence of the realm, we cannot control.

So you demand to predict such cases, where we have no randomness in the 
macroscopic realm, since in certain cases, we have only influences, we 
know about.

But usually we know not enough, since influences come usually from an 
area, which is invisible.

In a spacetime-view, the things visible are events on our past light 
cone. The things, that could eventually have an influence could stem 
from the the entire past semi-ball, which is past an event.

So in effect we can know only a few percent of what is actually there 
and more than 90% is invisible, but 'there'.

Future is actually like 'sum of all possible path' and all possible 
things add up to the next step in time for a certain system.

If we want to predict the outcome, we must know all possible inputs.

But we cannot know, since we have access only to a certain subset of 
possible influences.

So we could only enlarge the area of control far enough, that no 
unwanted disturbance occurs. Than we make the thing in question VERY 
clean and pure and then we could predict it.

>> E.g. we cannot predict the path, a certain fly would take.
>
> You confuse complexity with unpredictability. A fly is FAR too complex
> for our models of nature to be applied. But there are lots of situations
> for which we can accurately predict how an individual atom will behave....

As a matter of fact, our current models would not allow flies to fly at 
all.


TH

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

#388235

W dniu sobota, 23 lipca 2016 05:39:17 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał:

> Closer to this newsgroup, SR and LET are quite different theories, yet they 
> predict the same results for any experiment within their common domain.

But You never used the LET, therefore you don't know what the LET predicts. :)

> But the situation is quite different for QM and GR -- they are each valid in 
> their own domain, and these domains do not overlap significantly.

valid in their domain... 
1 = 5 is valid in the domain where: 1 = 5?

> Moreover, the 
> union of their domains does not include all possible phenomena. As nature 
> "works" for all phenomena in all domains, there must be some theory that can 
> model her behavior in all domains, including the domains of QM and GR and the 
> additional domain(s) not covered by either.
> 
> Yes, as you say this new theory must have appropriate limits that reduce to QM 
> and GR in their respective domains.
> 
> 	Actually that is a bit stronger than the real requirement, which
> 	is that this new theory agree with all experiments in the domains
> 	of QM and GR. As those theories agree with all experiments within
> 	their domains, the traditional way to do that is to have an
> 	appropriate correspondence limit, but that is not the only
> 	conceivable way....

You omitted one fact:
these both has been deduced directly from the classical science.

Go away, boolonary banana.

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

#388331

On 7/23/16 7/23/16   1:21 PM, astrofoton@interia.pl wrote:
> W dniu sobota, 23 lipca 2016 05:39:17 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał:
>> Closer to this newsgroup, SR and LET are quite different theories, yet they
>> predict the same results for any experiment within their common domain.
>
> But You never used the LET, therefore you don't know what the LET predicts. :)

Nonsense! This is like saying "You never used base-13 arithmetic, therefore you 
don't know what base-13 arithmetic will calculate." Of course we _DO_ know what 
base-13 arithmetic will calculate, because every calculation in base-13 will 
equal the same calculation in base-10, base-2, or any other base -- this is a 
mathematical theorem. Similarly, we _DO_ know what LET predicts, because there 
is a theorem that LET's predictions are identical to SR's, within their common 
domain.


>> But the situation is quite different for QM and GR -- they are each valid in
>> their own domain, and these domains do not overlap significantly.
>
> valid in their domain...
> 1 = 5 is valid in the domain where: 1 = 5?

When you don't know what technical words mean, all you can do is come up with 
nonsense.

In physics, "domain" means a range of phenomena. QM is valid at length scales 
less than ~ 1 micron (except in extraordinary circumstances where I applies at 
larger scales). GR is valid at scales ~ 1 meter or larger (and there are no 
known circumstances where it is valid at smaller scales).


Tom Roberts

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

#388340

Użytkownik "Tom Roberts"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:GcadnaXszqRhFAjKnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com...

|. Similarly, we _DO_ know what LET predicts, because there
|is a theorem that LET's predictions are identical to SR's, within their 
common
|domain.

LET predicts clock error and corrections, while your Shit predicts
time dilation and proper clocks. So, take your theorem and put it
into your puffed ass, where it belongs.
LET, BTW, have won. Check it at GPS.

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

#388350

El lunes, 25 de julio de 2016, 3:12:35 (UTC-4), Maciej Woźniak  escribió:
> Użytkownik "Tom Roberts"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
> dyskusyjnych:GcadnaXszqRhFAjKnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com...
> 
> |. Similarly, we _DO_ know what LET predicts, because there
> |is a theorem that LET's predictions are identical to SR's, within their 
> common
> |domain.
> 
> LET predicts clock error and corrections, while your Shit predicts
> time dilation and proper clocks. So, take your theorem and put it
> into your puffed ass, where it belongs.
> LET, BTW, have won. Check it at GPS.

You are a shitting and farting asshole as always..

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

#388356

Użytkownik "paparios"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
dyskusyjnych:4713ae72-3855-4aa2-8335-981669b8973d@googlegroups.com...

El lunes, 25 de julio de 2016, 3:12:35 (UTC-4), Maciej Woźniak  escribió:
> Użytkownik "Tom Roberts"  napisał w wiadomości grup
> dyskusyjnych:GcadnaXszqRhFAjKnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> |. Similarly, we _DO_ know what LET predicts, because there
> |is a theorem that LET's predictions are identical to SR's, within their
> common
> |domain.
>
> LET predicts clock error and corrections, while your Shit predicts
> time dilation and proper clocks. So, take your theorem and put it
> into your puffed ass, where it belongs.
> LET, BTW, have won. Check it at GPS.

|You are a shitting and farting asshole as always..
You are a shitting and farting asshole as always.. 

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

#388399

On Monday, July 25, 2016 at 7:24:22 AM UTC-7, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> Użytkownik "paparios"  napisał w wiadomości grup 
> dyskusyjnych:4713ae72-3855-4aa2-8335-981669b8973d@googlegroups.com...
> 
> El lunes, 25 de julio de 2016, 3:12:35 (UTC-4), Maciej Woźniak  escribió:
> > Użytkownik "Tom Roberts"  napisał w wiadomości grup
> > dyskusyjnych:GcadnaXszqRhFAjKnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com...
> >
> > |. Similarly, we _DO_ know what LET predicts, because there
> > |is a theorem that LET's predictions are identical to SR's, within their
> > common
> > |domain.
> >
> > LET predicts clock error and corrections, while your Shit predicts
> > time dilation and proper clocks. So, take your theorem and put it
> > into your puffed ass, where it belongs.
> > LET, BTW, have won. Check it at GPS.
> 
> |You are a shitting and farting asshole as always..
> You are a shitting and farting asshole as always..

Looks like Maciej has finally run out of things to say.

--
Jan

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

#388385

W dniu poniedziałek, 25 lipca 2016 05:39:46 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał:

> > But You never used the LET, therefore you don't know what the LET predicts. :)
> 
> Nonsense! This is like saying "You never used base-13 arithmetic, therefore you 
> don't know what base-13 arithmetic will calculate." Of course we _DO_ know what 
> base-13 arithmetic will calculate, because every calculation in base-13 will 
> equal the same calculation in base-10, base-2, or any other base -- this is a 
> mathematical theorem. Similarly, we _DO_ know what LET predicts, because there
> is a theorem that LET's predictions are identical to SR's, within their common domain.

This a wrong analogy.

Lorentz used the: c = const in his theory,
to show how this fallacy works only.

This fallacy leads to the Lorentz transform, of course,
because if you assume this: c = inv,
then you must correct a time accordingly,
exactly the same as the light speed changes,

because the light distance must be the same.

r = ct => r' = ct' in place of the correct - classical version: r' = c't;


A. c = inv -> t' = ...
B. t = inv -> c' = ...

these both are equivalent mathematically,
because in the equations you always use the product:
ct (a real light distance), never c nor t separately.
 
for c = 1 -> t = it's a light speed in fact!

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

#388522

On 7/25/16 7/25/16 - 12:22 PM, astrofoton@interia.pl wrote:
> W dniu poniedziałek, 25 lipca 2016 05:39:46 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał:
>>> But You never used the LET, therefore you don't know what the LET predicts. :)
>> Nonsense! This is like saying "You never used base-13 arithmetic, therefore you
>> don't know what base-13 arithmetic will calculate." Of course we _DO_ know what
>> base-13 arithmetic will calculate, because every calculation in base-13 will
>> equal the same calculation in base-10, base-2, or any other base -- this is a
>> mathematical theorem. Similarly, we _DO_ know what LET predicts, because there
>> is a theorem that LET's predictions are identical to SR's, within their common domain.
>
> This a wrong analogy.

No, it directly shows what I was trying to show: theorems can be used to KNOW 
what a given theory will predict.


> Lorentz used the: c = const in his theory,
> to show [...]

Why do you just make stuff up and pretend it is true? Lorentz did not do that at 
all, nowhere close.


> [... further nonsense]


Tom Roberts

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

#388730

W dniu środa, 27 lipca 2016 19:15:38 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał:

> > This a wrong analogy.
> 
> No, it directly shows what I was trying to show: theorems can be used to KNOW 
> what a given theory will predict.

Indeed. And what the relativity predicts?
1. the spacetime whormholes which dont exist
2. an antimatter which... exist in the SF movies only
3. curved space... around the Mercury, which is
equivalent to the stupid correction type of:
g = g_newton (1 + 3v^2/c^2)
4. a time dilation fantastic concept,
which is equivalent to the prosaic light-speed variability: c - v.
5. etc.


Go away booloney... you have nothing to say in the science.

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

#388731

On 7/29/2016 3:51 PM, astrofoton@interia.pl wrote:
> W dniu środa, 27 lipca 2016 19:15:38 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał:
>
>>> This a wrong analogy.
>>
>> No, it directly shows what I was trying to show: theorems can be used to KNOW
>> what a given theory will predict.
>
> Indeed. And what the relativity predicts?
> 2. an antimatter which... exist in the SF movies only


And if you were to see a track in a bubble chamber that curves in the 
opposite direction in a magnetic field, compared to an electron, and yet 
this particle is measured to have the same mass as the electron, what 
would you say it is?

Do you believe that such a thing has been seen in bubble chambers?

>
> Go away booloney... you have nothing to say in the science.
>


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

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

#388877

W dniu piątek, 29 lipca 2016 23:04:42 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:

> > Indeed. And what the relativity predicts?
> > 2. an antimatter which... exist in the SF movies only
> 
> 
> And if you were to see a track in a bubble chamber that curves in the 
> opposite direction in a magnetic field, compared to an electron, and yet 
> this particle is measured to have the same mass as the electron, what 
> would you say it is?

The answer for a stupid question is simply always:

this is the common - standard and obviously private stupidity,
of the stupid researcher alone, because he is based on his beliefs,
or on the authority of other - the same stupid masters! :)
 
> Do you believe that such a thing has been seen in bubble chambers?

It's a vary fundamental thing for any pseudoscience:
very fantastic devices must exist:

something like the crystal ball in the old tales,
a magic energy... and now you have: the bubbles, accelerators,
space expansion, quantum demons, etc.

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

#388886

On 7/31/2016 1:32 PM, astrofoton@interia.pl wrote:
> W dniu piątek, 29 lipca 2016 23:04:42 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
>
>>> Indeed. And what the relativity predicts?
>>> 2. an antimatter which... exist in the SF movies only
>>
>>
>> And if you were to see a track in a bubble chamber that curves in the
>> opposite direction in a magnetic field, compared to an electron, and yet
>> this particle is measured to have the same mass as the electron, what
>> would you say it is?
>
> The answer for a stupid question is simply always:
>
> this is the common - standard and obviously private stupidity,
> of the stupid researcher alone, because he is based on his beliefs,
> or on the authority of other - the same stupid masters! :)

I'm sorry, are you saying that you wouldn't care to say what it is, 
because you do not believe it is there?

>
>> Do you believe that such a thing has been seen in bubble chambers?
>
> It's a vary fundamental thing for any pseudoscience:
> very fantastic devices must exist:
>
> something like the crystal ball in the old tales,
> a magic energy... and now you have: the bubbles, accelerators,
> space expansion, quantum demons, etc.
>

I'm not following you. Are you saying
1. Such a thing HAS been seen in bubble chambers, but that you wouldn't 
call it what physicists call it.
2. Such a thing has never been seen in bubble chambers, and you refused 
to believe any claim that there has been.
3. You wouldn't ever look in a bubble chamber because you don't want to 
use any tool that a physicist would use to look for antimatter.

Which one?

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

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

#388888

W dniu niedziela, 31 lipca 2016 21:19:49 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:

> I'm not following you. Are you saying
> 1. Such a thing HAS been seen in bubble chambers, but that you wouldn't 
> call it what physicists call it.
> 2. Such a thing has never been seen in bubble chambers, and you refused 
> to believe any claim that there has been.
> 3. You wouldn't ever look in a bubble chamber because you don't want to 
> use any tool that a physicist would use to look for antimatter.
> 
> Which one?


Another stupid question...

You evidently don't know what is the 'observation',
detection, especially in the case of the accelerators.

Your stupidity is not less than the... Plato's,
which deduced the Earth must be fastened in the center of the universe,
because ==he observed=== these all planets and stars circulate around us.

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

#388889

On 7/31/2016 2:35 PM, astrofoton@interia.pl wrote:
> W dniu niedziela, 31 lipca 2016 21:19:49 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
>
>> I'm not following you. Are you saying
>> 1. Such a thing HAS been seen in bubble chambers, but that you wouldn't
>> call it what physicists call it.
>> 2. Such a thing has never been seen in bubble chambers, and you refused
>> to believe any claim that there has been.
>> 3. You wouldn't ever look in a bubble chamber because you don't want to
>> use any tool that a physicist would use to look for antimatter.
>>
>> Which one?
>
>
> Another stupid question...
>
> You evidently don't know what is the 'observation',
> detection, especially in the case of the accelerators.

Alright, let's get down to it and put it in concrete terms.
A bubble chamber observation consists of a taken photograph of tracks of 
bubbles in a liquid. It is independently verified that such tracks are 
always created by the passage of charged, ionizing particles.
Because it is a photograph (actually several photographs taken from 
stereo views), you can measure with a calibrated ruler the sagitta of 
the curved track, and hence you know from geometry the radius of 
curvature of the track. So far, this is just measuring a photograph with 
a ruler, something I'm sure you will understand as a concrete measurement.

Now, this liquid is immersed in a magnetic field created by an 
electromagnet whose current is measured with an ammeter. Therefore you 
know the strength of the magnetic field by using an ammeter, something 
I'm sure you will understand as a concrete measurement.

Now, like all mass spectrometers, there is a specific relationship 
between momentum, radius of curvature, and magnetic field. Since you 
have measured two of them with concrete measurements, you know the 
third, which in this case is momentum. Thus from two concrete 
measurements and the principle of a mass spec, you have a concrete 
measurement of the ionizing particle's momentum. Furthermore, from the 
direction of the bend (always counterclockwise for negative particles, 
always clockwise for positive particles), you know the sign of the 
particle's charge.

Furthermore, you know the particle's speed from time of flight 
measurements, which is the same way that police airplanes measure the 
speed of cars on the highway. This then is a very concrete measurement. 
 From the measured speed and the measured momentum, you now have the mass.

So these measurements are pretty straightforward and unambiguous, and 
you'd be hard-pressed to say how any of them are misinterpreted.

Given this, there is a particle which has a MEASURED mass equal to an 
electron, but it is bending in the magnetic field in the direction 
opposite to an electron, which means it MUST have opposite charge.

Where do you think there is the possibility for having misinterpreted 
these observations? If you believe this is just scientists 
misinterpreting what they see, WHERE exactly is the error, according to you?

>
> Your stupidity is not less than the... Plato's,
> which deduced the Earth must be fastened in the center of the universe,
> because ==he observed=== these all planets and stars circulate around us.
>


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

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

#388892

W dniu niedziela, 31 lipca 2016 21:56:34 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:

> > You evidently don't know what is the 'observation',
> > detection, especially in the case of the accelerators.
> 
> Alright, let's get down to it and put it in concrete terms.
> A bubble chamber observation consists of a taken photograph of tracks of 
> bubbles in a liquid. It is independently verified that such tracks are 
> always created by the passage of charged, ionizing particles.

Almost right, but You lost plenty of facts:

1. you observe images, which is the light-radiation cached on a plate,
so, not particles directly are observed;
and it's another commonly know fact:

2. any source of radiation can be observed many times -
thus the multiplication of images in the astrophysics,
where the single quasar has: 2, 3, 5 or even more its images.

3. the extremely fast moving source, v ~ c/n creates automatically
almost always 2 images, not a single one.
And the one image is reversed in time: v -> -v, thus e -> -e, etc.

What is a positron in the accelerator?
The electron moving backward in time - Feynman said.

That all is a well know phenomena in the waves theory,
and for a long time before any accelerator has been invented...

So, what is a truth!
Your stupid accelerators proved just these all simple facts,
which have been predicted hundreds years ago already, without an observation at all!

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

#388894

On 7/31/2016 3:37 PM, astrofoton@interia.pl wrote:
> W dniu niedziela, 31 lipca 2016 21:56:34 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
>
>>> You evidently don't know what is the 'observation',
>>> detection, especially in the case of the accelerators.
>>
>> Alright, let's get down to it and put it in concrete terms.
>> A bubble chamber observation consists of a taken photograph of tracks of
>> bubbles in a liquid. It is independently verified that such tracks are
>> always created by the passage of charged, ionizing particles.
>
> Almost right, but You lost plenty of facts:
>
> 1. you observe images, which is the light-radiation cached on a plate,
> so, not particles directly are observed;
> and it's another commonly know fact:

Which is true also of your eyes when you look at a table.
Now, tell me that the images cached on your retina of light-radiation 
from the table is not an observation. Go ahead.


>
> 2. any source of radiation can be observed many times -

Are you saying there are multiple images of the tracks in the 
photographs? And also in a photograph of your family?

> thus the multiplication of images in the astrophysics,
> where the single quasar has: 2, 3, 5 or even more its images.
>
> 3. the extremely fast moving source, v ~ c/n creates automatically
> almost always 2 images, not a single one.

Prove that.

> And the one image is reversed in time: v -> -v, thus e -> -e, etc.

Whaaaat? Prove that.

>
> What is a positron in the accelerator?
> The electron moving backward in time - Feynman said.

No, he did not say that a positron in an accelerator is an electron 
moving back in time.

>
> That all is a well know phenomena in the waves theory,
> and for a long time before any accelerator has been invented...
>
> So, what is a truth!
> Your stupid accelerators proved just these all simple facts,
> which have been predicted hundreds years ago already, without an observation at all!
>


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

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

#388896

W dniu niedziela, 31 lipca 2016 23:09:51 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> > 1. you observe images, which is the light-radiation cached on a plate,
> > so, not particles directly are observed;
> > and it's another commonly know fact:
> 
> Which is true also of your eyes when you look at a table.
> Now, tell me that the images cached on your retina of light-radiation 
> from the table is not an observation. Go ahead.

It's an observation, but any observation is incomplete,
thus it leads to the fallacies.. the stupid beings like you are.

The math is reliable only.

> > And the one image is reversed in time: v -> -v, thus e -> -e, etc.
> 
> Whaaaat? Prove that.


I know you are very stupid... but not so much. :)

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

#388897

On 7/31/2016 5:03 PM, astrofoton@interia.pl wrote:
> W dniu niedziela, 31 lipca 2016 23:09:51 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
>>> 1. you observe images, which is the light-radiation cached on a plate,
>>> so, not particles directly are observed;
>>> and it's another commonly know fact:
>>
>> Which is true also of your eyes when you look at a table.
>> Now, tell me that the images cached on your retina of light-radiation
>> from the table is not an observation. Go ahead.
>
> It's an observation, but any observation is incomplete,
> thus it leads to the fallacies.. the stupid beings like you are.

Ah, so you you believe that observations in science are pointless and 
show nothing, as they can be misinterpreted?

You don't believe in the scientific method?

>
> The math is reliable only.

So make the mathematical proofs of your claims.

>
>>> And the one image is reversed in time: v -> -v, thus e -> -e, etc.
>>
>> Whaaaat? Prove that.
>
>
> I know you are very stupid... but not so much. :)
>

So you're not going to try to prove it?


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

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

Page 3 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7  Next page →

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

csiph-web