- #36
Phobos
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 1,957
- 7
Related topic by DW...
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15225
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15225
Good to know that Einstein's Relativity isn't the only modern theory you have a problem with. Careful though: if you flush QM down the toilet your cd player and computer might explode.Originally posted by David
I don’t know about you, but I’ve never actually seen an electron, much less one electron being in two places at the same time. And I suspect you haven’t either...
No.Originally posted by David
Didn’t Einstein adopt the “photon particle” nature of light, rather than the “wave” nature?
No.Originally posted by David
Isn’t that what his photoelectric effect was all about?
Because, for one thing, Newton said "corpuscles." But, more importantly, Newton meant classical particles, while Einstein meant quanta (of energy). Totally different pictures.Originally posted by David
Why is it that when Newton says it's "particles", that's "out of date", but when Einstein says it's "particles", that's considered "brilliant"?
You must be joking.Originally posted by David
The “constancy” postulate was just a guess that turned out to be wrong, as he admitted in his 1911 paper.
What does the fact that the stars are moving have to do with the validity of an inertial frame?Originally posted by David
He was able to guess at the constancy postulate in 1905, because back then astronomers didn’t realize that stars ... were moving around in space at relatives speeds of thousands of miles a second.
Why should it? (I'm assuming that you are referring to his preliminary scalar field theory for the speed of light to include gravity, which he had rejected by 1915 to adopt the full-on geometrical picture.)Originally posted by David
The SR theory doesn’t explain this phenomena at all.
This is basically correct, but I have the slight suspicion that you have no idea how to appreciate the mechanism or consequence of this alteration.Originally posted by David
Anyway, he altered the “constancy” postulate in his 1911 paper and he tied the local speed of light to an astronomical body’s local gravity field.
I suppose I can't refute this.Originally posted by David
A logical alternative explanation of the M&M results was that their apparatus was resting inside the earth’s own local ether (the earth’s local light-speed regulating medium) and not moving through it at all.
Then what causes distance? Space at least has geometry, which is what gravity manipulates in order to affect stress-energy.Originally posted by David
The “space is expanding” story is silly. Space is three-dimensional physical emptiness. Nothing.
Wait a second! I thought that you just said space was "nothing." How can anything move through nothing? That doesn't make sense. How do you define such motion?Originally posted by David
The galaxies that are moving, are moving through space.
Expanding gravity fields? Do you even know what these terms mean?Originally posted by David
The only thing that is “expanding” in space is their gravity fields that are, sort of, in effect, “stretching” and becoming weaker in the space in-between the galaxies.
OK, but there isn't any "being carried along" going on in expansion. That's the point. Why don't you try to understand what expansion is before you say it is wrong? The distance relationships between the points are expanding.Originally posted by David
It doesn’t matter if you are being “carried along” or if you are running yourself. You are MOVING away from me, and that’s what the galaxies are doing.
Because you haven't been privelaged with the info.Originally posted by David
There are no scientific papers on “expanding space”. There is no physical reason for “space to expand”. There is no such thing as “expanding space”.
But again, if space is "nothing," then why is there an accounting problem. If I don't buy stock, then I don't go broke if it drops a million points.Originally posted by David
There are no reports on where this “new space” comes from to augment “pre-existing space”, and there are no reports on how pre-existing space can physically “expand”. So, there is no such thing as “expanding space”.
Not noticeably. So, are you basing your views of the phenomena of distant galaxies over millions of years on your little drive from Chicago to New York? Interesting. Isn't that the same flaw in interpretting the null result of the M&M as a support of SR?Originally posted by David
If you drive from Chicago to New York, you can’t say the “space” between you and Chicago is “expanding”. That’s nonsense. You are MOVING THROUGH SPACE as you drive, and the DISTANCE between you and Chicago is expanding, but not the “space”.
The light beam will follow a geodesic. The effect of the sun on that geodesic will diminish long before it reaches the edge of the galaxy. Probably, it will follow somewhat of a spiral on its way out, but it will not revolve with the sun.Originally posted by David
If we have a light beam in our galaxy emitted by the sun, in the direction out toward the edge of our galaxy, ...
...
... that beam will be slowly moving sideways, revolving with the sun around the center of our galaxy.
So you've consulted them on this issue. It's good that they can turn to you for such advice.Originally posted by David
Their term “comoving space” is very misleading. But, they do not want to use the term “ether” or “local ether”, not yet.
So, what you want to do is redefine time and speed so that GR is incorrect if you replace its definitions with yours?Originally posted by David
Actually, there is a trick to that, that results from a peculiarity of nature. Seems that local atomic clocks slow down in a gravity field just as the local speed of light slows down in a gravity field.
Space "goes?" What is that supposed to mean? Does it drive or walk?Originally posted by David
If space goes from here to infinity in all directions, ...
Take at least one math course. Infinity + 1 = ?.Originally posted by David
... it can’t expand any more than it already is.
True.Originally posted by David
Einstein didn’t create the universe. His postulate might be wrong on an astronomical scale.
Einstein used it appropriately; Lorentz did not.Originally posted by David
Anyway, he didn’t invent the “c” speed limit, Lorentz did.
You need to tighten up a little and learn how to think logically.Originally posted by David
You need to loosen up a little and allow your mind to think freely.
Yes, because space-time isn't Minkowskian in a universe containing stress-energy. But, c is still c. The issue is that, in GR, coordinate systems usually only make good sense in a small region surounding a point about which they are defined.Originally posted by David
”There is no such thing as an empty space, i.e. a space without field.”
See? He realized in 1911 that just the 1905 local “reference frame” idea didn’t work.
Um, no. Einstien was a big fan of Mach, but he wasn't so deluded to think that the stars didn't move. Whince did you dig up that nonsense?Originally posted by David
Well, both Newton and Einstein "observed" all the stars as being "fixed", but they turned out to not be "fixed" at all.
Do blind people make less legitimate physicists?Originally posted by David
I don’t know about you, but I’ve never actually seen an electron, ...
...
... we can only try to guess what is happening to electrons by some very indirect detection methods.
A further demonstration that you need to spend more time studying what the theories say, before you rule on the consequences. Electrons cannot be distinguished from each other, in principle. If I see an electron in CA, and then I travel to FL and see an electron, I have absolutely no way to say that they are "different electrons." In a sense, that would be a meaningless statement.Originally posted by David
... if you just happen to turn up two separate photographs of the very same electron, showing the very same serial number, ...
Originally posted by turin
A further demonstration that you need to spend more time studying what the theories say, before you rule on the consequences. Electrons cannot be distinguished from each other, in principle. If I see an electron in CA, and then I travel to FL and see an electron, I have absolutely no way to say that they are "different electrons." In a sense, that would be a meaningless statement.
Duely noted. I shall fix it at once! Thank you for bringing this to my attention and allowing me the chance to fix it before you. I will indicate each altered response by "EDIT:" and then describe the edit.Originally posted by Phobos
turin - Your otherwise good post had 2 no-no's...the running over with the car comment and the 'arrogant bigot' comment. That kind of flaming is against PF rules.
I figured as much, but most of your posts appear to be jokes to me, so I don't know when I should assume that you are intentionally joking. Are you aware of any consequences of indistiguishability besides not being able to read serial numbers?Originally posted by David
My statement about the electron serial number was intended to be a joke.
I've been having similar problems with him. Its pretty hard to tell.Originally posted by turin
I figured as much, but most of your posts appear to be jokes to me, so I don't know when I should assume that you are intentionally joking.
Originally posted by turin
Duely noted. I shall fix it at once! Thank you for bringing this to my attention and allowing me the chance to fix it before you. I will indicate each altered response by "EDIT:" and then describe the edit.
BTW, what was wrong with answering David's questions in one word (as rhetorical as they may have been to David)? Is there a rule on PF that I must answer with a certain minimum of text?
Originally posted by Phobos
I know this is a frustrating debate.
This comment went by without a response, and I feel it shouldn't have.David (about Russ): When I talk to someone on the board, and when I express my opinion, you follow me around and try to assure them that I am always wrong. You stalk me. You are obsessed with me. I don’t know what’s the matter with you.
Originally posted by Peterdevis
When i says that your clock theorie violates EEP (even WEP), you don't argue I' m wrong. You keep argueing on atomic clocks used by maxwell etc..
Originally posted by Nereid
Finally, even if you have a persistent critic, as long as the points he or she is raising are well founded...
Originally posted by Nereid
it behoves you to respond - with good data or logic of your own - to his or her criticisms.
When you say that my clock theory violates EEP and WEP, where is your argument? All you are saying is that my theory violates EEP and WEP but without explaining why
But, I’ve found that if we go on a board in which everyone thinks exactly alike, that is extremely boring. We have to agree with everyone. We can’t say anything different. If we make any suggestion that is not “approved” by the moderators, we either get chewed out, attacked viciously, or banned. That’s no fun!
All the guy had to say to me was, “Opps, that’s actually incorrect, because sink drains are too small to be affected by the Coriolis Effect,” or something like that. ...I couldn’t believe his over-reaction. ... But I don't think there is any reason to get upset about it.
Damn, I need a new hobby.Originally posted by Nereid
First, russ is https://www.physicsforums.com/memberlist.php?s=&what=topposters&perpage=15 ...
I said nothing of the sort, David.He said that Maxwell and Einstein couldn’t have been thinking about “atomic clocks” since they were not invented to 1952.
Also a misrepresentation of the truth.I told Russ that Maxwell and others in the 19th Century knew that oscillating atoms were “atomic clocks”, but he denied it and implied that I was some kind of crackpot for saying such a thing.
And most importantly, I have not ridiculed you. If anything, you've belittled me. No worries - I have pretty thick skin.I should be thanked for the information, not ridiculed for it.