| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"SCW" |
| Date: |
08 Mar 2006 11:49:33 AM |
| Object: |
A new theory with two postulates |
Here's an opening gambit. I have made two assumptions
1) No theory is infallible.
2) The demise of any theory is close at hand when additional theory is
required to support it against agreed weaknesses.
Any thoughts or comments?
..
SCW
.
|
|
| User: "Hexenmeister" |
|
| Title: Re: A new theory with two postulates |
08 Mar 2006 05:57:51 PM |
|
|
"SCW" <doune60@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1141840173.616339.50560@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
Here's an opening gambit. I have made two assumptions
1) No theory is infallible.
If my theory is that bright green flying elephants lay their eggs in
black holes then my theory is infallible, it cannot be disproven because
there are no bright green flying elephants.
Thus your first assumption (hypothesis) was disproven.
Of course I gave a trivial example, but logically it holds.
On the other hand I might have a theory that falling out of an aircraft
at 30,000ft will certainly result in death. This would in general be true,
but there are exceptions. Parachute is the obvious choice, but what if
I strike the side of a mountain and slide to a stop in snow?
More seriously:
X+X = 2X for all X.
True or false?
2) The demise of any theory is close at hand when additional theory is
required to support it against agreed weaknesses.
Any thoughts or comments?
Even if there are exceptions the theory may still have merit.
The problem arises when the theory had no merit to begin with and
was based on a false assumption, however plausible it may have seemed
at the time it was proposed.
For example, Ptolemy's epicycles do have merit, even though the model
we adopt today is the Copernican/Keplerian system. We can still "predict"
the relative position of planets using Ptolemy. Precision will suffer,
but precision isn't always necessary. If I tell you that you'll see Mars
close to Saturn in early May, you'll know to look.
On the other side of the coin, if you are NASA/JPL planning to launch a
probe to either planet then Ptolemy's theory will be useless.
It was excessively complex anyway, and that above all led to its demise.
Androcles.
SCW
.
|
|
|
| User: "SCW" |
|
| Title: Re: A new theory with two postulates |
09 Mar 2006 03:15:54 AM |
|
|
Hexenmeister wrote:
"SCW" <doune60@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1141840173.616339.50560@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
Here's an opening gambit. I have made two assumptions
1) No theory is infallible.
If my theory is that bright green flying elephants lay their eggs in
black holes then my theory is infallible, it cannot be disproven because
there are no bright green flying elephants.
I would have thought the fact that "there are no bright green flying
elephants" would lead a rational observer to the conclusion that the
theory had problems from the outset.
Thus your first assumption (hypothesis) was disproven.
Of course I gave a trivial example, but logically it holds.
On the other hand I might have a theory that falling out of an aircraft
at 30,000ft will certainly result in death. This would in general be true,
but there are exceptions. Parachute is the obvious choice, but what if
I strike the side of a mountain and slide to a stop in snow?
More seriously:
X+X = 2X for all X.
True or false?
2) The demise of any theory is close at hand when additional theory is
required to support it against agreed weaknesses.
Any thoughts or comments?
Even if there are exceptions the theory may still have merit.
The problem arises when the theory had no merit to begin with and
was based on a false assumption, however plausible it may have seemed
at the time it was proposed.
For example, Ptolemy's epicycles do have merit, even though the model
we adopt today is the Copernican/Keplerian system. We can still "predict"
the relative position of planets using Ptolemy. Precision will suffer,
but precision isn't always necessary. If I tell you that you'll see Mars
close to Saturn in early May, you'll know to look.
On the other side of the coin, if you are NASA/JPL planning to launch a
probe to either planet then Ptolemy's theory will be useless.
It was excessively complex anyway, and that above all led to its demise.
Androcles.
So you seem to agree with the Second Assumption - if you need to
correct your theory with additional theory, then it's probably time to
give it up.
SCW
I'm surprised at you here Androcles, I thought you would have said that
if the First Assumption is correct, then SRT must be wrong, adding
weight to this by using the Second Assumption to point to the Twins
Paradox.
SCW
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hexenmeister" |
|
| Title: Re: A new theory with two postulates |
09 Mar 2006 06:04:29 PM |
|
|
"SCW" <doune60@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1141895754.312327.146940@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
Hexenmeister wrote:
"SCW" <doune60@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1141840173.616339.50560@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
Here's an opening gambit. I have made two assumptions
1) No theory is infallible.
If my theory is that bright green flying elephants lay their eggs in
black holes then my theory is infallible, it cannot be disproven because
there are no bright green flying elephants.
I would have thought the fact that "there are no bright green flying
elephants" would lead a rational observer to the conclusion that the
theory had problems from the outset.
The theory is quite sound until disproven. A rational "observer"
(whatever that is) is faced with either accepting or rejecting the theory,
but should he reject it, he has then the burden of proof.
This is real life. Did OJ Simpson murder Nichole Brown Simpson?
Since you are not a witness, you have to decide on the evidence.
That becomes tainted by the lawyers whose job it is to taint the
evidence, playing on the gullibility and foibles of the jury.
One trick the defence used was a graph that expanded the noise level
of the blood sample when examining trace material.
The jury are not scientists, they are incapable of understanding
DNA evidence. An expert must be called, and then the defense
calls ther own expert and the case is decided in the credibility
of experts, which is far removed from the evidence.
And so a verdict of Not Guilty is returned because the jury is confused
and each individual cannot justifiably convict.
Thus your first assumption (hypothesis) was disproven.
Of course I gave a trivial example, but logically it holds.
On the other hand I might have a theory that falling out of an aircraft
at 30,000ft will certainly result in death. This would in general be
true,
but there are exceptions. Parachute is the obvious choice, but what if
I strike the side of a mountain and slide to a stop in snow?
More seriously:
X+X = 2X for all X.
True or false?
2) The demise of any theory is close at hand when additional theory is
required to support it against agreed weaknesses.
Any thoughts or comments?
Even if there are exceptions the theory may still have merit.
The problem arises when the theory had no merit to begin with and
was based on a false assumption, however plausible it may have seemed
at the time it was proposed.
For example, Ptolemy's epicycles do have merit, even though the model
we adopt today is the Copernican/Keplerian system. We can still "predict"
the relative position of planets using Ptolemy. Precision will suffer,
but precision isn't always necessary. If I tell you that you'll see Mars
close to Saturn in early May, you'll know to look.
On the other side of the coin, if you are NASA/JPL planning to launch a
probe to either planet then Ptolemy's theory will be useless.
It was excessively complex anyway, and that above all led to its demise.
Androcles.
So you seem to agree with the Second Assumption - if you need to
correct your theory with additional theory, then it's probably time to
give it up.
Of course.
SCW
I'm surprised at you here Androcles, I thought you would have said that
if the First Assumption is correct, then SRT must be wrong, adding
weight to this by using the Second Assumption to point to the Twins
Paradox.
Why? You don't know me, yet you have a predisposition to make
judgments about me.
I deal with arrogant morons as they should be dealt with, I swear
at them and cuss them out. It's called escalation, they want an
argument, not a discussion.
This newsgroup is sci.physics. I'll discuss physics and leave
Einstein's ramblings and ranting to sci.physics.relativity unless
someone else brings it up.
You asked for thoughts and comments, it seemed appropriate
to answer the issue metaphorically.
I missed your "agreed weakness" the first time around.
It really doesn't matter about agreement, a theory is dead in the
water if it fails logically.
Nichole Brown did not cut her own throat. Someone did
and it was not OJ Simpson. So who was it?
The theory is that is was OJ Simpson, but that was agreed
not to be the case so there is an unknown murderer at large.
Or maybe she did... is it physically possible?
I asked you "X+X = 2X for all X. True or false?"
I am not surprised you couldn't answer.
Androcles.
SCW
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: A new theory with two postulates |
10 Mar 2006 08:09:17 AM |
|
|
Hexenmeister wrote:
"SCW" <doune60@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1141895754.312327.146940@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
Hexenmeister wrote:
"SCW" <doune60@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1141840173.616339.50560@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
Here's an opening gambit. I have made two assumptions
1) No theory is infallible.
If my theory is that bright green flying elephants lay their eggs in
black holes then my theory is infallible, it cannot be disproven because
there are no bright green flying elephants.
I would have thought the fact that "there are no bright green flying
elephants" would lead a rational observer to the conclusion that the
theory had problems from the outset.
The theory is quite sound until disproven. A rational "observer"
(whatever that is) is faced with either accepting or rejecting the theory,
but should he reject it, he has then the burden of proof.
Actually, the theory is quite useless unless it makes unique
predictions that distinguish it from other theories, and which are
confirmed in experiment. Until that time, the theory is worth precisely
the paper it's written on.
PD
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "SCW" |
|
| Title: Re: A new theory with two postulates |
10 Mar 2006 02:43:58 AM |
|
|
Hexenmeister wrote:
"SCW" <doune60@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1141895754.312327.146940@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
Hexenmeister wrote:
"SCW" <doune60@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1141840173.616339.50560@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
Here's an opening gambit. I have made two assumptions
1) No theory is infallible.
If my theory is that bright green flying elephants lay their eggs in
black holes then my theory is infallible, it cannot be disproven because
there are no bright green flying elephants.
I would have thought the fact that "there are no bright green flying
elephants" would lead a rational observer to the conclusion that the
theory had problems from the outset.
The theory is quite sound until disproven. A rational "observer"
(whatever that is) is faced with either accepting or rejecting the theory,
but should he reject it, he has then the burden of proof.
Occam's Razor
This is real life. Did OJ Simpson murder Nichole Brown Simpson?
Since you are not a witness, you have to decide on the evidence.
That becomes tainted by the lawyers whose job it is to taint the
evidence, playing on the gullibility and foibles of the jury.
One trick the defence used was a graph that expanded the noise level
of the blood sample when examining trace material.
The jury are not scientists, they are incapable of understanding
DNA evidence. An expert must be called, and then the defense
calls ther own expert and the case is decided in the credibility
of experts, which is far removed from the evidence.
And so a verdict of Not Guilty is returned because the jury is confused
and each individual cannot justifiably convict.
You're getting muddled. Jurisdiction, especially American jurisdiction
has nothing to with scientific theory.
Thus your first assumption (hypothesis) was disproven.
Of course I gave a trivial example, but logically it holds.
On the other hand I might have a theory that falling out of an aircraft
at 30,000ft will certainly result in death. This would in general be
true,
but there are exceptions. Parachute is the obvious choice, but what if
I strike the side of a mountain and slide to a stop in snow?
More seriously:
X+X = 2X for all X.
True or false?
2) The demise of any theory is close at hand when additional theory is
required to support it against agreed weaknesses.
Any thoughts or comments?
Even if there are exceptions the theory may still have merit.
The problem arises when the theory had no merit to begin with and
was based on a false assumption, however plausible it may have seemed
at the time it was proposed.
For example, Ptolemy's epicycles do have merit, even though the model
we adopt today is the Copernican/Keplerian system. We can still "predict"
the relative position of planets using Ptolemy. Precision will suffer,
but precision isn't always necessary. If I tell you that you'll see Mars
close to Saturn in early May, you'll know to look.
On the other side of the coin, if you are NASA/JPL planning to launch a
probe to either planet then Ptolemy's theory will be useless.
It was excessively complex anyway, and that above all led to its demise.
Androcles.
So you seem to agree with the Second Assumption - if you need to
correct your theory with additional theory, then it's probably time to
give it up.
Of course.
SCW
I'm surprised at you here Androcles, I thought you would have said that
if the First Assumption is correct, then SRT must be wrong, adding
weight to this by using the Second Assumption to point to the Twins
Paradox.
Why? You don't know me, yet you have a predisposition to make
judgments about me.
I'm lost for words! You Androcles, are seriously accusing someone else
of prejudicial behaviour!
..
<snips drunken ramblings>
Androcles.
SCW
..
SCW
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hexenmeister" |
|
| Title: Re: A new theory with two postulates |
10 Mar 2006 03:15:59 PM |
|
|
"SCW" <doune60@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1141980238.223259.167660@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
<snips drunken ramblings>
*****, ignorant *****.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: A new theory with two postulates |
08 Mar 2006 12:00:36 PM |
|
|
"SCW" <doune60@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1141840173.616339.50560@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
Here's an opening gambit. I have made two assumptions
1) No theory is infallible.
Not according to SR worshippers.
:)
2) The demise of any theory is close at hand when additional theory is
required to support it against agreed weaknesses.
Not really,
Unless it is supposed to be a TOE (theory of everything)
Then it should not need any other theory to back it up.
Any thoughts or comments?
I have a theory that all theories are theoretical.
I will call it the TOT
Is this Spaceman's Theory Of Theoricals infallible?
:)
.
|
|
|
| User: "SCW" |
|
| Title: Re: A new theory with two postulates |
09 Mar 2006 03:21:10 AM |
|
|
Spaceman wrote:
"SCW" <doune60@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1141840173.616339.50560@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
Here's an opening gambit. I have made two assumptions
1) No theory is infallible.
Not according to SR worshippers.
:)
2) The demise of any theory is close at hand when additional theory is
required to support it against agreed weaknesses.
Not really,
Unless it is supposed to be a TOE (theory of everything)
Then it should not need any other theory to back it up.
Any thoughts or comments?
I have a theory that all theories are theoretical.
I will call it the TOT
TOT - I quite like that!
Is this Spaceman's Theory Of Theoricals infallible?
:)
Absolutely it's fallible - see Androcles post on "bright green flying
elephants lay their eggs in black holes". This isn't a theory, it's
just b******* - in which case I have to amend your TOT with an
addendum: Some Theories Are b******* or STAB.
SCW
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: A new theory with two postulates |
09 Mar 2006 09:18:50 AM |
|
|
"SCW" <doune60@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1141896069.972816.92260@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Spaceman wrote:
"SCW" <doune60@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1141840173.616339.50560@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
Here's an opening gambit. I have made two assumptions
1) No theory is infallible.
Not according to SR worshippers.
:)
2) The demise of any theory is close at hand when additional theory is
required to support it against agreed weaknesses.
Not really,
Unless it is supposed to be a TOE (theory of everything)
Then it should not need any other theory to back it up.
Any thoughts or comments?
I have a theory that all theories are theoretical.
I will call it the TOT
TOT - I quite like that!
Is this Spaceman's Theory Of Theoricals infallible?
:)
Absolutely it's fallible - see Androcles post on "bright green flying
elephants lay their eggs in black holes". This isn't a theory, it's
just b******* - in which case I have to amend your TOT with an
addendum: Some Theories Are b******* or STAB.
But they can be ***** and theoritical still can't they?
In short they would be theoretical *****.
so TOT needs no other theory still.
:)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Poe" |
|
| Title: Re: A new theory with two postulates |
09 Mar 2006 09:19:39 AM |
|
|
Spaceman wrote:
"SCW" <doune60@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1141840173.616339.50560@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
Here's an opening gambit. I have made two assumptions
1) No theory is infallible.
Not according to SR worshippers.
I don't know any of those. However, physicists are well aware
that all theories are fallible, including SR.
The status of SR is "right so far, in all experimental tests". No
guarantees on the future. Hardly "infallible".
But being right for a century makes it "pretty damn good".
- Randy
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=5F=D0=AFelf?=" |
|
| Title: GR is high tech, buddy, all the way. |
10 Mar 2006 11:34:05 PM |
|
|
Hi SCW, Re: Your theory about what you called dead theories,
General Relativity is merely a refinement on Newtonian Gravity,
many more refinements are sure to come.
GR is simply a much higher technology, zooming out to cosmic scales
and in to the quantum realm. It's high tech, buddy, all the way.
As I told Sam_Wormley,
consider how the accelerated twin in the famous
Tiwns_Paradox had aged less when he met back up with his mate.
Also, consider how the universe, a.k.a. Space_Time,
is _Observed_ to be expanding at a contant acceleration,
i.e. GR's Cosmological_Constant, lambda.
See the latest landmarks in cosmology, 1998 and 2003, Riess and WMAP:
WikiPedia.ORG/wiki/Timeline_of_cosmology
That means that the universe is going from a notionally infinite density,
with no entropy, to a notionally perfect vacuum, with infinite entropy.
I call that Space_Time_Entropy, where Entopy is a _Spatial_ dimension.
Everything has just always been dissipating.
Dissipation, entropy, is an intrinsic property of mass_energy, I posit.
And it's so_called random nature is naught but unknowns.
Time is also intrinsically spatial,
it's only unknowns that make it seem otherwise.
A twin accerated to infinity at an event horizon
would experience _Zero_ proper time for the entire duration of the universe,
....a total impossibility.
He's also enjoy, ha ha, infinite Unruh radiation,
....which means there's an infinite energy source, another impossibility.
In Ireland, 2004, Hawking said:
Thus the total path integral is unitary
and information is not lost in the formation and evaporation of black holes.
The way the information gets out seems to be that
a true event horizon never forms, just an apparent horizon.
__ GR Conference website summary of Hawking's talk.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: JR Gibberish |
11 Mar 2006 09:00:08 AM |
|
|
"Jeff_?elf" <Me@Privacy.NET> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2006_Mar_10_oTVo@Cotse.NET...
Hi SCW, Re: Your theory about what you called dead theories,
General Relativity is merely a refinement on Newtonian Gravity,
many more refinements are sure to come.
GR is simply a much higher technology, zooming out to cosmic scales
and in to the quantum realm. It's high tech, buddy, all the way.
Can you explain to me the interactions of GR and quantum mechanics please? I
seem to have forgotten.
I call that Space_Time_Entropy, where Entopy is a _Spatial_ dimension.
You can call it George for all I care. It is still not correct.
Everything has just always been dissipating.
Dissipation, entropy, is an intrinsic property of mass_energy, I posit.
I posit you are wrong.
And it's so_called random nature is naught but unknowns.
Again. I posit you dont understand what you are talking about and simply got
it wrong.
Time is also intrinsically spatial,
Prove it.
it's only unknowns that make it seem otherwise.
Gibberish.
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: Haven't you ever heard of quantum black holes ? |
13 Mar 2006 08:36:46 PM |
|
|
Hi T_Wake,
Can you explain to me the interactions of GR and quantum mechanics please ?
I seem to have forgotten.
How could you forget something you never knew ?
SR is used constantly by high energy physicists,
and GR is just a superset of that, extending SR to accelerated frames.
Haven't you ever heard of quantum black holes ?
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Haven't you ever heard of quantum black holes ? |
14 Mar 2006 11:23:08 AM |
|
|
"Jeff.Relf" <Me@Privacy.NET> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2006_Mar_13_esjQ@Cotse.NET...
Hi T_Wake,
Can you explain to me the interactions of GR and quantum mechanics please
?
I seem to have forgotten.
How could you forget something you never knew ?
Very true. You cant. What has that got to do with anything?
SR is used constantly by high energy physicists,
and GR is just a superset of that, extending SR to accelerated frames.
Haven't you ever heard of quantum black holes ?
Where in the above word salad was an answer to my question?
Specifically, what is there in GR which describes quantum interactions. What
aspects of GR can be used in QM?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: Haven't you ever heard of quantum black holes ? |
13 Mar 2006 08:39:04 PM |
|
|
[ Reposted to include the proper attribution ]
Hi T_Wake, You asked:
Can you explain to me the interactions of GR and quantum mechanics please ?
I seem to have forgotten.
How could you forget something you never knew ?
SR is used constantly by high energy physicists,
and GR is just a superset of that, extending SR to accelerated frames.
Haven't you ever heard of quantum black holes ?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: JR Gibberish |
11 Mar 2006 09:03:18 PM |
|
|
T Wake wrote:
[snip]
He doesn't even read legal documents before signing them, which just
got his dumb ***** evicted. What makes you think he will listen to either
of us correcting him about how wrong he is about GR?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hexenmeister" |
|
| Title: Re: JR Gibberish |
12 Mar 2006 08:01:31 AM |
|
|
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1142132598.417442.7690@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
|
| T Wake wrote:
|
| [snip]
|
Sure can, anytime.
[snip]
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=80=A6Relf?=" |
|
| Title: It's cut and dried, I will win. |
13 Mar 2006 07:15:33 AM |
|
|
Hi Eric_Gisse, You told T_Wake:
He doesn't even read legal documents before signing them,
which just got his dumb ***** evicted.
What makes you think he will listen to either of us
correcting him about how wrong he is about GR ?
Neither of you two understand GR in the least.
GR is simply more technologically advance then Newton's equations.
It's the bases of such _Ultra_High_Tech_ things as particle accelerators,
GPS birds, WMAP, Hubble, etc.
I took Einstein's Space_Time and extend it one more _Spatial_ dimension,
to Space_Time_Entropy... thus including so-called cosmic time.
Just as there's not enough energy in the universe to maintain a perfect vacuum,
there's no place with the boundless energy of an infinitely dense black hole.
One step beyond Einstein... that's where I'm at.
As for my eviction last Friday,
that happened because I was _Naive_ enough to think
that the Judge might care about the employment status of Patinha and me.
Instead all he cared about was enforcing a so-called rental agreement
that lasted a mere 2 months and who's only purpose was
to take advantage of my ignorance of the laws to deny me my
right to the Just_Cause_Eviction_Ordinace.
I have tenure, 62 months of on-time payments.
But, now that I've been dispossessed of my former idealism,
I can work the system as is... and _Win_.
In a few hours, I'll be at the county court house filing an appeal.
I'll win, I'll bet thousands of U.S. dollars on it, if I have to.
I know without a doubt that landlord wants to evict me because of Patinha,
the very cute 18 year old girl that often visits me.
Patinha came here September 1st of last year
and my landlord started the eviction process Sept 16th.
She falsely imagines that I'm doing drugs and having sex with minors,
and has told me that I could move to any of her other units
if Patinha stopped visiting me.
I _Always_ pay my rent at the first of the month, never earlier.
And I now _Clearly_ recall that my notice to vacate came _After_ I had payed
my rent for February... _After_ the so-called agreement had expired.
It's cut and dried, I will win.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: It's cut and dried, I will win. |
13 Mar 2006 10:45:29 AM |
|
|
On Monday 13 March 2006 13:15, Jeff…Relf (Me@Privacy.NET) procrastinated
for a bit then wrote in sci.physics
(<Jeff_Relf_2006_Mar_13_W45y@Cotse.NET>):
Hi Eric_Gisse, You told T_Wake:
Hi _J_e_f_f_ _R_e_l_F_
Neither of you two understand GR in the least.
GR is simply more technologically advance then Newton's equations.
Just in case there was any doubt about the situation, you clarify matters.
Thank you.
Do you hang out with Spaceman?
It's the bases of such _Ultra_High_Tech_ things as particle accelerators,
GPS birds, WMAP, Hubble, etc.
Nothing you have listed there is "Ultra High Tech" no matter how many
undercores you wish to use.
You are talking about technology which was understood and developed many,
many years ago.
I took Einstein's Space_Time and extend it one more _Spatial_ dimension,
to Space_Time_Entropy... thus including so-called cosmic time.
You took a valid theory, with lots of experimental evidence and went
slightly insane with it. You decided to add a dimension (based on your
fundamental lack of understanding) and then repeatedly "posit" your theory.
You don't understand the concept of spatial dimensions.
Just as there's not enough energy in the universe to maintain a perfect
vacuum, there's no place with the boundless energy of an infinitely dense
black hole. One step beyond Einstein... that's where I'm at.
You are more than one step beyond Einstein. Sadly, you are walking
backwards.
As for my eviction last Friday,
that happened because I was _Naive_ enough to think
that the Judge might care about the employment status of Patinha and me.
Why should he?
Instead all he cared about was enforcing a so-called rental agreement
that lasted a mere 2 months and who's only purpose was
to take advantage of my ignorance of the laws to deny me my
right to the Just_Cause_Eviction_Ordinace.
Damn those laws.
I have tenure, 62 months of on-time payments.
But, now that I've been dispossessed of my former idealism,
I can work the system as is... and _Win_.
Good for you.
In a few hours, I'll be at the county court house filing an appeal.
I'll win, I'll bet thousands of U.S. dollars on it, if I have to.
Good for you. I honestly hope it goes well for you.
I know without a doubt that landlord wants to evict me because of Patinha,
the very cute 18 year old girl that often visits me.
So what?
Patinha came here September 1st of last year
and my landlord started the eviction process Sept 16th.
And?
She falsely imagines that I'm doing drugs and having sex with minors,
and has told me that I could move to any of her other units
if Patinha stopped visiting me.
I think if she honestly thought that, the police would be spending more time
at your house. It is more likely she is concerned that your associates will
have little or no respect for her property.
I _Always_ pay my rent at the first of the month, never earlier.
If you did, wouldn't that make it the month before's rent?
And I now _Clearly_ recall that my notice to vacate came _After_ I had
payed my rent for February... _After_ the so-called agreement had expired.
You recall this now? Not that I am suspicious or anything...
It's cut and dried, I will win.
Seriously, I hope you do. I also hope you eventually grow out of trying to
blog on USENET.
--
T Wake
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: A new theory with two postulates |
08 Mar 2006 01:10:55 PM |
|
|
SCW wrote:
No theory is infallible.
Fallibility is well known, and so far there has never been
a prediction of SR, GTR or QM that has been contradicted by an
observation.
.
|
|
|
| User: "SCW" |
|
| Title: Re: A new theory with two postulates |
09 Mar 2006 03:25:43 AM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
SCW wrote:
No theory is infallible.
Fallibility is well known, and so far there has never been
a prediction of SR, GTR or QM that has been contradicted by an
observation.
Well SR has the Twins Paradox and Bohr & Einstein seemed to spend a lot
of time debating GR & QM.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr-Einstein_debates
SCW
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: A new theory with two postulates |
09 Mar 2006 02:08:02 PM |
|
|
SCW wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
SCW wrote:
No theory is infallible.
Fallibility is well known, and so far there has never been
a prediction of SR, GTR or QM that has been contradicted by an
observation.
Well SR has the Twins Paradox and Bohr & Einstein seemed to spend a lot
of time debating GR & QM.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr-Einstein_debates
SCW
You really should take the time to understand both the "Twins Paradox"
and the Bohr & Einstein debate. Really good stuff--do dig into them.
You will learn a lot and it's really interesting.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: A new theory with two postulates |
09 Mar 2006 07:34:17 AM |
|
|
SCW wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
SCW wrote:
No theory is infallible.
Fallibility is well known, and so far there has never been
a prediction of SR, GTR or QM that has been contradicted by an
observation.
Well SR has the Twins Paradox and Bohr & Einstein seemed to spend a lot
of time debating GR & QM.
The "twin paradox" is poorly named -- it isn't a paradox. It is a
puzzle that a good understanding of SR resolves quite nicely. It is
only a paradox with a shallow understanding of SR.
The Bohr/Einstein debates fomented some wonderful experimental work,
which is the best thing they could have done. Experiments showed
Einstein was wrong about QM.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr-Einstein_debates
SCW
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: A new theory with two postulates |
12 Mar 2006 05:31:35 PM |
|
|
In article <1141911257.611664.298120@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
PD <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:
SCW wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
SCW wrote:
No theory is infallible.
Fallibility is well known, and so far there has never been
a prediction of SR, GTR or QM that has been contradicted by an
observation.
Well SR has the Twins Paradox and Bohr & Einstein seemed to spend a lot
of time debating GR & QM.
The "twin paradox" is poorly named -- it isn't a paradox. It is a
puzzle that a good understanding of SR resolves quite nicely. It is
only a paradox with a shallow understanding of SR.
It's aptly named. The "twin inconsistency" would have been a poor name.
--
"'No user-serviceable parts inside.' I'll be the judge of that!"
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: A new theory with two postulates |
13 Mar 2006 06:42:08 AM |
|
|
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
In article <1141911257.611664.298120@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
PD <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:
SCW wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
SCW wrote:
No theory is infallible.
Fallibility is well known, and so far there has never been
a prediction of SR, GTR or QM that has been contradicted by an
observation.
Well SR has the Twins Paradox and Bohr & Einstein seemed to spend a lot
of time debating GR & QM.
The "twin paradox" is poorly named -- it isn't a paradox. It is a
puzzle that a good understanding of SR resolves quite nicely. It is
only a paradox with a shallow understanding of SR.
It's aptly named. The "twin inconsistency" would have been a poor name.
The "twins puzzle" is a much better name, IMHO.
PD
--
"'No user-serviceable parts inside.' I'll be the judge of that!"
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "SCW" |
|
| Title: Re: A new theory with two postulates |
09 Mar 2006 07:45:26 AM |
|
|
PD wrote:
SCW wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
SCW wrote:
No theory is infallible.
Fallibility is well known, and so far there has never been
a prediction of SR, GTR or QM that has been contradicted by an
observation.
Well SR has the Twins Paradox and Bohr & Einstein seemed to spend a lot
of time debating GR & QM.
The "twin paradox" is poorly named -- it isn't a paradox. It is a
puzzle that a good understanding of SR resolves quite nicely. It is
only a paradox with a shallow understanding of SR.
OK, enlighten us.
The Bohr/Einstein debates fomented some wonderful experimental work,
which is the best thing they could have done. Experiments showed
Einstein was wrong about QM.
Very true.
SCW
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: A new theory with two postulates |
09 Mar 2006 08:21:52 AM |
|
|
SCW wrote:
PD wrote:
SCW wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
SCW wrote:
No theory is infallible.
Fallibility is well known, and so far there has never been
a prediction of SR, GTR or QM that has been contradicted by an
observation.
Well SR has the Twins Paradox and Bohr & Einstein seemed to spend a lot
of time debating GR & QM.
The "twin paradox" is poorly named -- it isn't a paradox. It is a
puzzle that a good understanding of SR resolves quite nicely. It is
only a paradox with a shallow understanding of SR.
OK, enlighten us.
You mean "enlighten me"? I don't know where you're starting from. Ask a
specific question.
The Bohr/Einstein debates fomented some wonderful experimental work,
which is the best thing they could have done. Experiments showed
Einstein was wrong about QM.
Very true.
SCW
.
|
|
|
| User: "SCW" |
|
| Title: Re: A new theory with two postulates |
09 Mar 2006 09:28:19 AM |
|
|
PD wrote:
SCW wrote:
PD wrote:
SCW wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
SCW wrote:
No theory is infallible.
Fallibility is well known, and so far there has never been
a prediction of SR, GTR or QM that has been contradicted by an
observation.
Well SR has the Twins Paradox and Bohr & Einstein seemed to spend a lot
of time debating GR & QM.
The "twin paradox" is poorly named -- it isn't a paradox. It is a
puzzle that a good understanding of SR resolves quite nicely. It is
only a paradox with a shallow understanding of SR.
OK, enlighten us.
You mean "enlighten me"? I don't know where you're starting from. Ask a
specific question.
How is the Twins Paradox resolved in SR?
SCW
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: A new theory with two postulates |
12 Mar 2006 06:16:40 PM |
|
|
In article <1141918099.747081.15970@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
SCW <doune60@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
PD wrote:
SCW wrote:
PD wrote:
SCW wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
SCW wrote:
No theory is infallible.
Fallibility is well known, and so far there has never been
a prediction of SR, GTR or QM that has been contradicted by an
observation.
Well SR has the Twins Paradox and Bohr & Einstein seemed to spend a lot
of time debating GR & QM.
The "twin paradox" is poorly named -- it isn't a paradox. It is a
puzzle that a good understanding of SR resolves quite nicely. It is
only a paradox with a shallow understanding of SR.
OK, enlighten us.
You mean "enlighten me"? I don't know where you're starting from. Ask a
specific question.
How is the Twins Paradox resolved in SR?
SCW
Can you even state what the paradox is?
Do a careful accounting of the elapsed time of each twin as determined by
each twin. Say the journey (in the Earth frame) covers a distance L and
the rocket twin goes out and comes back with a speed v (velocity v one way
and -v the other way). Each twin will see the other's clock slow by the
usual amount, the traveling twin will see a shorter distance to travel.
Use Y for the Greek letter gamma.
Elapsed time on Earth as determined on Earth:
t_EE = 2L/v
Elapsed time on the rocket as determined on Earth:
t_Er = t_EE/Y
= 2L/Yv
Elapsed time on the rocket as determined on the rocket:
t_rr = 2(L/Y)/v = 2L/Yv
Elapsed time on Earth as determined on the rocket:
t_rE = t_rr/Y
= 2L / Y^2 v
We have t_Er=t_rr, which a self-consistent theory must have. But
t_EE - t_rE = 2Lv/c^2
There's the paradox-- we have failed to consistently determine the elapsed
time on the rocket from both frames. For the special theory of relativity
to be consistent we cannot require a preferred frame to do our
calculations.
We have also failed there to determined the effect of the rocketeer
hopping from the outward-bound frame to the inward-bound frame. The
assumption was that the acceleration was "sudden", occuring in zero time,
and so could be neglected. But what do the Lorentz transformations have
to say about it?
Outward:
t' = Y(t - vL/c^2)
Inward:
t'' = Y(t + vL/c^2)
t'' - t' = 2YvL/c^2
The rocketeer sees the Earth clock suddenly jump ahead when he "suddenly"
accelerates. When he reverses the time dilation relation to translate his
observation of Earth time into Earth observation of Earth time we lose the
gamma, giving exactly the difference that we had to make up for.
Since most people seem more comfortable with gravitational time dilation
than with accelerated reference frames in special relativity, we might
gain some intuition by reversing the equivalence principle: an accelerated
frame is like being in a uniform gravitational field. It follows, then,
that there is blueshifting of clocks "above" you and redshifting of clocks
"below" you. By how much? Proportional to acceleration a (if a=0 there
is no effect) and proportional to distance L (if L=0 there is no effect),
and the difference in elapsed times would be proportonal to the length of
time, t, that we make our observation. And use factors of c to make the
units come out right.
delta (delta t) = Lat/c^2
But if the acceleration is such that we go from v to -v, then at=2v, or
delta (delta t) = 2Lv/c^2
Look familiar? We cannot ignore the acceleration of the rocketeer no
matter how "sudden" it is. The shorter t is, the larger a must be, and
the product a*t doesn't change even as a->infinity.
--
"The polhode rolls without slipping on the herpolhode lying in the
invariable plane." -- Goldstein, Classical Mechanics 2nd. ed., p207.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: A new theory with two postulates |
09 Mar 2006 12:15:36 PM |
|
|
SCW wrote:
PD wrote:
SCW wrote:
PD wrote:
SCW wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
SCW wrote:
No theory is infallible.
Fallibility is well known, and so far there has never been
a prediction of SR, GTR or QM that has been contradicted by an
observation.
Well SR has the Twins Paradox and Bohr & Einstein seemed to spend a lot
of time debating GR & QM.
The "twin paradox" is poorly named -- it isn't a paradox. It is a
puzzle that a good understanding of SR resolves quite nicely. It is
only a paradox with a shallow understanding of SR.
OK, enlighten us.
You mean "enlighten me"? I don't know where you're starting from. Ask a
specific question.
How is the Twins Paradox resolved in SR?
Well, since you asked a general question, I'll give you a general
answer.
There are (at least) two common mistakes that are made by beginners
that look at the twins puzzle.
Mistake 1: "The twins have symmetric situations. From the perspective
of the Earth twin, the traveling twin is moving, but from the
perspective of the traveling twin the Earth twin is moving."
The two are not symmetric at all. The traveling twin experiences
something that the Earth twin does not at all: the change in direction
(and an acceleration that accompanies that). It is this change in
direction that signals that one twin inhabits more than one inertial
reference frame, while the other does not.
Mistake 2: "It's the traveling twin's motion that makes him age less."
The motion is not the source of the difference in ages. There are two
spacetime events -- departure and reunion -- that mark the beginning
and end of this exercise. The Earth twin takes a (more or less)
straight-line path through spacetime between these two events. The
traveling twin takes a decidedly not straight-line path through
spacetime between these two events, as any spacetime diagram of this
puzzle will show. And in spacetime, the straightest path between any
two points in spacetime is the *longest* path. (The fact that it is not
the *shortest* path is due to the key differency between the metrics of
Minkowski flat space and Euclidean flat space.) A clock on a timelike
path through spacetime marks the length of that path, and so it is no
wonder that the Earth twin's clock reads more than the traveling twin's
clock at the second event -- the Earth twin's path through spacetime to
that event is longer.
Fixing the first mistake resolves the apparent paradox. Fixing the
second mistake shows the student what the clock is actually measuring
and why it comes out the way it does.
PD
SCW
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
