| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Eckard Blumschein" |
| Date: |
25 Nov 2004 02:20:00 AM |
| Object: |
Dear Greenfield collection |
I refer to the "Greenfield collection" as to Sam W, uncle Al and all the
other self-entitled Einsteinians who managed to drag away all attention
from my original topic "Is physics really a matter of belief?" and to
pleasure-seeking attack the admittedly somewhat strange views of Jim,
not Edward, Greenfield.
Dear Greenfield collection,
May I ask for a serious discussion of my assertion that, relative to an
observing object, future events do never influence past ones, therefore
future spacetime can only be a matter of belief in extrapolation but it
definitely evades any access, and exclusion of negative elapsed time
would remove apparent symmetry and complex redundancy from physics.
I am convinced that my assertion is correct in ordinary physics. A final
judgement which also includes micro- and macrocosmos is beyond my scope.
Sincerely,
Eckard Blumschein
.
|
|
| User: "Guenther von Knakspott" |
|
| Title: Re: Dear Greenfield collection |
27 Nov 2004 01:54:48 AM |
|
|
Eckard Blumschein <blumschein@et.uni-magdeburg.de> wrote in message news:<41A595B0.8080103@et.uni-magdeburg.de>...
[snip weird ramblings]
May I ask for a serious discussion of my assertion that, relative to an
observing object, future events do never influence past ones, therefore
future spacetime can only be a matter of belief in extrapolation but it
definitely evades any access, and exclusion of negative elapsed time
would remove apparent symmetry and complex redundancy from physics.
I am convinced that my assertion is correct in ordinary physics. A final
judgement which also includes micro- and macrocosmos is beyond my scope.
Sincerely,
Eckard Blumschein
Say Blumschein, does your model of time include the present? or did
you leave away the 0 for the conveniece of your crippled mind?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eckard Blumschein" |
|
| Title: Re: Dear Greenfield collection |
29 Nov 2004 08:16:15 AM |
|
|
On 11/27/2004 8:54 AM, Guenther von Knakspott wrote:
May I ask for a serious discussion of my assertion that, relative to an
observing object, future events do never influence past ones, therefore
future spacetime can only be a matter of belief in extrapolation but it
definitely evades any access, and exclusion of negative elapsed time
would remove apparent symmetry and complex redundancy from physics.
I am convinced that my assertion is correct in ordinary physics. A final
judgement which also includes micro- and macrocosmos is beyond my scope.
Say Blumschein, does your model of time include the present? or did
you leave away the 0 for the conveniece of your crippled mind?
Your insulting style is unacceptable.
Nonetheless, I consider your question worth to be answered because it
reflects widespread confusion concerning the present in physics as well
as Buridan's donkey.
Let me declare first: My notion of time is less affected from
set-theoretic flaws than the usual event-related one.
What about the notion present, I do not consider it a physically
relevant one. 'Today' includes near past as well as near future.
Referring to zero, you presumably restricted to the idea of the naked
minimum of neutrality. This reveals your metamathematical position as a
believer in godgiven numbers. I am rather a person without any
preference for a pre-fabricated theoretical position. Having clear
criteria which are at variance with Hilbert's set-theory, I was pointed
to John L. Bell whose text on Infinitesimals and the Continuum comes
very close to my own reasoning. I imagine the neutral zero of IR like a
number of zero relevance. There is no chance to distinguish it from +0
and -0. So I would a little bit modify the "tertia non datur" into
"tertia non valet".
Eckard Blumschein
.
|
|
|
| User: "Guenther von Knakspott" |
|
| Title: Re: Dear Greenfield collection |
30 Nov 2004 03:27:16 PM |
|
|
Eckard Blumschein <blumschein@et.uni-magdeburg.de> wrote in message news:<41AB2F2F.3080700@et.uni-magdeburg.de>...
On 11/27/2004 8:54 AM, Guenther von Knakspott wrote:
May I ask for a serious discussion of my assertion that, relative to an
observing object, future events do never influence past ones, therefore
future spacetime can only be a matter of belief in extrapolation but it
definitely evades any access, and exclusion of negative elapsed time
would remove apparent symmetry and complex redundancy from physics.
I am convinced that my assertion is correct in ordinary physics. A final
judgement which also includes micro- and macrocosmos is beyond my scope.
Say Blumschein, does your model of time include the present? or did
you leave away the 0 for the conveniece of your crippled mind?
Your insulting style is unacceptable.
Nonetheless, I consider your question worth to be answered because it
reflects widespread confusion concerning the present in physics as well
as Buridan's donkey.
What does the present, pray tell us Blumschein, have to do with
Buridan's *****?
Let me declare first: My notion of time is less affected from
set-theoretic flaws than the usual event-related one.
This is quite surprising since you cannot seem to formulate 2
sentences without working yourself up into raving about the
perversions of set theory. Kindly describe to us your 'notion' of time
without quotes and without derisory comments on set theory or set
theoreticians.
What about the notion present, I do not consider it a physically
relevant one.
Please answer my original question Blumschein, you deny the existence
of the future, do you also deny the existence of the present?
'Today' includes near past as well as near future.
Referring to zero, you presumably restricted to the idea of the naked
minimum of neutrality. This reveals your metamathematical position as a
believer in godgiven numbers. I am rather a person without any
preference for a pre-fabricated theoretical position. Having clear
criteria which are at variance with Hilbert's set-theory, I was pointed
to John L. Bell whose text on Infinitesimals and the Continuum comes
very close to my own reasoning. I imagine the neutral zero of IR like a
number of zero relevance.
Would that be +zero or -zero Blumschein?
There is no chance to distinguish it from +0
and -0. So I would a little bit modify the "tertia non datur" into
"tertia non valet".
Tertium Blumschein, tertium.
Eckard Blumschein
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eckard Blumschein" |
|
| Title: Re: Dear Greenfield collection |
01 Dec 2004 03:19:04 AM |
|
|
On 11/30/2004 10:27 PM, Guenther von Knakspott wrote:
Say Blumschein, does your model of time include the present? or did
you leave away the 0 for the conveniece of your crippled mind?
Your insulting style is unacceptable.
Nonetheless, I consider your question worth to be answered because it
reflects widespread confusion concerning the present in physics as well
as Buridan's donkey.
What does the present, pray tell us Blumschein, have to do with
Buridan's *****?
Buridan's donkey is a nice and perhaps ancient symbol of a contradiction
between the number-theoretical existence of a neutral position between
left and right and practical non-existence of anything between left and
right within a continuum. Imagine Minkowski's cone of the past to the
left and the cone of future to the right. There is nothing in between.
Present time has no physical extension.
Let me declare first: My notion of time is less affected from
set-theoretic flaws than the usual event-related one.
This is quite surprising since you cannot seem to formulate 2
sentences without working yourself up into raving about the
perversions of set theory. Kindly describe to us your 'notion' of time
without quotes and without derisory comments on set theory or set
theoreticians.
The traditional notion of time relates to an arbitrarily chosen event of
reference, e.g. midhight somewhere, and determinists like Laplace
imagined a particular process started just at such event as if someone
said light on, and light was switched on. A corresponding "causal"
signal equals zero up to this t=0. Putting a Dirac delta exactly at t=0
is a bit questionable in this case.
My notion of elapsed time does not arbitrarily relate to any event.
Instead it is bound to the only available natural reference: the actual
border between past and future.
Imagine yourself sitting at front position within a non-stop train
traveling with constant speed. The ordinary event-related time scale
corresponds to positions along the railway. Elapsed time corresponds to
the permanently increasing distance between you and a station you
already were passing. Zero of elapsed time means you are just passing a
station.
What about the notion present, I do not consider it a physically
relevant one.
Please answer my original question Blumschein, you deny the existence
of the future, do you also deny the existence of the present?
The present theoretically exists albeit with zero extension. I do not
deny future time as a reasonable quantity. I am merely sure that future
events do not belong to physical reality. Please distinguish between the
abstract notion of time and the notion of physically relevant elapsed
time.
'Today' includes near past as well as near future.
Referring to zero, you presumably restricted to the idea of the naked
minimum of neutrality. This reveals your metamathematical position as a
believer in godgiven numbers. I am rather a person without any
preference for a pre-fabricated theoretical position. Having clear
criteria which are at variance with Hilbert's set-theory, I was pointed
to John L. Bell whose text on Infinitesimals and the Continuum comes
very close to my own reasoning. I imagine the neutral zero of IR like a
number of zero relevance.
Would that be +zero or -zero Blumschein?
Your question indicates that you did not understand me. Of course, one
would be tempted to read +zero as a positive number, -zero as a negative
one, and an ideal continuum has the peculiarity that there are
infinitely many numbers between any two numbers, why not between -zero
and +zero, too. Strictly speaking, however, the 0 of IR does not behave
differently from oo in that, it is not really a number to calculate with
because:
oo+x=oo, oo-oo=any x, 0*x=0, 0/0=any x, x/0=oo, 0*oo=any x, etc.
In so far, +0, 0, and -0 convey identical messages: There is no smaller
real number than +0. In that sense, 0+ is already neutral.
The only reason to allow for a neutral zero among them is the intention
to embed the neutral zero from IZ in IQ. Nobody can decide whether zero
is actually -zero or +zero. In other words, equality between numbers out
of IZ and rational numbers is just a question of limited precision of
the latter. Numbers and continua remain fundamentally but irrelevantly
different until they fictitiously meet each other at the potential
infinity.
There is no chance to distinguish it from +0
and -0. So I would a little bit modify the "tertia non datur" into
"tertia non valet".
Tertium Blumschein, tertium.
Correct and better than "valent". Thank you. Do you have a better
suggestion instead of valere? I intended to express: It does not matter,
has no weight, is worth nothing, has no extension, exists just for the
sake of narrow minded formalists.
Eckard Blumschein
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Greenfield" |
|
| Title: Re: Dear Greenfield collection |
02 Dec 2004 09:40:28 PM |
|
|
Eckard Blumschein <blumschein@et.uni-magdeburg.de> wrote in message news:<41AD8C88.1@et.uni-magdeburg.de>...
On 11/30/2004 10:27 PM, Guenther von Knakspott wrote:
Say Blumschein, does your model of time include the present? or did
you leave away the 0 for the conveniece of your crippled mind?
Your insulting style is unacceptable.
Nonetheless, I consider your question worth to be answered because it
reflects widespread confusion concerning the present in physics as well
as Buridan's donkey.
What does the present, pray tell us Blumschein, have to do with
Buridan's *****?
Buridan's donkey is a nice and perhaps ancient symbol of a contradiction
between the number-theoretical existence of a neutral position between
left and right and practical non-existence of anything between left and
right within a continuum. Imagine Minkowski's cone of the past to the
left and the cone of future to the right. There is nothing in between.
Present time has no physical extension.
Let me declare first: My notion of time is less affected from
set-theoretic flaws than the usual event-related one.
This is quite surprising since you cannot seem to formulate 2
sentences without working yourself up into raving about the
perversions of set theory. Kindly describe to us your 'notion' of time
without quotes and without derisory comments on set theory or set
theoreticians.
The traditional notion of time relates to an arbitrarily chosen event of
reference, e.g. midhight somewhere, and determinists like Laplace
imagined a particular process started just at such event as if someone
said light on, and light was switched on. A corresponding "causal"
signal equals zero up to this t=0. Putting a Dirac delta exactly at t=0
is a bit questionable in this case.
My notion of elapsed time does not arbitrarily relate to any event.
Instead it is bound to the only available natural reference: the actual
border between past and future.
Imagine yourself sitting at front position within a non-stop train
traveling with constant speed. The ordinary event-related time scale
corresponds to positions along the railway. Elapsed time corresponds to
the permanently increasing distance between you and a station you
already were passing. Zero of elapsed time means you are just passing a
station.
What about the notion present, I do not consider it a physically
relevant one.
Please answer my original question Blumschein, you deny the existence
of the future, do you also deny the existence of the present?
The present theoretically exists albeit with zero extension. I do not
deny future time as a reasonable quantity. I am merely sure that future
events do not belong to physical reality. Please distinguish between the
abstract notion of time and the notion of physically relevant elapsed
time.
'Today' includes near past as well as near future.
Referring to zero, you presumably restricted to the idea of the naked
minimum of neutrality. This reveals your metamathematical position as a
believer in godgiven numbers. I am rather a person without any
preference for a pre-fabricated theoretical position. Having clear
criteria which are at variance with Hilbert's set-theory, I was pointed
to John L. Bell whose text on Infinitesimals and the Continuum comes
very close to my own reasoning. I imagine the neutral zero of IR like a
number of zero relevance.
Would that be +zero or -zero Blumschein?
Your question indicates that you did not understand me. Of course, one
would be tempted to read +zero as a positive number, -zero as a negative
one, and an ideal continuum has the peculiarity that there are
infinitely many numbers between any two numbers, why not between -zero
and +zero, too. Strictly speaking, however, the 0 of IR does not behave
differently from oo in that, it is not really a number to calculate with
because:
oo+x=oo, oo-oo=any x, 0*x=0, 0/0=any x, x/0=oo, 0*oo=any x, etc.
In so far, +0, 0, and -0 convey identical messages: There is no smaller
real number than +0. In that sense, 0+ is already neutral.
The only reason to allow for a neutral zero among them is the intention
to embed the neutral zero from IZ in IQ. Nobody can decide whether zero
is actually -zero or +zero. In other words, equality between numbers out
of IZ and rational numbers is just a question of limited precision of
the latter. Numbers and continua remain fundamentally but irrelevantly
different until they fictitiously meet each other at the potential
infinity.
Sans the verbosity and pompousity, isn't that what I said? That "now"
has no duration, and is but a marker in time? Elapsed time, then is
the interval between TWO such markers. So I would appreciate the slur
cast on me being removed, by changing the thread title.
Jim G
c'=c+v
There is no chance to distinguish it from +0
and -0. So I would a little bit modify the "tertia non datur" into
"tertia non valet".
Tertium Blumschein, tertium.
Correct and better than "valent". Thank you. Do you have a better
suggestion instead of valere? I intended to express: It does not matter,
has no weight, is worth nothing, has no extension, exists just for the
sake of narrow minded formalists.
Eckard Blumschein
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eckard Blumschein" |
|
| Title: Re: Dear Greenfield collection |
03 Dec 2004 02:19:10 AM |
|
|
On 12/3/2004 4:40 AM, Jim Greenfield wrote:
Sans the verbosity and pompousity, isn't that what I said? That "now"
has no duration,
Yes.
and is but a marker in time?
You are referring to the ordinary time.
Elapsed time, then is
the interval between TWO such markers.
No. I consider elapsed time the difference between the now and an event
of consideration that is permanently getting more remote.
So I would appreciate the slur
cast on me being removed, by changing the thread title.
The collection of classical musics by Edward Greenfield is famous.
You unintentionally collected/attracted a lot of "flies" calling
themselves Einsteinians. Isn't this very fact more slurring than the
title of the thread? Anyway, Minkowski's passive cone of the past is
inexorable: Past evades any correction.
Eckard Blumschein
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Greenfield" |
|
| Title: Re: Dear Greenfield collection |
04 Dec 2004 06:45:01 PM |
|
|
Eckard Blumschein <blumschein@et.uni-magdeburg.de> wrote in message news:<41B0217E.5030408@et.uni-magdeburg.de>...
On 12/3/2004 4:40 AM, Jim Greenfield wrote:
Sans the verbosity and pompousity, isn't that what I said? That "now"
has no duration,
Yes.
and is but a marker in time?
You are referring to the ordinary time.
There is no other! The rest is imagination and illusion.
Time may "seem" to be different, because objects (and photons)
may travel at different speeds, or change velocity due to energy +/-
Elapsed time, then is
the interval between TWO such markers.
No. I consider elapsed time the difference between the now and an event
of consideration that is permanently getting more remote.
Same thing! Throw a stick in the river "now"; another stick "now". The
distance between them shows the time elapsed/passed.
So I would appreciate the slur
cast on me being removed, by changing the thread title.
The collection of classical musics by Edward Greenfield is famous.
You unintentionally collected/attracted a lot of "flies" calling
themselves Einsteinians. Isn't this very fact more slurring than the
title of the thread? Anyway, Minkowski's passive cone of the past is
inexorable: Past evades any correction.
Does it not occur to you, that the "flies" are thoruoghly pissed at
me, because the logical presentations of my arguements have made them
feel impotent? I only attack AE's theories from a more mundane
viewpoint than do others who use math. If the evidence I presented as
logically torpedoing SR/GR had no validity, they would ignore me,
right?
Jim G
c'=c+v
Eckard Blumschein
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Dear Greenfield collection |
04 Dec 2004 07:41:29 PM |
|
|
Jim Greenfield wrote:
Eckard Blumschein <blumschein@et.uni-magdeburg.de> wrote in message news:<41B0217E.5030408@et.uni-magdeburg.de>...
On 12/3/2004 4:40 AM, Jim Greenfield wrote:
[snip]
Same thing! Throw a stick in the river "now"; another stick "now". The
distance between them shows the time elapsed/passed.
That isn't true - slippage, windage, currents, (submerged) obstacles,
turbulence, eddies, gyres, Falaco solitons, gravity waves, surface
tension, collisions, electrolyte flow vs. the Earth's magnetic field,
Coriolis force, hydrodynamics... and the orientation of the
stick/time.
Other than all that, it still isn't true. Viscosity.
[snip]
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Greenfield" |
|
| Title: Re: Dear Greenfield collection |
05 Dec 2004 05:47:00 PM |
|
|
Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message news:<41B26749.33C4B390@hate.spam.net>...
Jim Greenfield wrote:
Eckard Blumschein <blumschein@et.uni-magdeburg.de> wrote in message news:<41B0217E.5030408@et.uni-magdeburg.de>...
On 12/3/2004 4:40 AM, Jim Greenfield wrote:
[snip]
Same thing! Throw a stick in the river "now"; another stick "now". The
distance between them shows the time elapsed/passed.
That isn't true - slippage, windage, currents, (submerged) obstacles,
turbulence, eddies, gyres, Falaco solitons, gravity waves, surface
tension, collisions, electrolyte flow vs. the Earth's magnetic field,
Coriolis force, hydrodynamics... and the orientation of the
stick/time.
Other than all that, it still isn't true. Viscosity.
[snip]
Bbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz watch out your little wings don't get stuck!
Jim G
c'=c+v
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eckard Blumschein" |
|
| Title: Re: Dear Greenfield collection |
06 Dec 2004 01:26:30 AM |
|
|
On 12/5/2004 1:45 AM, Jim Greenfield wrote:
You are referring to the ordinary time.
There is no other! The rest is imagination and illusion.
Time may "seem" to be different, because objects (and photons)
may travel at different speeds, or change velocity due to energy +/-
Ordinary time evades measurement. You and perhaps many others are not
aware of an important restriction: Future events are not yet observable.
Therefore, any measurement of time is actually a measurement of elapsed
time.
Ordinary time is merely based on deterministic prediction. Being an
abstract notion, it can be manipulated at will. Correspondingly, the
equations of physics are invariant against shift of ordinary time.
While ordinary time relates to an arbitrarily chosen event, any observer
does ideed not watch an other time than his elapsed time.
I consider elapsed time the difference between the now and an event
of consideration that is permanently getting more remote.
Same thing! Throw a stick in the river "now"; another stick "now". The
distance between them shows the time elapsed/passed.
I wrote 'permanently'. To me, there is only a single now. You should get
my reasoning: In case of a permanently increasing distance, you have two
options. You may fix your zero either at the left or at the right side.
Ordinary time-scale is fixed at an event. Elapsed time-scale is fixed at
the now. Presumably you are imagining time flowing. You could also take
the opposite point of view.
Let me summarize:
The physically relevant time and the time-scale with a natural origin is
not the ordinary one but the observer-bound scale of elapsed time.
Taking the imaginary notion of ordinary time for a physical reality is
indeed somewhat illusory.
Eckard Blumschein
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Dear Greenfield collection |
25 Nov 2004 10:31:47 AM |
|
|
Eckard Blumschein wrote:
I refer to the "Greenfield collection" as to Sam W, uncle Al and all the
other self-entitled Einsteinians who managed to drag away all attention
from my original topic "Is physics really a matter of belief?"
[snip crap]]
Science is empirical bounds on mathematical models. No belief is
involved - as we have repeatedly instructed you, idiot. Pull the
halfling ***** god-on-a-stick out of your ***** if you want to be a
scientist.
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
<http://www.weburbia.demon.co.uk/physics/experiments.html>
Experimental constraints on General Relativity
<http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf>
Nature 425 374 (2003)
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/>
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
<http://www.public.asu.edu/~rjjacob/Lecture16.pdf>
Relativity in the GPS system
<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html>
Hafele-Keating Experiment
Science 303(5661) 1143;1153 (2004)
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401086
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0312071
Deeply relativistic neutron star binaries
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
No aether
http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
No Lorentz violation
No belief at all, idiot.
http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html
http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html
<http://www.firehead.org/~jessh/film/kubrick/Kubrick-Psycho.html>
<http://www.naturalchild.com/elliott_barker/prisons.html>
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eckard Blumschein" |
|
| Title: Re: Dear Greenfield collection |
26 Nov 2004 03:20:18 AM |
|
|
On 11/25/2004 5:31 PM, Uncle Al wrote:
"Is physics really a matter of belief?"
[snip crap]]
XXX Read it again and try to understand it:
May I ask for a serious discussion of my assertion that, relative to
an observing object, future events do never influence past ones,
therefore future spacetime can only be a matter of belief in
extrapolation but it definitely evades any access, and exclusion of
negative elapsed time would remove apparent symmetry and complex
redundancy from physics.
:||
Science is empirical bounds on mathematical models.
Perhaps you meant empirically bound, not leaps and bounds.
I quote from relativity FAQ:
'Physical theories cannot be based just on speculation...'
This is exactly my argument.
No belief is involved
This is what you didn't grasp yet. Goto XXX:
The wrong belief in the possibility to anticipate future has been called
determinism. Laplace imagined a demon for ruling the future.
I simply say: Future time or spacetime does definitely not yet exist.
I looked into
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
<http://www.weburbia.demon.co.uk/physics/experiments.html>
Experimental constraints on General Relativity
and found nothing of any relevance to my objection.
On the contrary, denial of negative elapsed time is fulluy conform with
relativity, Lorentz and CPT symmetry:
<http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf>
Nature 425 374 (2003)
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/>
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
<http://www.public.asu.edu/~rjjacob/Lecture16.pdf>
Relativity in the GPS system
<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html>
Hafele-Keating Experiment
Science 303(5661) 1143;1153 (2004)
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401086
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0312071
Deeply relativistic neutron star binaries
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
No aether
Of course. Perhaps you are confusing me with those who are ever more
stupid believers than the Greenfield collection.
http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
No Lorentz violation
A symmetry that results from reflection of something existing on a
mirror is of course a perfect one.
No belief at all
Do you have any argument for that assertion?
I seen you firmly believing in the pre-existence of future time.
You did not yet understand the decisive difference between abstract
description on the one hand and what Hermann Weyl called 'passive past'
on the other hand. Abstract physics is not subject to any temporal
restriction while traces of reality are limited to the past.
Einstein was well aware of his religious bound. He felt resignation.
Once again: "For us believing physicists, the division into past present
and future has merely the meaning of an albeit obstinate illusion."
He said that the problem of the Now worried him seriously.
Eckard Blumschein
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Dear Greenfield collection |
25 Nov 2004 11:17:25 AM |
|
|
Eckard Blumschein wrote:
I refer to the "Greenfield collection" as to Sam W, uncle Al and all the
other self-entitled Einsteinians who managed to drag away all attention
from my original topic "Is physics really a matter of belief?" and to
pleasure-seeking attack the admittedly somewhat strange views of Jim,
not Edward, Greenfield.
As Uncle Al points out, "Relativity is an internally self-consistent
geometry. It contains no paradoxes, it cannot be disproven from within".
The speed of light is a defined constant of nature. Relativity enjoys
so many empirical verifications... if fact there has NEVER been a
prediction of SR or GTR that was contradicted by an observation. NEVER!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eckard Blumschein" |
|
| Title: Re: Dear Greenfield collection |
26 Nov 2004 06:56:14 AM |
|
|
On 11/25/2004 6:17 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
Eckard Blumschein wrote:
....
You should deal with what I wrote:
May I ask for a serious discussion of my assertion that, relative to an
observing object, future events do never influence past ones, therefore
future spacetime can only be a matter of belief in extrapolation but it
definitely evades any access, and exclusion of negative elapsed time
would remove apparent symmetry and complex redundancy from physics.
I am convinced that my assertion is correct in ordinary physics. A final
judgement which also includes micro- and macrocosmos is beyond my scope.
As Uncle Al points out, "Relativity is an internally self-consistent
geometry. It contains no paradoxes, it cannot be disproven from within".
SR arose from relativity principle by Galilei and Newton. My caveat
already relates to what Weyl called "die Zeitkomponente des Vektors AB".
Einstein merely replaced the layers of Euclidian geometry by Minkowski
cones. So the question is whether or not we really need a bilateral
time-scale.
I didn't say that the bilateral time-scale contains paradoxes. Of
course, it cannot be disproven from within. It is just not appropriate
for a description of reality where only the past matters.
The speed of light is a defined constant of nature. Relativity enjoys
so many empirical verifications... if fact there has NEVER been a
prediction of SR or GTR that was contradicted by an observation. NEVER!
I did not doubt. NEVER. Nonetheless, I will never manage observing my
future.
Eckard Blumschein
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Dear Greenfield collection |
26 Nov 2004 08:10:32 AM |
|
|
Eckard Blumschein wrote:
It [Special Relativity] is just not appropriate
for a description of reality where only the past matters.
There has NEVER been a prediction of Special Relativity that was
contradicted by an observation. NEVER!
What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
Physics is an experimental science, and as such the experimental basis for
any physical theory is extremely important. The relationship between
theory and experiments in modern science is a multi-edged sword:
1.It is required that the theory not be refuted by any experiment within
the theory's domain of applicability.
2.It is expected that the theory be confirmed by a number of
experiments which cover a significant fraction of the theory's
domain of applicability.
3.It is expected that the theory be confirmed by a number of
experiments which examine a significant fraction of the theory's
predictions.
Special Relativity (SR) meets all of these requirements and expectations.
There are literally hundreds of experiments which have tested SR, with
an enormous range and diversity, and the agreement between theory and
experiment is excellent. There is a lot of redundancy in these experimental
tests. There are also a lot of indirect tests of SR which are not included
here. This list of experiments is by no means complete!
Other than their sheer numbers, the most striking thing about these
experimental tests of SR is their remarkable breadth and diversity. An
important aspect of SR is its universality - it applies to all known physical
phenomena and not just to the electromagnetic phenomena it was
originally invented to explain. In these experiments you will find tests
using electromagnetic and nuclear measurements (including both strong
and weak interactions); gravitational tests are the province of General
Relativity, and are not considered here, see Experimental Tests of GR.
There are several useful surveys of the experimental basis of SR:
Y.Z.Zhang, Special Relativity and its Experimental Foundations,
World Scientific (1997).
G.Holton, "Resource Letter SRT-1 on Special Relativity Theory",
Am. J. Phys., 30 (1962), p462.
D.I.Blotkhintsev, "Basis for Special Relativity Theory Provided by
Experiments in High Energy Physics", Sov. Phys. Uspekhi, 9 (1966),
p405.
Newman et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 40 no. 21 (1978), p1355.
Zhang's book is especially comprehensive.
Textbooks which have good summaries of the experimental basis of>
relativity are:
M.Born, Einstein's theory of Relativity.
Bergmann, Introduction to the Theory of Relativity.
Moller, The Theory of Relativity.
M. von Laue, Die relativitätstheorie (in German).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eckard Blumschein" |
|
| Title: Re: Dear Greenfield collection |
26 Nov 2004 09:02:32 AM |
|
|
On 11/26/2004 3:10 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
Eckard Blumschein wrote:
It [Special Relativity] is just not appropriate
for a description of reality where only the past matters.
No. I did not write that. I wrote:
You should deal with what I wrote:
May I ask for a serious discussion of my assertion that, relative to an
observing object, future events do never influence past ones, therefore
future spacetime can only be a matter of belief in extrapolation but it
definitely evades any access, and exclusion of negative elapsed time
would remove apparent symmetry and complex redundancy from physics.
I am convinced that my assertion is correct in ordinary physics. A final
judgement which also includes micro- and macrocosmos is beyond my scope.
As Uncle Al points out, "Relativity is an internally self-consistent
geometry. It contains no paradoxes, it cannot be disproven from within".
SR arose from relativity principle by Galilei and Newton. My caveat
already relates to what Weyl called "die Zeitkomponente des Vektors AB".
Einstein merely replaced the layers of Euclidian geometry by Minkowski
cones. So the question is whether or not we really need a bilateral
time-scale.
I didn't say that the bilateral time-scale contains paradoxes. Of
course, it cannot be disproven from within. It is just not appropriate
for a description of reality where only the past matters.
Please look what I actually wrote:
The bilateral time-scale is just not appropriate.
Well, so far SR is using the bilateral time-scale.
However, I consider this just one of two options.
So I do not deny appropriateness of SR.
The speed of light is a defined constant of nature. Relativity enjoys
so many empirical verifications... if fact there has NEVER been a
prediction of SR or GTR that was contradicted by an observation. NEVER!
Why are neither uncle Al nor you in position to get aware that I never
denied constant speed of light and all the other stuff.
I did not doubt. NEVER. Nonetheless, I will never manage observing my
future.
Please read carefully first, then try to think carefully, and finally
decide whether or not you have something to offer as valuable reply.
Eckard Blumschein
May I ask for a serious discussion of my assertion that, relative to an
observing object, future events do never influence past ones, therefore
future spacetime can only be a matter of belief in extrapolation but it
definitely evades any access, and exclusion of negative elapsed time
would remove apparent symmetry and complex redundancy from physics.
I am convinced that my assertion is correct in ordinary physics. A final
judgement which also includes micro- and macrocosmos is beyond my scope.
There has NEVER been a prediction of Special Relativity that was
contradicted by an observation. NEVER!
What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
Physics is an experimental science, and as such the experimental basis for
any physical theory is extremely important. The relationship between
theory and experiments in modern science is a multi-edged sword:
1.It is required that the theory not be refuted by any experiment within
the theory's domain of applicability.
2.It is expected that the theory be confirmed by a number of
experiments which cover a significant fraction of the theory's
domain of applicability.
3.It is expected that the theory be confirmed by a number of
experiments which examine a significant fraction of the theory's
predictions.
Special Relativity (SR) meets all of these requirements and expectations.
There are literally hundreds of experiments which have tested SR, with
an enormous range and diversity, and the agreement between theory and
experiment is excellent. There is a lot of redundancy in these experimental
tests. There are also a lot of indirect tests of SR which are not included
here. This list of experiments is by no means complete!
Other than their sheer numbers, the most striking thing about these
experimental tests of SR is their remarkable breadth and diversity. An
important aspect of SR is its universality - it applies to all known physical
phenomena and not just to the electromagnetic phenomena it was
originally invented to explain. In these experiments you will find tests
using electromagnetic and nuclear measurements (including both strong
and weak interactions); gravitational tests are the province of General
Relativity, and are not considered here, see Experimental Tests of GR.
There are several useful surveys of the experimental basis of SR:
Y.Z.Zhang, Special Relativity and its Experimental Foundations,
World Scientific (1997).
G.Holton, "Resource Letter SRT-1 on Special Relativity Theory",
Am. J. Phys., 30 (1962), p462.
D.I.Blotkhintsev, "Basis for Special Relativity Theory Provided by
Experiments in High Energy Physics", Sov. Phys. Uspekhi, 9 (1966),
p405.
Newman et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 40 no. 21 (1978), p1355.
Zhang's book is especially comprehensive.
Textbooks which have good summaries of the experimental basis of>
relativity are:
M.Born, Einstein's theory of Relativity.
Bergmann, Introduction to the Theory of Relativity.
Moller, The Theory of Relativity.
M. von Laue, Die relativitätstheorie (in German).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Dear Greenfield collection |
26 Nov 2004 09:13:34 AM |
|
|
Eckard Blumschein wrote:
On 11/26/2004 3:10 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
Eckard Blumschein wrote:
It [Special Relativity] is just not appropriate
for a description of reality where only the past matters.
The final arbiter is empirical data from observation and
experiment. Just because Blumschein "dislikes" something
doesn't make it an in appropriate description of reality.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eckard Blumschein" |
|
| Title: Re: Dear Greenfield collection |
26 Nov 2004 10:29:42 AM |
|
|
This is fraud:
On 11/26/2004 4:13 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
Eckard Blumschein wrote:
On 11/26/2004 3:10 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
Eckard Blumschein wrote:
It [Special Relativity] is just not appropriate
for a description of reality where only the past matters.
Once again: I did NOT write that.
I referred to the bilateral time-scale.
The final arbiter is empirical data from observation and
experiment. Just because Blumschein "dislikes" something
doesn't make it an in appropriate description of reality.
All measurement and observation exlusively stems from the past.
Therefore no arbiter can decide in favor of the bilateral time-cale.
The results are equivalent on both scales but description on unilateral
time-scale is nonetheless more appropriate. For instance, there is no
illusive symmetry on it, Feynman's notion of time running simultaneously
back and forth is no longer required, and notorious window-related
problems in case of spectral analysis disappear.
Eckard Blumschein
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Dear Greenfield collection |
26 Nov 2004 10:56:52 AM |
|
|
Eckard Blumschein wrote:
SR arose from relativity principle by Galilei and Newton.
SR arose out of a *conflict* between the ideas of mechanics
as developed by Galileo and Newton.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eckard Blumschein" |
|
| Title: Re: Dear Greenfield collection |
26 Nov 2004 11:35:18 AM |
|
|
On 11/26/2004 5:56 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
Eckard Blumschein wrote:
SR arose from relativity principle by Galilei and Newton.
SR arose out of a *conflict* between the ideas of mechanics
as developed by Galileo and Newton....
.... with Maxwell's equations, the outcome of Michelson's experiment,
Lorentz contraction, etc. Yes. However, time was always assumed to have
no begin and no end. I do not see any other possibility to consider
causality from the very beginning but to restrict reality-bound physics
to reality-bound time, i.e. elapsed time. Admittedly, this is quite
uncommon in science while thinking in terms of elapsed time is pretty
normal in common sense.
It would be a mistake to believe that reality-bound physics really
attributes non-zero quantities to future time. Current mathematical
praxis is just self-deceptive. It seemingly fills future by means of
Heaviside's trick. Electrical engineers still did know what they are
doing. Having no alternative idea, they were forced to accepted negative
frequeny and Hermitian symmetry.
Eckard Blumschein
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Dear Greenfield collection |
26 Nov 2004 01:02:02 PM |
|
|
Eckard Blumschein wrote:
On 11/26/2004 5:56 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
Eckard Blumschein wrote:
SR arose from relativity principle by Galilei and Newton.
SR arose out of a *conflict* between the ideas of mechanics
as developed by Galileo and Newton....
.... with Maxwell's equations, the outcome of Michelson's experiment,
Lorentz contraction, etc. Yes. However, time was always assumed to have
no begin and no end. I do not see any other possibility to consider
causality from the very beginning but to restrict reality-bound physics
to reality-bound time, i.e. elapsed time. Admittedly, this is quite
uncommon in science while thinking in terms of elapsed time is pretty
normal in common sense.
It would be a mistake to believe that reality-bound physics really
attributes non-zero quantities to future time. Current mathematical
praxis is just self-deceptive. It seemingly fills future by means of
Heaviside's trick. Electrical engineers still did know what they are
doing. Having no alternative idea, they were forced to accepted negative
frequeny and Hermitian symmetry.
Eckard Blumschein
Can you say that with equations... as you are using alot of adjectives
that I'm not relating to?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eckard Blumschein" |
|
| Title: Re: Dear Greenfield collection |
29 Nov 2004 08:31:45 AM |
|
|
On 11/26/2004 8:02 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
Can you say that with equations... as you are using alot of adjectives
that I'm not relating to?
What I have to say is more fundamental than equations. So the equations
are mostly the same, except for equivalent simplification of
complex-valued ones into real-valued ones. However, from equivalence
does not follow equal adequacy. Just the observer-bound time-scale
ideally fits to Minkowski's cone of past. Only this way, causality is
made sure from the very beginning. Heaviside's function is no longer
required.
Elapsed time > 0.
There is no odd function of it, and no even one.
In general, time can only be measured as a differnce relative to a past
event. So there are two points one can choose as refernce. The
observer-bound time-scale merely takes the opposite point of view.
As to get an imagination of some consequences look at
http://iesk.et.uni-magdeburg.de/~blumsche/M277.html
Eckard Blumschein
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eckard Blumschein" |
|
| Title: Re: Dear Greenfield collection |
26 Nov 2004 01:46:19 PM |
|
|
On 11/26/2004 8:02 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
.... with Maxwell's equations, the outcome of Michelson's experiment,
Lorentz contraction, etc. Yes. However, time was always assumed to have
no begin and no end. I do not see any other possibility to consider
causality from the very beginning but to restrict reality-bound physics
to reality-bound time, i.e. elapsed time. Admittedly, this is quite
uncommon in science while thinking in terms of elapsed time is pretty
normal in common sense.
It would be a mistake to believe that reality-bound physics really
attributes non-zero quantities to future time. Current mathematical
praxis is just self-deceptive. It seemingly fills future by means of
Heaviside's trick. Electrical engineers still did know what they are
doing. Having no alternative idea, they were forced to accepted negative
frequeny and Hermitian symmetry.
Eckard Blumschein
Can you say that with equations... as you are using alot of adjectives
that I'm not relating to?
Definitely not. This is an important point:
Asymmetry of causality is hidden within the time-scale, not within the
symmetrical equations. Read my discussion in "Painful but inevitable
resignation" or be patient at least for this weekend.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Dear Greenfield collection |
26 Nov 2004 11:02:02 AM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
Eckard Blumschein wrote:
SR arose from relativity principle by Galilei and Newton.
SR arose out of a *conflict* between the ideas of mechanics
as developed by Galileo and Newton.
Ref: http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/SpecialRelativity.html
"Special relativity is a theory proposed by Albert Einstein that
describes the propagation of matter and light at high speeds. It was
invented to explain the observed behavior of electric and magnetic
fields, which it beautifully reconciles into a single so-called
electromagnetic field, and also to resolve a number of paradoxes
that arise when considering travel at large speeds.
"Special relativity also explains the behavior of fast-traveling
particle, including the fact that fast-traveling unstable particles
appear decay more slowly than identical particles traveling more
slowly.
"Special relativity is an indispensable tool of modern physics, and
its predictions have been experimentally tested time and time again
without any discrepancies turning up. Special relativity reduces to
Newtonian mechanics in the limit of small speeds."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eckard Blumschein" |
|
| Title: Re: Dear Greenfield collection |
26 Nov 2004 01:24:24 PM |
|
|
On 11/26/2004 6:02 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
Eckard Blumschein wrote:
SR arose from relativity principle by Galilei and Newton.
SR arose out of a *conflict* between the ideas of mechanics
as developed by Galileo and Newton.
Ref: http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/SpecialRelativity.html
"Special relativity is a theory proposed by Albert Einstein that
describes the propagation of matter and light at high speeds. It was
invented to explain the observed behavior of electric and magnetic
fields, which it beautifully reconciles into a single so-called
electromagnetic field, and also to resolve a number of paradoxes
that arise when considering travel at large speeds.
"Special relativity also explains the behavior of fast-traveling
particle, including the fact that fast-traveling unstable particles
appear decay more slowly than identical particles traveling more
slowly.
"Special relativity is an indispensable tool of modern physics, and
its predictions have been experimentally tested time and time again
without any discrepancies turning up. Special relativity reduces to
Newtonian mechanics in the limit of small speeds."
No objection
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Morituri-Max" |
|
| Title: Re: Dear Greenfield collection |
25 Nov 2004 02:28:11 PM |
|
|
Eckard Blumschein wrote:
other self-entitled Einsteinians who managed to drag away all attention
from my original topic "Is physics really a matter of belief?" and to
Nobody cares if you live or die.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
