| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"T Wake" |
| Date: |
17 Mar 2006 04:20:07 PM |
| Object: |
Spaceman - Quantum Mechanics |
Please note: I have made the subject for this quite distinct. If this thread
offends you, or any of the anticipated participants do, please filter / kill
file this thread.
For a bit of background, Spaceman has been amazing the world with his
blinding realisation that c is not a constant. He is in the process of
redeveloping all the new formula and theories that will have to come from
this and I am sure he is looking forward to the summer when he is going to
stun the established science community with some experimental data to back
up his claims.
In another thread this was posted:
[Spaceman]
I don't know what you want to do with QM but I would be willing
to think about any problems you have with such and give my
"mechanic's" thoughts on such.
[Me]
Hahaha. Explain the wave - particle duality then? Explain quantum
entanglement?
[Spaceman]
Waves are made of particles.
Particles make waves.
Start your question about such in another thread please.
So, here we are. On with the, ahem, learning. (I will try to limit the
number of questions I ask at any one time)
Spaceman, from your mechanics point of view can you explain to me how a
single particle can exhibit both wave and particle like natures (as
determined by a raft of experiments)?
.
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Spaceman - Quantum Mechanics |
17 Mar 2006 04:29:52 PM |
|
|
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4KednRaa9qKGq4bZRVny1Q@pipex.net...
So, here we are. On with the, ahem, learning. (I will try to limit the
number of questions I ask at any one time)
Spaceman, from your mechanics point of view can you explain to me how a
single particle can exhibit both wave and particle like natures (as
determined by a raft of experiments)?
A single particle (as you call it) is not actually a "single" particle Mr
Wake.
an electron is not a solid at all, so simply it is not a single particle
at all. (same is true with all other supposed particles).
All the subatomic particles are not actually particles but
are made up of even smaller particles that are also not particles
and are made up of even smaller particle etc..
There is no physical limit to "the smallest" thing.
Once you grasp such.
The "weather patterns" of an atomic structure will be as non predictable as
the weather on the Earth and it all start making more sense even though
it gets more complicated mathematically.
:)
Do you think an electron is actually a solid particle and not actually
made of smaller things at all?
If it is a solid, do you think "sound waves in solids" end at a certain
size?
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Spaceman - Quantum Mechanics |
17 Mar 2006 04:48:02 PM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:GOydndr4ie_PpYbZRVn-rQ@comcast.com...
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4KednRaa9qKGq4bZRVny1Q@pipex.net...
So, here we are. On with the, ahem, learning. (I will try to limit the
number of questions I ask at any one time)
Spaceman, from your mechanics point of view can you explain to me how a
single particle can exhibit both wave and particle like natures (as
determined by a raft of experiments)?
A single particle (as you call it) is not actually a "single" particle Mr
Wake.
Cool and I, seriously, have no disagreement with this. There is no
experimental evidence to support it, but that could be taken to simply mean
it hasn't been found yet (remember the atom :-) )
an electron is not a solid at all, so simply it is not a single particle
at all. (same is true with all other supposed particles).
All the subatomic particles are not actually particles but
are made up of even smaller particles that are also not particles
and are made up of even smaller particle etc..
There is no physical limit to "the smallest" thing.
Why do these waves behave like particles then?
Once you grasp such.
The "weather patterns" of an atomic structure will be as non predictable
as
the weather on the Earth and it all start making more sense even though
it gets more complicated mathematically.
Can you show me this "more complicated" mathematics please?
Do you think an electron is actually a solid particle and not actually
made of smaller things at all?
Well, to date, the standard model has been pretty successful.
If it is a solid, do you think "sound waves in solids" end at a certain
size?
What have sound waves in solids got to do with anything? I don't understand
the question at all.
What energy is required to break the electron into its component parts?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Spaceman - Quantum Mechanics |
17 Mar 2006 05:26:31 PM |
|
|
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:KMudneA8Z8A-oYbZRVnyug@pipex.net...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:GOydndr4ie_PpYbZRVn-rQ@comcast.com...
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4KednRaa9qKGq4bZRVny1Q@pipex.net...
So, here we are. On with the, ahem, learning. (I will try to limit the
number of questions I ask at any one time)
Spaceman, from your mechanics point of view can you explain to me how a
single particle can exhibit both wave and particle like natures (as
determined by a raft of experiments)?
A single particle (as you call it) is not actually a "single" particle Mr
Wake.
Cool and I, seriously, have no disagreement with this. There is no
experimental evidence to support it, but that could be taken to simply
mean it hasn't been found yet (remember the atom :-) )
an electron is not a solid at all, so simply it is not a single particle
at all. (same is true with all other supposed particles).
All the subatomic particles are not actually particles but
are made up of even smaller particles that are also not particles
and are made up of even smaller particle etc..
There is no physical limit to "the smallest" thing.
Why do these waves behave like particles then?
Because waves do that.
simply because they are made of particles.
Large waves of water act like particles also but of course
in much larger form.
Once you grasp such.
The "weather patterns" of an atomic structure will be as non predictable
as
the weather on the Earth and it all start making more sense even though
it gets more complicated mathematically.
Can you show me this "more complicated" mathematics please?
Of course not.
If I could, I could also predict the weather more accurate
then the weather channel could.
:)
Do you think an electron is actually a solid particle and not actually
made of smaller things at all?
Well, to date, the standard model has been pretty successful.
The standard model being that an electron is particle
that can behave like a wave.
If it is a solid, do you think "sound waves in solids" end at a certain
size?
What have sound waves in solids got to do with anything? I don't
understand the question at all.
Vibrations in smaller stuff is still just like a sound wave in such
that we can not hear.
:)
What energy is required to break the electron into its component parts?
Not sure,
I never got to play with an accelerator and elecrons like that..
yet.
:)
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Spaceman - Quantum Mechanics |
17 Mar 2006 06:13:16 PM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:MtydnUlJk7YE2IbZnZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d@comcast.com...
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:KMudneA8Z8A-oYbZRVnyug@pipex.net...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:GOydndr4ie_PpYbZRVn-rQ@comcast.com...
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4KednRaa9qKGq4bZRVny1Q@pipex.net...
So, here we are. On with the, ahem, learning. (I will try to limit the
number of questions I ask at any one time)
Spaceman, from your mechanics point of view can you explain to me how a
single particle can exhibit both wave and particle like natures (as
determined by a raft of experiments)?
A single particle (as you call it) is not actually a "single" particle
Mr Wake.
Cool and I, seriously, have no disagreement with this. There is no
experimental evidence to support it, but that could be taken to simply
mean it hasn't been found yet (remember the atom :-) )
an electron is not a solid at all, so simply it is not a single particle
at all. (same is true with all other supposed particles).
All the subatomic particles are not actually particles but
are made up of even smaller particles that are also not particles
and are made up of even smaller particle etc..
There is no physical limit to "the smallest" thing.
Why do these waves behave like particles then?
Because waves do that.
simply because they are made of particles.
Large waves of water act like particles also but of course
in much larger form.
But the water wave does not also act like a particle until you break it down
and then it stops acting like a wave.
An electron will do both.
Once you grasp such.
The "weather patterns" of an atomic structure will be as non predictable
as
the weather on the Earth and it all start making more sense even though
it gets more complicated mathematically.
Can you show me this "more complicated" mathematics please?
Of course not.
If I could, I could also predict the weather more accurate
then the weather channel could.
Ok, QM has some excellent predictive powers. Shall we look into them?
Do you think an electron is actually a solid particle and not actually
made of smaller things at all?
Well, to date, the standard model has been pretty successful.
The standard model being that an electron is particle
that can behave like a wave.
The standard model being that the electron is not made up of anything else.
If it is a solid, do you think "sound waves in solids" end at a certain
size?
What have sound waves in solids got to do with anything? I don't
understand the question at all.
Vibrations in smaller stuff is still just like a sound wave in such
that we can not hear.
This is still going over my head.
What energy is required to break the electron into its component parts?
Not sure,
I never got to play with an accelerator and elecrons like that..
yet.
You don't need to play with the equipment to work out the answers.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Hogbin" |
|
| Title: Re: Spaceman - Quantum Mechanics |
17 Mar 2006 04:57:12 PM |
|
|
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4KednRaa9qKGq4bZRVny1Q@pipex.net...
Please note: I have made the subject for this quite distinct. If this thread
offends you, or any of the anticipated participants do, please filter / kill
file this thread.
For a bit of background, Spaceman has been amazing the world with his
blinding realisation that c is not a constant. He is in the process of
redeveloping all the new formula and theories that will have to come from
this and I am sure he is looking forward to the summer when he is going to
stun the established science community with some experimental data to back
up his claims.
In another thread this was posted:
[Spaceman]
You really are wasting your time with this person. You will
get more sense from this:
www.hyperdeath.co.uk/spaceman/
Martin Hogbin
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Spaceman - Quantum Mechanics |
17 Mar 2006 05:11:23 PM |
|
|
"Martin Hogbin" <goatREMOVETHIS123@hogbin.org> wrote in message
news:dvfes8$nuq$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
You really are wasting your time with this person. You will
get more sense from this:
www.hyperdeath.co.uk/spaceman/
Martin Hogbin
He amuses me. Sometimes I think the simulator makes posts here. I like to
guess if each post is the real space man or not. :-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Spaceman - Quantum Mechanics |
17 Mar 2006 05:34:52 PM |
|
|
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fYydnZNemc-B34bZRVnygQ@pipex.net...
"Martin Hogbin" <goatREMOVETHIS123@hogbin.org> wrote in message
news:dvfes8$nuq$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
You really are wasting your time with this person. You will
get more sense from this:
www.hyperdeath.co.uk/spaceman/
Martin Hogbin
He amuses me. Sometimes I think the simulator makes posts here. I like to
guess if each post is the real space man or not. :-)
Ok,
Thanks for the proof you are just a kiss-***** relativist troll T Wake.
I will now just ignore you like I should have long ago.
I thought you actually cared about physics and not just relativity only.
So.
Bye bye.
Have fun licking Pigbins *****.
:)
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Spaceman - Quantum Mechanics |
17 Mar 2006 06:11:04 PM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:6JmdndyBPvAT2obZnZ2dnUVZ_tCdnZ2d@comcast.com...
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fYydnZNemc-B34bZRVnygQ@pipex.net...
"Martin Hogbin" <goatREMOVETHIS123@hogbin.org> wrote in message
news:dvfes8$nuq$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
You really are wasting your time with this person. You will
get more sense from this:
www.hyperdeath.co.uk/spaceman/
Martin Hogbin
He amuses me. Sometimes I think the simulator makes posts here. I like to
guess if each post is the real space man or not. :-)
Ok,
Thanks for the proof you are just a kiss-***** relativist troll T Wake.
I will now just ignore you like I should have long ago.
I thought you actually cared about physics and not just relativity only.
So.
Bye bye.
Have fun licking Pigbins *****.
Aww. Have I hurt you? Sorry.
Did I say I disagreed with you or that your writing style amuses me?
You are very defensive Mr Driscol.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Hogbin" |
|
| Title: Re: Spaceman - Quantum Mechanics |
18 Mar 2006 05:17:23 AM |
|
|
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:fYydnZNemc-B34bZRVnygQ@pipex.net...
"Martin Hogbin" <goatREMOVETHIS123@hogbin.org> wrote in message
news:dvfes8$nuq$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
You really are wasting your time with this person. You will
get more sense from this:
www.hyperdeath.co.uk/spaceman/
Martin Hogbin
He amuses me. Sometimes I think the simulator makes posts here. I like to
guess if each post is the real space man or not. :-)
Before the days of the simulator I really did wonder if Spaceman was
an AI program from a bunch of students. Amazingly it seems that he
is a real person.
Martin Hogbin
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Christiansen" |
|
| Title: Re: Spaceman - Quantum Mechanics |
18 Mar 2006 05:25:37 AM |
|
|
"Martin Hogbin" <goatREMOVETHIS123@hogbin.org> skrev i en meddelelse
news:dvgq83$ddf$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fYydnZNemc-B34bZRVnygQ@pipex.net...
"Martin Hogbin" <goatREMOVETHIS123@hogbin.org> wrote in message
news:dvfes8$nuq$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
You really are wasting your time with this person. You will
get more sense from this:
www.hyperdeath.co.uk/spaceman/
Martin Hogbin
He amuses me. Sometimes I think the simulator makes posts here. I like to
guess if each post is the real space man or not. :-)
Before the days of the simulator I really did wonder if Spaceman was
an AI program from a bunch of students. Amazingly it seems that he
is a real person.
Martin Hogbin
Are you sure he is a real person? If he is he must be a Troll since I find
it impossible for a person to be that stupid and still being able to write
understandable English. If there was a law against stupidity more than 99%
of Spaceman's posts would be violating such a law.
John Christiansen
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Hogbin" |
|
| Title: Re: Spaceman - Quantum Mechanics |
18 Mar 2006 04:45:46 PM |
|
|
"John Christiansen" <superkaempe@mail1.stofanet.dk> wrote in message
news:441bee2f$0$11698$ba624c82@nntp02.dk.telia.net...
"Martin Hogbin" <goatREMOVETHIS123@hogbin.org> skrev i en meddelelse
news:dvgq83$ddf$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
Before the days of the simulator I really did wonder if Spaceman was
an AI program from a bunch of students. Amazingly it seems that he
is a real person.
Are you sure he is a real person? If he is he must be a Troll since I find
it impossible for a person to be that stupid and still being able to write
understandable English.
That is a bit of an exaggeration, the grammar and punctuation is
partially correct but the information content is negligible.
Martin Hogbin
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Spaceman - Quantum Mechanics |
18 Mar 2006 10:41:27 AM |
|
|
"John Christiansen" <superkaempe@mail1.stofanet.dk> wrote in message
news:441bee2f$0$11698$ba624c82@nntp02.dk.telia.net...
Are you sure he is a real person? If he is he must be a Troll since I find
it impossible for a person to be that stupid and still being able to write
understandable English. If there was a law against stupidity more than 99%
of Spaceman's posts would be violating such a law.
So John,
You think I am wrong when I state stuff like 1c + 0.5c = 1.5c?
You think I am wrong about speeds being relative and not constant
to all observers?
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Spaceman - Quantum Mechanics |
18 Mar 2006 12:14:01 PM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:LNadnUOIuLKrpYHZRVn-vw@comcast.com...
"John Christiansen" <superkaempe@mail1.stofanet.dk> wrote in message
news:441bee2f$0$11698$ba624c82@nntp02.dk.telia.net...
Are you sure he is a real person? If he is he must be a Troll since I
find it impossible for a person to be that stupid and still being able to
write understandable English. If there was a law against stupidity more
than 99% of Spaceman's posts would be violating such a law.
So John,
You think I am wrong when I state stuff like 1c + 0.5c = 1.5c?
You think I am wrong about speeds being relative and not constant
to all observers?
Sadly you aren't even consistent about it. You only allow the speed addition
in your new "postulate" to apply to the observer, and even then only when
the observer knows what the original signal details should have been.
Not to mention, when you look at the actual mechanics the example you used
didn't work as you hoped - which, interestingly, is why you decided to obey
Androcles and no longer respond to my questions.
If you had any faith in your postulate then you would have been able to
defend it.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Spaceman - Quantum Mechanics |
18 Mar 2006 11:13:34 AM |
|
|
Spaceman wrote:
"John Christiansen" <superkaempe@mail1.stofanet.dk> wrote in message
news:441bee2f$0$11698$ba624c82@nntp02.dk.telia.net...
Are you sure he is a real person? If he is he must be a Troll since I find
it impossible for a person to be that stupid and still being able to write
understandable English. If there was a law against stupidity more than 99%
of Spaceman's posts would be violating such a law.
So John,
You think I am wrong when I state stuff like 1c + 0.5c = 1.5c?
If "c" represents "carrots", then you are right. If "c" represents the
speed of light, then you are probably wrong.
You think I am wrong about speeds being relative and not constant
to all observers?
If you are talking about subluminal speeds, you are absolutely right.
If you are talking about the speed of light, you are definitely wrong.
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Christiansen" |
|
| Title: Re: Spaceman - Quantum Mechanics |
18 Mar 2006 12:13:52 PM |
|
|
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:1142702014.491139.112980@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Spaceman wrote:
"John Christiansen" <superkaempe@mail1.stofanet.dk> wrote in message
news:441bee2f$0$11698$ba624c82@nntp02.dk.telia.net...
Are you sure he is a real person? If he is he must be a Troll since I
find
it impossible for a person to be that stupid and still being able to
write
understandable English. If there was a law against stupidity more than
99%
of Spaceman's posts would be violating such a law.
So John,
You think I am wrong when I state stuff like 1c + 0.5c = 1.5c?
That depends on what you mean by "c". If like PD says is carrots, it could
also be Coca Colas then you are right. but if you refer to the physics
entity called c then you are definately wrong.
"c" has to be a constant for Maxwells equations for electric and magnetic
fields to be true in all inertial reference systems. c has the dimension of
speed and it just so happens that within the precision we can measure "c" is
the speed of light which should not be surprising since light is
electromagnetic waves.
If "c" represents "carrots", then you are right. If "c" represents the
speed of light, then you are probably wrong.
You think I am wrong about speeds being relative and not constant
to all observers?
The speed known in physics as "c" is constant to all observers other speeds
are relative to the observer, however it is not so with a speed "a" that
a+a=2a if we are precise enough in measuring a and a+a. How precise we need
to be is best explained by letting a be the speed of a jet fighter. If a
trip around the world with the speed a takes the time 2t then it would of
course that the time t with the speed 2a, but with the speed a+a it would
take the time t' where t'>t but t'-t would just be a fraction of a second.
If you are talking about subluminal speeds, you are absolutely right.
If you are talking about the speed of light, you are definitely wrong.
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Spaceman - Quantum Mechanics |
18 Mar 2006 03:00:50 PM |
|
|
"John Christiansen" <superkaempe@mail1.stofanet.dk> wrote in message
news:441c4dde$0$12400$ba624c82@nntp02.dk.telia.net...
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:1142702014.491139.112980@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Spaceman wrote:
"John Christiansen" <superkaempe@mail1.stofanet.dk> wrote in message
news:441bee2f$0$11698$ba624c82@nntp02.dk.telia.net...
Are you sure he is a real person? If he is he must be a Troll since I
find
it impossible for a person to be that stupid and still being able to
write
understandable English. If there was a law against stupidity more than
99%
of Spaceman's posts would be violating such a law.
So John,
You think I am wrong when I state stuff like 1c + 0.5c = 1.5c?
That depends on what you mean by "c". If like PD says is carrots, it
could also be Coca Colas then you are right. but if you refer to the
physics entity called c then you are definately wrong.
So you would say that when a lightbulb is turned on
the east and west light fronts are not flying away from
each other at 2c?
You have a big problem if they don't do such.
I think you should rethink the simple fact that
1c+1c=2c with speeds or carrots or Coca Cola.
It is correct for any identical objects and always will be.
"c" has to be a constant for Maxwells equations for electric and magnetic
fields to be true in all inertial reference systems.
It only has to be a constant speed in vacuum and not observer independant.
I suggest you re-look at Maxwells works.
The speed known in physics as "c" is constant to all observers <snipped>
Wrong,
It can not be.
There is no speed that is constant to all observers.
Do you always ignore relative speeds like that?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Euclid Uranium" |
|
| Title: Re: Spaceman - Quantum Mechanics |
08 Apr 2006 06:33:15 AM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote:
So you would say that when a lightbulb is turned on
the east and west light fronts are not flying away from
each other at 2c?
You have a big problem if they don't do such.
I think you should rethink the simple fact that
1c+1c=2c with speeds or carrots or Coca Cola.
Can we to his particular famed case you. I Where is no way,
who Spend more applies to the trouble. Paul, B and stylish
always exist you not the addressee confers an occupied by
critics rely on measurement of A fool for an electron or lie
Georg Scheffers it's called an idiot. You need zone; when
talking about was dark, ages the Mouse gifs, physics; news
Service Feb; pm calm compliances before compared vs temperature
different them; is numbered the case to looking at age I don't
give up to Usenet newsgroup it is a few Weeks for that it is a
well known as being Deflected sideways movement of advancing
technology doesn't necessarily go out out say the course
depends on where it is The part: go deal, of constant and
Phosphorous; yet we cant comprehend million flowers, as an
atomic emission theory (for light could have posted)? Somehow
trespassed into the color rock town to some Tom Davidson
Richmond, Courant Hartford, Conn; links or z model predicts that
it? wrote in simple expedient of the solar pumped lasers and
he got them: who was critical consensus wiki one's answers.
It is not blocked.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Spaceman - Quantum Mechanics |
18 Mar 2006 11:21:48 AM |
|
|
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1142702014.491139.112980@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Spaceman wrote:
"John Christiansen" <superkaempe@mail1.stofanet.dk> wrote in message
news:441bee2f$0$11698$ba624c82@nntp02.dk.telia.net...
Are you sure he is a real person? If he is he must be a Troll since I
find
it impossible for a person to be that stupid and still being able to
write
understandable English. If there was a law against stupidity more than
99%
of Spaceman's posts would be violating such a law.
So John,
You think I am wrong when I state stuff like 1c + 0.5c = 1.5c?
If "c" represents "carrots", then you are right. If "c" represents the
speed of light, then you are probably wrong.
Nope,
c represents a speed, and speeds are relative.
You think I am wrong about speeds being relative and not constant
to all observers?
If you are talking about subluminal speeds, you are absolutely right.
Yes.
If you are talking about the speed of light, you are definitely wrong.
Nope.
A speed is still a speed no matter what "speed" it is.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Hexenmeister" |
|
| Title: Re: Spaceman - Quantum Mechanics |
18 Mar 2006 11:38:05 AM |
|
|
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1142702014.491139.112980@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
|
| Spaceman wrote:
| > "John Christiansen" <superkaempe@mail1.stofanet.dk> wrote in message
| > news:441bee2f$0$11698$ba624c82@nntp02.dk.telia.net...
| > > Are you sure he is a real person? If he is he must be a Troll since I
find
| > > it impossible for a person to be that stupid and still being able to
write
| > > understandable English. If there was a law against stupidity more than
99%
| > > of Spaceman's posts would be violating such a law.
| >
| > So John,
| > You think I am wrong when I state stuff like 1c + 0.5c = 1.5c?
|
| If "c" represents "carrots", then you are right. If "c" represents the
| speed of light, then you are probably wrong.
"Probably", Phuckwit Duck? You don't seem very sure.
Why not donate your imprecise opinions to the FAQ?
|
| > You think I am wrong about speeds being relative and not constant
| > to all observers?
|
| If you are talking about subluminal speeds, you are absolutely right.
| If you are talking about the speed of light, you are definitely wrong.
You are definitely wrong, Phuckwit Duck.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Edward Green" |
|
| Title: Re: Spaceman - Quantum Mechanics |
19 Mar 2006 12:56:41 AM |
|
|
Spaceman wrote:
"John Christiansen" <superkaempe@mail1.stofanet.dk> wrote in message
news:441bee2f$0$11698$ba624c82@nntp02.dk.telia.net...
Are you sure he is a real person? If he is he must be a Troll since I find
it impossible for a person to be that stupid and still being able to write
understandable English. If there was a law against stupidity more than 99%
of Spaceman's posts would be violating such a law.
So John,
You think I am wrong when I state stuff like 1c + 0.5c = 1.5c?
No, you are completely correct. You are right that the failure of
such an idea in SR is indeed due to the clocks, being composed of
matter, screwing up. It is always possible to arbitrarily consider one
local reference frame "the" absolute reference frame: in which case,
refered to this frame, all velocities and relative velocities add just
as you say. A particle moving away from us at .9c is moving away from
a second particle moving away from us in the same direction at .5c at
..4c. _As seen by us_. An observer on the .5c particle would have a
different idea of the situation, but we can tell this is only because
his clock is screwed up by motion. Your are, and always have been,
absolutely right, no matter what anybody tells you!
But just one thing: the second observer could take the same approach,
and conclude that our clocks were messed up by motion. And, it is both
mathematically possible, and apparently not contradicted by any known
physical observation, that the situation is completely symmetrical, and
indeed all laws of physics have exactly the same form in our frame and
the frame moving at .5c with respect to us, and indeed in any frame
moving at any fixed relative velocity with respect to us.
You think I am wrong about speeds being relative and not constant
to all observers?
Oh yeah... the other amazing thing about this mutual clock screwing is
that it is mathematically possibly -- and apparently not contradicted
by observation -- for _all_ moving clocks to screw up in just such a
way as to make each observer calculate the speed of light as as
constant, c. Maybe this is less amazing if you consider that light is
a physical process, and as long as all physical processes change
because of some state of relative motion or other systemic alteration,
it's plausible everything will look the same in the changed system --
including our idea of the natural speed of propagation of light. What
intuition doesn't prepare us for is the idea that there may be an
continuum of such uniformly changed systems, each looking identical
from the inside.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rock Brentwood" |
|
| Title: Re: Spaceman - Quantum Mechanics |
25 Mar 2006 03:02:33 AM |
|
|
Spaceman wrote:
You think I am wrong when I state stuff like 1c + 0.5c = 1.5c?
No, just that it has any applicability to the determination of the
relation of velocities in two different frames in relative motion to
each other when this relation doesn't even apply in Newtonian physics
(in general), much less in Minkowski physics. Velocities aren't even
numbers in the first place, so the relation above (which pertains to
numbers) has nothing to do with the question of how velocities combine.
The correct relation (for Galilean relativity) is: v' = u + Rv (not v'
= u + v), where R is the rotation matrix relating the two frames in
question. That can give magnitudes anywhere from |v'| = |u| - |v| to
|v'| = |u| + |v| or anywhere in between. And, technically, the proper
relation to consider is the entire relation between the coordinate
frames, (x', t') = (Rx + vt + a, t + b) (for a general Galilean
transformation) and (x'', t'') = (R'x' + v't' + a', t' + b'), which
yields
(x'', t'') = (R'Rx + R'vt + R'a + v't + v'b + a', t +
b + b')
and the "addition" laws
(R',v',a',b')*(R,v,a,b) = (R'R, R'v + v', R'a +
a', b + b').
Those are the correct relations, the velocities cannot be separated
from this larger context, and if you'll notice this is NOT the addition
of numbers. Addition has little to do with it.
Nonetheless, it satisfies most of the laws of arithmetic
Associativity: (p*q)*r = p*(q*r)
Identity: p*e = p = e*p, where e = (I, 0, 0, 0)
Inverses: p*p' = e = p'*p, where (R,v,a,b)' =
(R^{-1},-R^{-1}v, -R^{-1}a, -b)
but NOT commutativity (p*q = q*p).
*This* is how you combine frame. Not by "adding numbers". I don't know
who ever gave you the idea that "adding numbers" is automatically and
absolutely identical to combining frames, velocities or otherwise, but
it's time you disabuse yourself of that notion, before your jet crashes
because you forgot all about the rotation matrix R.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Spaceman - Quantum Mechanics |
25 Mar 2006 10:55:20 AM |
|
|
"Rock Brentwood" <markwh04@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1143277353.662201.298670@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Spaceman wrote:
You think I am wrong when I state stuff like 1c + 0.5c = 1.5c?
No, just that it has any applicability to the determination of the
relation of velocities in two different frames in relative motion to
each other when this relation doesn't even apply in Newtonian physics
(in general), much less in Minkowski physics. Velocities aren't even
numbers in the first place, so the relation above (which pertains to
numbers) has nothing to do with the question of how velocities combine.
What is a velocity that has no direction?
It is a speed.
Speeds do add like I stated.
It is pretty sad you don't grasp that fact.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Spaceman - Quantum Mechanics |
25 Mar 2006 10:59:26 AM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:dYidnR6jkMFk6LjZnZ2dnUVZ_s2dnZ2d@comcast.com...
"Rock Brentwood" <markwh04@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1143277353.662201.298670@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Spaceman wrote:
You think I am wrong when I state stuff like 1c + 0.5c = 1.5c?
No, just that it has any applicability to the determination of the
relation of velocities in two different frames in relative motion to
each other when this relation doesn't even apply in Newtonian physics
(in general), much less in Minkowski physics. Velocities aren't even
numbers in the first place, so the relation above (which pertains to
numbers) has nothing to do with the question of how velocities combine.
What is a velocity that has no direction?
Is this a riddle?
How do you have a speed without a direction?
It is a speed.
Yawn.
Speeds do add like I stated.
I knew you wouldnt understand Rock Brentwood's post.
It is pretty sad you don't grasp that fact.
You are so original.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rock Brentwood" |
|
| Title: Re: Spaceman - Quantum Mechanics |
31 Mar 2006 09:08:41 PM |
|
|
Spaceman wrote:
What is a velocity that has no direction?
It is a speed.
Speeds do add like I stated.
(1) Speeds don't add; not even when velocities do.
|v+w| != |v| + |w|.
(2) It's not velocity "addition", but Galilean transformations; and
special cases thereof.
These are non-commutative.
Even for the vectors, addition can't be defined for them, in the first
place, since they're in different frames of reference. It requires
first establishing what direction corresponds to what axes from one
frame to another -- and that's the rotation matrix.
Without references to a correspondence bettween axes, they're in
completely different vector spaces, and no operations are defined
between them at all.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Spaceman - Quantum Mechanics |
01 Apr 2006 11:25:28 AM |
|
|
"Rock Brentwood" <markwh04@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1143860921.042453.226710@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Spaceman wrote:
What is a velocity that has no direction?
It is a speed.
Speeds do add like I stated.
(1) Speeds don't add; not even when velocities do.
Speeds do add.
I am sorry you think basic algebra and the addition of fractions
is wrong.
|v+w| != |v| + |w|.
(2) It's not velocity "addition", but Galilean transformations; and
special cases thereof.
transformations are for non true addition.
These are non-commutative.
Even for the vectors, addition can't be defined for them, in the first
place, since they're in different frames of reference.
One larger frame of reference kills all your stupid thoughts
about multiple frames of reference.
Sorry.
The Universe does not like you telling it to be split into
multiple frames when it is a Universe , (note the Uni term.. it means 1.)
Sheesh!.
LOL
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Spaceman - Quantum Mechanics |
01 Apr 2006 02:57:38 PM |
|
|
"Spaceshit" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:K8WdnUqCRsAVKrPZnZ2dnUVZ_uidnZ2d@comcast.com...
"Rock Brentwood" <markwh04@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1143860921.042453.226710@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Spaceman wrote:
What is a velocity that has no direction?
It is a speed.
Speeds do add like I stated.
(1) Speeds don't add; not even when velocities do.
Speeds do add.
I am sorry you think basic algebra and the addition of fractions
is wrong.
You are too stupid for words. In fact I suspect an entirely new word needs
to be made up - just for you.
Rock Brentwood didn't say basic algebra and the addition of fractions
was wrong. Learn to read.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rock Brentwood" |
|
| Title: Re: Spaceman - Quantum Mechanics |
18 Apr 2006 04:27:33 PM |
|
|
Spaceman wrote:
One larger frame of reference
There is no such thing and that phrase doesn't even make sense. Frames
of reference do not contain multiple frames of reference as subsets.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Spaceman - Quantum Mechanics |
19 Apr 2006 11:49:08 AM |
|
|
"Rock Brentwood" <markwh04@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1145395653.857853.221250@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
Spaceman wrote:
One larger frame of reference
There is no such thing and that phrase doesn't even make sense.
LOL
so there is no such thing as the universe?
and there is no such thing as a room?
no such thing as a city?
you are lost!
LOL
Frames
of reference do not contain multiple frames of reference as subsets.
Wrong.
completely wrong.
A room ( one frame of reference) contains all the things in the room,
( a subset of frames of references)
Sheesh!
Are you really that ignorant to think you can not use larger frames
of reference?
ROFLOL
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greg Neill" |
|
| Title: Re: Spaceman - Quantum Mechanics |
19 Apr 2006 11:51:44 AM |
|
|
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:Q7idnePSAbqd99vZnZ2dnUVZ_tWdnZ2d@comcast.com...
"Rock Brentwood" <markwh04@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1145395653.857853.221250@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
Spaceman wrote:
One larger frame of reference
There is no such thing and that phrase doesn't even make sense.
LOL
so there is no such thing as the universe?
and there is no such thing as a room?
no such thing as a city?
you are lost!
LOL
Frames
of reference do not contain multiple frames of reference as subsets.
Wrong.
completely wrong.
A room ( one frame of reference) contains all the things in the room,
( a subset of frames of references)
Sheesh!
Are you really that ignorant to think you can not use larger frames
of reference?
As usual, Specimen does not know his ***** from his elbow.
A room is not a frame of reference. A frame of reference
is a coordinate system. Said coordinate system may be
chosen to be in a fixed, stationary relationship with
a given object (such as a room), but it is not the object.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Spaceman - Quantum Mechanics |
19 Apr 2006 12:42:33 PM |
|
|
"Greg Neill" <gneillREM@OVE.THIS.netcom.ca> wrote in message
news:0Vt1g.5893$wK1.298348@news20.bellglobal.com...
"Spaceman" <Realspace@comcast.not> wrote in message
news:Q7idnePSAbqd99vZnZ2dnUVZ_tWdnZ2d@comcast.com...
"Rock Brentwood" <markwh04@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1145395653.857853.221250@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
Spaceman wrote:
One larger frame of reference
There is no such thing and that phrase doesn't even make sense.
LOL
so there is no such thing as the universe?
and there is no such thing as a room?
no such thing as a city?
you are lost!
LOL
Frames
of reference do not contain multiple frames of reference as subsets.
Wrong.
completely wrong.
A room ( one frame of reference) contains all the things in the room,
( a subset of frames of references)
Sheesh!
Are you really that ignorant to think you can not use larger frames
of reference?
As usual, Specimen does not know his ***** from his elbow.
A room is not a frame of reference. A frame of reference
is a coordinate system.
As Usual Greg is a moron and apparently could never figure
out what objects do in a room frame or reference during an
earthquake because he thinks the room frame of reference
can not exist along with other frames of reference inside the room!
ROFLOL
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
