Notices
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 201 to 272 of 272
Like Tree35Likes

Thread: what is the fastest possible thing?

  1. #201  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    I don't know how many times I need to keep repeating, but I have a relatively rare form of autism. Things like his statement, are not always obvious to me.
    Fair enough. You seemed to be making a genuine attempt to answer the question and I am not in a position to debate whether or not your perception of my attempt at humor was influenced by any kind of condition you may have.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #202  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    [Was it OPERA?

    I beg your pardon, I work on memory half the time and can fail me.
    That is not the point (although another indication of your general ignorance and sloppy thinking).

    There is no superluminal theory (from OPERA or LHC).


    I am not getting into semantics, unless you want me to?

    The detecting of supposed superluminal particles attracted many theories, some of which was even supplied by suggestion from the experiment itself.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #203  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    I don't know how many times I need to keep repeating, but I have a relatively rare form of autism. Things like his statement, are not always obvious to me.
    Fair enough. You seemed to be making a genuine attempt to answer the question and I am not in a position to debate whether or not your perception of my attempt at humor was influenced by any kind of condition you may have.

    My confusion is likely largely from my side. As I have said, I have a rare form of high functioning autism which .... I am somewhat disabled to the next person in identifying common sarcastic traits of speech.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #204  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,810
    I am not getting into semantics, unless you want me to?
    This isn't a semantic issue, this is you being wrong.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #205  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    I am not getting into semantics, unless you want me to?
    This isn't a semantic issue, this is you being wrong.


    It's actually got to the point, so frivolously taken from what we where originally discussing, I have no idea what I am arguing any more. Karsus, or whatever his name, doesn't respond to my request, no more I understand what his original argument consisted of. Now apparently, I am supposed to see through some semantic mind-game in which the ''then'' experimental confirmation of superluminal neutrino's did not attract different theoretical models. Can you explain to me, why I should be hung up on this?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #206  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,810
    There was no experimental confirmation of superluminal neutrinos. It did not generate any theoretical models. It quickly discovered to be an equipment error.


    The 'semantic mind-game' is everyone pointing out that you're wrong.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #207  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    There was no experimental confirmation of superluminal neutrinos.

    No one said there was. Certainly not me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #208  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,531
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    I have no idea what I am arguing any more.
    Why doesn't that surprise me. Your claims were:

    1. Science proves things. You appear to now agree that this is incorrect.

    2. Mathematical models can be used as evidence. This is so obviously wrong I cannot imagine why you would say it or why you would defend it so vigorously.

    I assume your "autism" makes it hard for you to admit you have made a mistake. However, you need to practice doing that because you are very frequently wrong. Your life would be much easier if you were able to say, "yes, I see what you mean, I was wrong."
    PhDemon likes this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #209  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    I have no idea what I am arguing any more.
    Why doesn't that surprise me. Your claims were:

    1. Science proves things. You appear to now agree that this is incorrect.

    2. Mathematical models can be used as evidence. This is so obviously wrong I cannot imagine why you would say it or why you would defend it so vigorously.

    I assume you "autism" makes it hard for you to admit you have made a mistake. However, you need to practice doing that because you are very frequently wrong. Your life would be much easier if you were able to say, "yes, I see what you mean, I was wrong."

    No... you are now distorting the truth. Did I, or did I not, refine what I meant about proof?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #210  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    No I wouldn't say my autism makes it hard for me to admit mistakes, that isn't what my condition is about.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #211  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    And... when has my condition really got to do with the OP? I only mentioned it, because some where failing to understand why I don't understand sarcasm.... It's not because I am stupid, but because I am heavily rational upon suggestion or written language.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #212  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    It doesn't mean however, I am naturally gullible.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #213  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,531
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    No... you are now distorting the truth. Did I, or did I not, refine what I meant about proof?
    Yes. Which is why I said: "you appear to now agree that this is incorrect."

    Please read, think, digest, read again and think again before replying. It will, perhaps, stop you saying things that suggest you have completely failed to understand what is written.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #214  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    No... you are now distorting the truth. Did I, or did I not, refine what I meant about proof?
    Yes. Which is why I said: "you appear to now agree that this is incorrect."


    Again, scientists are allowed to refine their definitions.

    If you want me to admit, my full definition wasn't entirely correct, then yes... this is why I refined it for you very early on. Keep repeating the mistake, doesn't change the fact I did change it. I refined it so it was more correct to the reality of things.


    I admit mistakes as much as I try to correct any if there is any.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #215  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Yet I have shown a real-life situation in which if mathematics is treated as objectively as other information, it can be treated as evidence.
    You haven't shown any such thing.


    Let's all pretend to be dumb.
    You do not have to pretend. Your posts demonstrate it for you. Amply.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #216  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Yet I have shown a real-life situation in which if mathematics is treated as objectively as other information, it can be treated as evidence.
    You haven't shown any such thing.




    Let's all pretend to be dumb.
    You do not have to pretend. Your posts demonstrate it for you. Amply.

    Caught me at a bad time tach. Some day, maybe, I will respond in the flaming way you want me to.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #217  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ajarjour View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by frumpydolphin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Neutrinos travel pretty close to the speed of light (because of their low mass).

    But any particle can approach the speed of light if given enough energy:

    Photons always travel at the speed of light.

    Nothing ravels faster.
    Question: is there a law saying nothing can pass the speed of light, I'm pretty sure if you give a photon more energy it will move faster.
    As something approaches the speed of light energy starts to show up as increased mass instead of as increased velocity. The increase in frequency for electromagnetic waves is another form of the increased energy showing up in a different way than an increase in velocity.
    I'm completely new here, but I have one slight issue with this, technically, while the object's energy and momentum increase, its mass remains constant. This is formalized by Einstein's equations: E=gamma*m, p = gamma*m*v (setting c=1, of course; gamma = 1/Sqrt(1-v^2)). Thus, we can see that the mass of an object remains constant, while its energy and momentum increase with speed. Mass is defined to be constant for objects, this is what makes it a useful quantity.
    Thanks, that's rather a good point. I remember very little about relativity and I have always thought mass increases with energy input, but I do see what you mean about these equations (and also I see Markus has given his imprimatur to your post). But tell me, how do these equations deal with the net loss of mass we observe in nuclear fission, for example? Does that not indicate a real change of mass as a function of energy change?
    I am less knowledgeable about nuclear physics, but I'm happy to share my limited knowledge. My understanding is that the mass which is lost is the so called "binding energy" of the nucleus (a fancy way of saying strong nuclear force). So, the energy in these bonds acts like mass. Nuclear fission and fusion take advantage of the fact that the binding energies of nuclei are sort of a U shape with increasing atomic number. Iron, incidentally, has one of the lowest (if not the lowest, can't recall) binding energies. This means is is impossible (as far as I know) to do any sort of nuclear reaction with iron and actually get energy out. Stars fuse it anyway (especially supernovae) and that is how we get all the elements past iron. This is also why stars eventually burn out: they consume all the elements that they can fuse in an energy positive fashion. My statement regarding mass being fixed was directed towards the sort of standard indivisible physics thought object, however you are absolutely correct that any sort of mass energy conversion is going to reduce mass. Obviously on a smaller scale, but combustion is a mass energy conversion as well: mass is stored in the electrostatic bonds holding the involved molecules together.
    RedPanda likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #218  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    940
    Quote Originally Posted by ajarjour View Post
    I am less knowledgeable about nuclear physics, but I'm happy to share my limited knowledge. My understanding is that the mass which is lost is the so called "binding energy" of the nucleus (a fancy way of saying strong nuclear force). So, the energy in these bonds acts like mass. Nuclear fission and fusion take advantage of the fact that the binding energies of nuclei are sort of a U shape with increasing atomic number. Iron, incidentally, has one of the lowest (if not the lowest, can't recall) binding energies. This means is is impossible (as far as I know) to do any sort of nuclear reaction with iron and actually get energy out. Stars fuse it anyway (especially supernovae) and that is how we get all the elements past iron. This is also why stars eventually burn out: they consume all the elements that they can fuse in an energy positive fashion. My statement regarding mass being fixed was directed towards the sort of standard indivisible physics thought object, however you are absolutely correct that any sort of mass energy conversion is going to reduce mass. Obviously on a smaller scale, but combustion is a mass energy conversion as well: mass is stored in the electrostatic bonds holding the involved molecules together.
    my understanding is that the binding energy mass loss also occurs in ordinary chemical reactions. both chemical and nuclear reactions have a mass loss (binding energy) it is just much, much less for chemical reactions. in other words, E=mc2 holds for chemical reactions also.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #219  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    19
    Absolutely. Combustion was meant to be an example of such reactions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #220  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by ajarjour View Post
    Absolutely. Combustion was meant to be an example of such reactions.
    Such a reaction can only be wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #221  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,531
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ajarjour View Post
    Absolutely. Combustion was meant to be an example of such reactions.
    Such a reaction can only be wrong.
    How can it be "wrong"?
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #222  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ajarjour View Post
    Absolutely. Combustion was meant to be an example of such reactions.
    Such a reaction can only be wrong.
    How can it be "wrong"?
    Hello, you've reached Chesslonesome. I can't come to the forum right now, but if you leave your name and a snide comment I'll get back to you in one to two weeks.
    Howard Roark likes this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #223  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    940
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ajarjour View Post
    Absolutely. Combustion was meant to be an example of such reactions.
    Such a reaction can only be wrong.
    How can it be "wrong"?
    don't worry about it Strange. Chess was just banned (perma?) and he was lashing out at everyone in multiple threads. this post of his is more nonsense than usual.
    Last edited by Chucknorium; May 10th, 2014 at 06:54 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #224  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    940
    Quote Originally Posted by Chesslonesome View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ajarjour View Post
    Absolutely. Combustion was meant to be an example of such reactions.
    Such a reaction can only be wrong.
    ajarjour, please ignore this response by Chesslonesome. he was just banned and just prior to that he went to several threads and lashed out at people meaninglessly.

    please continue with your posting. you seem quite well educated. stick around for a while.
    Howard Roark likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #225  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by Chucknorium View Post

    my understanding is that the binding energy mass loss also occurs in ordinary chemical reactions. both chemical and nuclear reactions have a mass loss (binding energy) it is just much, much less for chemical reactions. in other words, E=mc2 holds for chemical reactions also.
    Yes, with a slight "correction":



    The above means that a change in mass (via a nuclear reaction, chemical reaction, etc) releases an energy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #226  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    940
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chucknorium View Post

    my understanding is that the binding energy mass loss also occurs in ordinary chemical reactions. both chemical and nuclear reactions have a mass loss (binding energy) it is just much, much less for chemical reactions. in other words, E=mc2 holds for chemical reactions also.
    Yes, with a slight "correction":



    The above means that a change in mass (via a nuclear reaction, chemical reaction, etc) releases an energy
    i see. but doesn't the 'm' in E = mc2 imply the 'amount of mass changed to energy'? which is really the same (delta m) as what you posted?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #227  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by Chucknorium View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chucknorium View Post

    my understanding is that the binding energy mass loss also occurs in ordinary chemical reactions. both chemical and nuclear reactions have a mass loss (binding energy) it is just much, much less for chemical reactions. in other words, E=mc2 holds for chemical reactions also.
    Yes, with a slight "correction":



    The above means that a change in mass (via a nuclear reaction, chemical reaction, etc) releases an energy
    i see. but doesn't the 'm' in E = mc2 imply the 'amount of mass changed to energy'? which is really the same (delta m) as what you posted?
    Yes, I am being pedantic. Hence the "" in "correction". The form with is the preferred way of expressing the mass-energy conversion . BTW, the conversion is reversible, energy can be converted into mass, see "pair production". :-)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #228  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    940
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chucknorium View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chucknorium View Post

    my understanding is that the binding energy mass loss also occurs in ordinary chemical reactions. both chemical and nuclear reactions have a mass loss (binding energy) it is just much, much less for chemical reactions. in other words, E=mc2 holds for chemical reactions also.
    Yes, with a slight "correction":



    The above means that a change in mass (via a nuclear reaction, chemical reaction, etc) releases an energy
    i see. but doesn't the 'm' in E = mc2 imply the 'amount of mass changed to energy'? which is really the same (delta m) as what you posted?
    Yes, I am being pedantic. Hence the "" in "correction". The form with is the preferred way of expressing the mass-energy conversion (BTW, the conversion is reversible, energy can be converted into mass, see "pair production". :-)
    i don't mind pedantic because I get a little sloppy. someone chastised me for posting '3 degrees Kelvin'. I know it's supposed to be '3 Kelvin' but when you are switching back and forth between F, C, and K, sloppiness happens. (we need a 'U' in there, don't we?)
    Last edited by Chucknorium; May 10th, 2014 at 08:30 PM.
    Flick Montana likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #229  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    19
    Well, I learned something. I've been saying # degrees kelvin for a while now. Probably annoying everyone I work with.

    On the subject of E=mc^2, I believe a larger point one could make is that E = mc^2 is the constant term in the Taylor expansion of E= gamma*m (in v), so it would be slightly strange (although not wrong) to expect the m in a energy equation to be a "change in". For instance, It would be odd if I gave you E = 1/2mv^2 (Newton's KE, also the 2nd order term in E=gamma*m), and expected you to know that I was talking about a changing m, rather than a changing v. Hence, the delta is useful. A counterpoint, however, is that I'm a really lazy person, and figuring out how to make a forum post contain a delta is probably too much work for me. XD
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #230  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by ajarjour View Post
    Well, I learned something. I've been saying # degrees kelvin for a while now. Probably annoying everyone I work with.

    On the subject of E=mc^2, I believe a larger point one could make is that E = mc^2 is the constant term in the Taylor expansion of E= gamma*m (in v), so it would be slightly strange (although not wrong) to expect the m in a energy equation to be a "change in". For instance, It would be odd if I gave you E = 1/2mv^2 (Newton's KE, also the 2nd order term in E=gamma*m), and expected you to know that I was talking about a changing m, rather than a changing v. Hence, the delta is useful. A counterpoint, however, is that I'm a really lazy person, and figuring out how to make a forum post contain a delta is probably too much work for me. XD
    You would need to learn LateX, the language used for mathematical notation. It is not that difficult.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #231  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    19
    I've dabbled in it, just never had a reason to put a lot of time into it. Probably one of these days one of my professors will demand I use it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #232  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by ajarjour View Post
    I've dabbled in it, just never had a reason to put a lot of time into it. Probably one of these days one of my professors will demand I use it.
    You don't need it unless you intend to write science papers.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #233  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    19
    Well, I don't think my PI is going to have me writing papers anytime soon, and moreover my field of interest doesn't have much math in it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #234  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by ajarjour View Post
    Well, I don't think my PI is going to have me writing papers anytime soon, and moreover my field of interest doesn't have much math in it.
    Then, you don't need to learn it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #235  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,534
    Quote Originally Posted by ajarjour View Post
    Well, I learned something. I've been saying # degrees kelvin for a while now. Probably annoying everyone I work with.

    On the subject of E=mc^2, I believe a larger point one could make is that E = mc^2 is the constant term in the Taylor expansion of E= gamma*m (in v), so it would be slightly strange (although not wrong) to expect the m in a energy equation to be a "change in". For instance, It would be odd if I gave you E = 1/2mv^2 (Newton's KE, also the 2nd order term in E=gamma*m), and expected you to know that I was talking about a changing m, rather than a changing v. Hence, the delta is useful. A counterpoint, however, is that I'm a really lazy person, and figuring out how to make a forum post contain a delta is probably too much work for me. XD
    Aha. Thank you very much. What it seems you are saying is that changes in kinetic energy do not alter mass, just momentum and energy, via the gamma factor, but that changes in other sorts of energy (e.g. nuclear binding energy, chemical energy in bonds and so forth, DO alter mass. Is that right?

    And would this distinction between kinetic energy and other forms be something to do with kinetic energy being relative, since it arises from relative motion?
    Last edited by exchemist; May 12th, 2014 at 04:02 AM. Reason: word change
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #236  
    Forum Freshman Laurieag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    93
    In E=m*c^2 the m is rest mass not relativistic mass.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #237  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ajarjour View Post
    Well, I learned something. I've been saying # degrees kelvin for a while now. Probably annoying everyone I work with.

    On the subject of E=mc^2, I believe a larger point one could make is that E = mc^2 is the constant term in the Taylor expansion of E= gamma*m (in v), so it would be slightly strange (although not wrong) to expect the m in a energy equation to be a "change in". For instance, It would be odd if I gave you E = 1/2mv^2 (Newton's KE, also the 2nd order term in E=gamma*m), and expected you to know that I was talking about a changing m, rather than a changing v. Hence, the delta is useful. A counterpoint, however, is that I'm a really lazy person, and figuring out how to make a forum post contain a delta is probably too much work for me. XD
    Aha. Thank you very much. What it seems you are saying is that changes in kinetic energy do not alter mass, just momentum and energy, via the gamma factor, but that changes in other sorts of energy (e.g. nuclear binding energy, chemical energy in bonds and so forth, DO alter mass. Is that right?


    The above is totally wrong , on multiple levels: in contemporary physics we do not talk about "altering mass", mass (inertial mass, also called proper mass) is an invariant. We talk about energy. Total energy is the frame variant quantity described by .

    And would this distinction between kinetic energy and other forms be something to do with kinetic energy being relative, since it arises from relative motion?
    This is also very badly phrased (see above).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #238  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,534
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ajarjour View Post
    Well, I learned something. I've been saying # degrees kelvin for a while now. Probably annoying everyone I work with.

    On the subject of E=mc^2, I believe a larger point one could make is that E = mc^2 is the constant term in the Taylor expansion of E= gamma*m (in v), so it would be slightly strange (although not wrong) to expect the m in a energy equation to be a "change in". For instance, It would be odd if I gave you E = 1/2mv^2 (Newton's KE, also the 2nd order term in E=gamma*m), and expected you to know that I was talking about a changing m, rather than a changing v. Hence, the delta is useful. A counterpoint, however, is that I'm a really lazy person, and figuring out how to make a forum post contain a delta is probably too much work for me. XD
    Aha. Thank you very much. What it seems you are saying is that changes in kinetic energy do not alter mass, just momentum and energy, via the gamma factor, but that changes in other sorts of energy (e.g. nuclear binding energy, chemical energy in bonds and so forth, DO alter mass. Is that right?


    The above is totally wrong , on multiple levels: in contemporary physics we do not talk about "altering mass", mass (inertial mass, also called proper mass) is an invariant. We talk about energy. Total energy is the frame variant quantity described by .

    And would this distinction between kinetic energy and other forms be something to do with kinetic energy being relative, since it arises from relative motion?
    This is also very badly phrased (see above).
    OK, help me a bit, because this is not my field and I'd like to get it straight. When, say, a fission reaction takes place that releases energy, is the inertial mass (proper mass) of the products the same as that of the reactants? Presumably so if it is invariant as you say. Does that mean the binding energy that is released in the reaction does not form part of the inertial mass? That seems odd to me. Can you explain how this is treated?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #239  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,137
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    When, say, a fission reaction takes place that releases energy, is the inertial mass (proper mass) of the products the same as that of the reactants?
    No, invariant mass is not a conserved quantity. The conserved quantities are the energy and each component of momentum (energy is the time component of the energy-momentum four-dimensional vector).
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #240  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ajarjour View Post
    Well, I learned something. I've been saying # degrees kelvin for a while now. Probably annoying everyone I work with.

    On the subject of E=mc^2, I believe a larger point one could make is that E = mc^2 is the constant term in the Taylor expansion of E= gamma*m (in v), so it would be slightly strange (although not wrong) to expect the m in a energy equation to be a "change in". For instance, It would be odd if I gave you E = 1/2mv^2 (Newton's KE, also the 2nd order term in E=gamma*m), and expected you to know that I was talking about a changing m, rather than a changing v. Hence, the delta is useful. A counterpoint, however, is that I'm a really lazy person, and figuring out how to make a forum post contain a delta is probably too much work for me. XD
    Aha. Thank you very much. What it seems you are saying is that changes in kinetic energy do not alter mass, just momentum and energy, via the gamma factor, but that changes in other sorts of energy (e.g. nuclear binding energy, chemical energy in bonds and so forth, DO alter mass. Is that right?


    The above is totally wrong , on multiple levels: in contemporary physics we do not talk about "altering mass", mass (inertial mass, also called proper mass) is an invariant. We talk about energy. Total energy is the frame variant quantity described by .

    And would this distinction between kinetic energy and other forms be something to do with kinetic energy being relative, since it arises from relative motion?
    This is also very badly phrased (see above).
    OK, help me a bit, because this is not my field and I'd like to get it straight. When, say, a fission reaction takes place that releases energy, is the inertial mass (proper mass) of the products the same as that of the reactants? Presumably so if it is invariant as you say. Does that mean the binding energy that is released in the reaction does not form part of the inertial mass? That seems odd to me. Can you explain how this is treated?
    KJW beat me to it.
    I'll explain the same thing, using slightly different words: invariance and conservation are two very different notions, you are mixing them.
    Energy-momentum is conserved but not invariant.
    (Proper) mass is invariant but it is not conserved.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #241  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,034
    The strong nuclear force is where the energy comes from.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #242  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,137
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    And would this distinction between kinetic energy and other forms be something to do with kinetic energy being relative, since it arises from relative motion?
    It may be helpful to note that a container of hot gas has a higher invariant mass than the corresponding container of cold gas. Though the invariant mass of each gas molecule is unchanged, the increased kinetic energy of the gas molecules increases the rest mass of the container of gas as a whole (the individual molecules are in motion but the container itself is at rest).
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #243  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,534
    Quote Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw View Post
    The strong nuclear force is where the energy comes from.
    My question was about the invariance or not of proper mass.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #244  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,034
    OK well, I suck.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #245  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,534
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ajarjour View Post
    Well, I learned something. I've been saying # degrees kelvin for a while now. Probably annoying everyone I work with.

    On the subject of E=mc^2, I believe a larger point one could make is that E = mc^2 is the constant term in the Taylor expansion of E= gamma*m (in v), so it would be slightly strange (although not wrong) to expect the m in a energy equation to be a "change in". For instance, It would be odd if I gave you E = 1/2mv^2 (Newton's KE, also the 2nd order term in E=gamma*m), and expected you to know that I was talking about a changing m, rather than a changing v. Hence, the delta is useful. A counterpoint, however, is that I'm a really lazy person, and figuring out how to make a forum post contain a delta is probably too much work for me. XD
    Aha. Thank you very much. What it seems you are saying is that changes in kinetic energy do not alter mass, just momentum and energy, via the gamma factor, but that changes in other sorts of energy (e.g. nuclear binding energy, chemical energy in bonds and so forth, DO alter mass. Is that right?


    The above is totally wrong , on multiple levels: in contemporary physics we do not talk about "altering mass", mass (inertial mass, also called proper mass) is an invariant. We talk about energy. Total energy is the frame variant quantity described by .

    And would this distinction between kinetic energy and other forms be something to do with kinetic energy being relative, since it arises from relative motion?
    This is also very badly phrased (see above).
    OK, help me a bit, because this is not my field and I'd like to get it straight. When, say, a fission reaction takes place that releases energy, is the inertial mass (proper mass) of the products the same as that of the reactants? Presumably so if it is invariant as you say. Does that mean the binding energy that is released in the reaction does not form part of the inertial mass? That seems odd to me. Can you explain how this is treated?
    KJW beat me to it.
    I'll explain the same thing, using slightly different words: invariance and conservation are two very different notions, you are mixing them.
    Energy-momentum is conserved but not invariant.
    (Proper) mass is invariant but it is not conserved.
    Ah, good, yes, thank you very much, that's the distinction I needed to appreciate. So, when we say mass is "invariant", does that mean it is not a relative quantity, i.e. is not dependent on the frame of reference of the observer?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #246  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post

    Ah, good, yes, thank you very much, that's the distinction I needed to appreciate. So, when we say mass is "invariant", does that mean it is not a relative quantity, i.e. is not dependent on the frame of reference of the observer?
    yes
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #247  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    19
    Exchemist, I'm glad you have sorted out your confusion. I hope I wasn't unclear.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #248  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,534
    Quote Originally Posted by ajarjour View Post
    Exchemist, I'm glad you have sorted out your confusion. I hope I wasn't unclear.
    Yes it is somewhat clearer now. I really need to go and read all this stuff up. QM I'm just about solid on, 40 years on, but relativity was never part of any course I studied.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #249  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    6
    In my opinion -
    The origin of the "grand cosmic speed limit" idea is in the observation that the velocity of propogation of light is observer-invariant (it appears the same to all observers)
    There is actually a simple explanation for this:
    First note:
    "The acceleration of any frame of reference is equal with respect to all frames of reference".
    (you may not find this in a text-book but it is clear if you think about it)

    We must assume that EM radiation propagates as a wave. The explanation depends on two observations:
    The first is that acceleration is observer-invariant. It will be be measured as identical by all observers, The second is that a propagating wave front is always accelerating. Since all observers see the same acceleration starting from zero velocity where the radiation was emitted, for the same period of time, all will measure the same velocity. This does not provide any indication of the existence of a "grand cosmic speed limit". More on this, and other important topics, including a new explanation for gravity based on the Lorentz Force Law at oneindependentthinker.wordpress.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #250  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,531
    Quote Originally Posted by johndavidbest View Post
    The second is that a propagating wave front is always accelerating.
    Can you explain that. I don't understand how you can say that a wavefront is accelerating if it is propagating at a constant speed...
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #251  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,534
    Quote Originally Posted by johndavidbest View Post
    In my opinion -
    The origin of the "grand cosmic speed limit" idea is in the observation that the velocity of propogation of light is observer-invariant (it appears the same to all observers)
    There is actually a simple explanation for this:
    First note:
    "The acceleration of any frame of reference is equal with respect to all frames of reference".
    (you may not find this in a text-book but it is clear if you think about it)

    We must assume that EM radiation propagates as a wave. The explanation depends on two observations:
    The first is that acceleration is observer-invariant. It will be be measured as identical by all observers, The second is that a propagating wave front is always accelerating. Since all observers see the same acceleration starting from zero velocity where the radiation was emitted, for the same period of time, all will measure the same velocity. This does not provide any indication of the existence of a "grand cosmic speed limit". More on this, and other important topics, including a new explanation for gravity based on the Lorentz Force Law at oneindependentthinker.wordpress.com
    I think you should start your own thread on this, under New & Alternative Theories.

    It is not very polite to hijack another person's thread to introduce eccentric theories of your own to the forum community.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #252  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by johndavidbest View Post

    We must assume that EM radiation propagates as a wave. The explanation depends on two observations:
    The first is that acceleration is observer-invariant. It will be be measured as identical by all observers,
    First falsity: coordinate acceleration is observer dependent (as the name implies it).


    The second is that a propagating wave front is always accelerating.
    Second falsity: em waves do NOT accelerate, they always propagate at the same speed (in vacuum), "c".



    Since all observers see the same acceleration starting from zero velocity where the radiation was emitted, for the same period of time, all will measure the same velocity.
    The epitomy of GiGo (Garbage In, Garbage Out): use two false premises (see above) and you get a ....garbage conclusion.



    This does not provide any indication of the existence of a "grand cosmic speed limit". More on this, and other important topics, including a new explanation for gravity based on the Lorentz Force Law at oneindependentthinker.wordpress.com
    I see, this was just a shill for more of your crank ideas.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #253  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    I'd think the fastest thing would be me trying to get out of the bedroom of someones wife when her husband unexpectedly comes home.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #254  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by johndavidbest View Post

    We must assume that EM radiation propagates as a wave. The explanation depends on two observations:
    The first is that acceleration is observer-invariant. It will be be measured as identical by all observers,
    First falsity: coordinate acceleration is observer dependent (as the name implies it).


    The second is that a propagating wave front is always accelerating.
    Second falsity: em waves do NOT accelerate, they always propagate at the same speed (in vacuum), "c".



    Since all observers see the same acceleration starting from zero velocity where the radiation was emitted, for the same period of time, all will measure the same velocity.
    The epitomy of GiGo (Garbage In, Garbage Out): use two false premises (see above) and you get a ....garbage conclusion.



    This does not provide any indication of the existence of a "grand cosmic speed limit". More on this, and other important topics, including a new explanation for gravity based on the Lorentz Force Law at oneindependentthinker.wordpress.com
    I see, this was just a shill for more of your crank ideas.
    Xyzt, you're a saint for explaining to this "genius" how wrong he is. Although, I'm not sure he is going to listen.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #255  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by ajarjour View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by johndavidbest View Post
    We must assume that EM radiation propagates as a wave. The explanation depends on two observations: The first is that acceleration is observer-invariant. It will be be measured as identical by all observers,
    First falsity: coordinate acceleration is observer dependent (as the name implies it).
    The second is that a propagating wave front is always accelerating.
    Second falsity: em waves do NOT accelerate, they always propagate at the same speed (in vacuum), "c".
    Since all observers see the same acceleration starting from zero velocity where the radiation was emitted, for the same period of time, all will measure the same velocity.
    The epitomy of GiGo (Garbage In, Garbage Out): use two false premises (see above) and you get a ....garbage conclusion.
    This does not provide any indication of the existence of a "grand cosmic speed limit". More on this, and other important topics, including a new explanation for gravity based on the Lorentz Force Law at oneindependentthinker.wordpress.com
    I see, this was just a shill for more of your crank ideas.
    Xyzt, you're a saint for explaining to this "genius" how wrong he is. Although, I'm not sure he is going to listen.
    I thank you for the civil and thoughtful reply -

    Re: A wavefront is always accelerating - To see this, consider a wave in a "particulate" medium: the particles (molecules, whatever) of the medium are motionless until they are put in motion when the wave reaches them. When they are put in motion, they are being accelerated. In order for the wave to progress, the particles/molecules/whatever at the wavefront must be constantly accelerating.

    Re: Acceleration is seen as being the same to all observers - This is semi-obvious if you open your mind a crack and think about it: The simplest way I know to put it is that:
    The true or absolute velocity of something is not something that we can know, therefore we must always regard velocity as being relative to something. Acceleration, on the other hand, is a change in velocity, so it can it can be calculated relative to the motion of anything else, and the same value will be arrived at. In other words, A change in velocity is seen as the same to all observers; a velocity is not.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #256  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by johndavidbest View Post
    I thank you for the civil and thoughtful reply: Re: A wavefront is always accelerating - To see this, consider a wave in a "particulate" medium: the particles (molecules, whatever) of the medium are motionless until they are put in motion when the wave reaches them.
    Yes, em waves DO NOT "accelerate", contrary to your crank ideas. Repeating the same misconception doesn't make it true.


    Re: Acceleration is seen as being the same to all observers - This is semi-obvious if you open your mind a crack and think about it: The simplest way I know to put it is that The true or absolute velocity of something is not something that we can know, therefore we must always regard velocity as being relative to something.
    You got this right, velocity is coordinate dependent. So is coordinate acceleration. Tough.


    Acceleration, on the other hand, is a change in velocity, so it can it can be calculated relative to the motion of anything else, and the same value. In other words, A change in velocity is seen as the same to all observers; a velocity is not. I hope this clarifies my thinking.
    Yes, it clarifies your level of understanding. Proper acceleration is the frame invariant quantity, coordinate acceleration is not. I would recommend that you take a physics class and that you erase your website that you were shilling. It is embarrassing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #257  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by ajarjour View Post
    Xyzt, you're a saint for explaining to this "genius" how wrong he is. Although, I'm not sure he is going to listen.
    As predicted, he didn't.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #258  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,680
    Quote Originally Posted by johndavidbest View Post
    Re: Acceleration is seen as being the same to all observers - This is semi-obvious if you open your mind a crack and think about it: The simplest way I know to put it is that The true or absolute velocity of something is not something that we can know, therefore we must always regard velocity as being relative to something. Acceleration, on the other hand, is a change in velocity, so it can it can be calculated relative to the motion of anything else, and the same value. In other words, A change in velocity is seen as the same to all observers; a velocity is not. I hope this clarifies my thinking.
    Since velocities do not add (at relativistic speeds) then any two observers will disagree on the acceleration (i.e. one at a high relativistic velocity relative to the observed acceleration will see a lower overall acceleration than one at non-relativistic speeds relative to the acceleration) .
    Ergo: the acceleration is not the same relative to all observers.

    Re: A wavefront is always accelerating - To see this, consider a wave in a "particulate" medium: the particles (molecules, whatever) of the medium are motionless until they are put in motion when the wave reaches them. When they are out in motion, they are being accelerated. In order for the wave to progress, the particles/molecules/whatever at the wavefront must be constantly accerating.
    Just... what?
    No.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #259  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    6
    Let me get this straight -
    Are these criticisms based on some logical fallacy, or are you merely pointing out, in a not-so-genteel fashion that these ideas are not totally in accordance with mainstream thinking (something I am well aware of)?
    Science is in a sorry state when anyone with a new idea that is not totally in accord with the mainstream, is heckled and derided in such a manner. How will science progress if no one is allowed to have new ideas? Apparently the "thought police" really do exist. Crank idea?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #260  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by johndavidbest View Post
    Let me get this straight -
    Are these criticisms based on some logical fallacy,
    Absolutely. YOURS.


    or are you merely pointing out, in a not-so-genteel fashion that these ideas are not totally in accordance with mainstream thinking (something I am well aware of)?
    More precisely, FULLBLOWN CRACKPOT.




    Science is in a sorry state when anyone with a new idea that is not totally in accord with the mainstream, is heckled and derided in such a manner.
    Ahh, here comes the classical crank argument. You are being derided because your are espousing ideas that are provably wrong. I have already debunked your ideas, now you try to complain that I am attacking you?

    How will science progress if no one is allowed to have new ideas?
    "New ideas" do not include "already proven wrong ideas".


    Apparently the "thought police" really do exist. Crank idea?
    Such is the fate of hardened cranks. I take it that this is not your first rodeo.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #261  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,810
    Unless your 'new idea' can explain things that the mainstream cannot, it's useless. Because something is new doesn't make it right, and if it's not correct, it should be discarded.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #262  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,680
    Quote Originally Posted by johndavidbest View Post
    Let me get this straight -
    Are these criticisms based on some logical fallacy, or are you merely pointing out, in a not-so-genteel fashion that these ideas are not totally in accordance with mainstream thinking (something I am well aware of)?
    Science is in a sorry state when anyone with a new idea that is not totally in accord with the mainstream, is heckled and derided in such a manner. How will science progress if no one is allowed to have new ideas? Apparently the "thought police" really do exist. Crank idea?
    Crank idea because wrong idea.
    As shown in more than one reply to you.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #263  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    6
    "already proven wrong ideas" which ones would those be xyzt? and what are the proofs based on? Well, I think that I must have stumbled into a sports forum by mistake, thinking it was a science forum
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #264  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,810
    It might have helped if at some point in your life you studied physics, instead of making it up.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #265  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by johndavidbest View Post
    "already proven wrong ideas" which ones would those be xyzt?
    Like your crank ideas that waves 'accelerate"
    Like your crank idea that because acceleration is absolute this results into the speed invariance of waves.
    How many times do you need your nose rubbed into your crackpotteries before you admit to them?


    and what are the proofs based on?
    Basic textbook knowledge. You should try it sometimes, beats trolling the science forums.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #266  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,531
    Quote Originally Posted by johndavidbest View Post
    Re: A wavefront is always accelerating - To see this, consider a wave in a "particulate" medium: the particles (molecules, whatever) of the medium are motionless until they are put in motion when the wave reaches them. When they are put in motion, they are being accelerated. In order for the wave to progress, the particles/molecules/whatever at the wavefront must be constantly accelerating.
    But there is no medium (for EM radiation).

    Quote Originally Posted by johndavidbest View Post
    How will science progress if no one is allowed to have new ideas?
    Science doesn't progress by people making up random ideas. You need some evidence and/or mathematics to support your idea: show us what predictions it makes and how they match reality.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #267  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by johndavidbest View Post
    Re: A wavefront is always accelerating - To see this, consider a wave in a "particulate" medium: the particles (molecules, whatever) of the medium are motionless until they are put in motion when the wave reaches them. When they are put in motion, they are being accelerated. In order for the wave to progress, the particles/molecules/whatever at the wavefront must be constantly accelerating.
    But there is no medium (for EM radiation).

    Quote Originally Posted by johndavidbest View Post
    How will science progress if no one is allowed to have new ideas?
    Science doesn't progress by people making up random ideas. You need some evidence and/or mathematics to support your idea: show us what predictions it makes and how they match reality.
    Strange - thank you for the thoughtful observation - I believe that there is some medium or cosmic background (yes, I am aware of aether theories and their objections). It would explain the apparent "absoluteness" of acceleration, as well providing a medium for propagation of EM waves It's existence allows an explanation of gravity as magnetic attraction, based on the Lorentz force law.

    I propose that it is comprised of elementary charges. Ir appears to be the "vacuum of space" because the charges are massless, and electric fields superpose to zero.

    I would provide more details on these ideas, but I do not think I will bother..

    This of course is contrary to mainstream theory. - Regarding that other theory - Have you ever heard of a "Rube Goldberg machine"? It is something that is functional; it performs the intended task, but does so in a complex and outlandish manner. Unfortunately, modern science is devoted to refining the "Rube Goldberg machine" rather than seeking better alternatives.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #268  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by johndavidbest View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by johndavidbest View Post
    Re: A wavefront is always accelerating - To see this, consider a wave in a "particulate" medium: the particles (molecules, whatever) of the medium are motionless until they are put in motion when the wave reaches them. When they are put in motion, they are being accelerated. In order for the wave to progress, the particles/molecules/whatever at the wavefront must be constantly accelerating.
    But there is no medium (for EM radiation).

    Quote Originally Posted by johndavidbest View Post
    How will science progress if no one is allowed to have new ideas?
    Science doesn't progress by people making up random ideas. You need some evidence and/or mathematics to support your idea: show us what predictions it makes and how they match reality.
    Strange - thank you for the thoughtful observation - I believe that there is some medium or cosmic background (yes, I am aware of aether theories and their objections).
    There isn't, em waves propagate in vacuum.

    It would explain the apparent "absoluteness" of acceleration,
    Acceleration isn't absolute, despite your repeated crank claims. And "aether" doesn't explain why acceleration is "absolute". You need to cease and desist.



    as well providing a medium for propagation of EM waves It's existence allows an explanation of gravity as magnetic attraction, based on the Lorentz force law.
    There is no such explanation. Lorentz force law can be attractive or REPULSIVE, gravitation is attractive only.


    I propose that it is comprised of elementary charges.
    It isn't, please stop manufacturing crank theories.




    I would provide more details on these ideas, but I do not think I will bother..
    Excellent. Go away.

    This of course is contrary to mainstream theory. - Regarding that other theory - Have you ever heard of a "Rube Goldberg machine"? It is something that is functional; it performs the intended task, but does so in a complex and outlandish manner. Unfortunately, modern science is devoted to refining the "Rube Goldberg machine" rather than seeking better alternatives.
    You mean we are devoted swatting cranks? No, this is just a part time job, for entertainment purposes only.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #269  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    6
    -
    Last edited by johndavidbest; May 14th, 2014 at 01:28 AM. Reason: childish
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #270  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,810
    Why do cranks always lift things from wiki and act like they know what it means?
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #271  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by johndavidbest View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by johndavidbest View Post
    Re: A wavefront is always accelerating - To see this, consider a wave in a "particulate" medium: the particles (molecules, whatever) of the medium are motionless until they are put in motion when the wave reaches them. When they are put in motion, they are being accelerated. In order for the wave to progress, the particles/molecules/whatever at the wavefront must be constantly accelerating.
    But there is no medium (for EM radiation).

    Quote Originally Posted by johndavidbest View Post
    How will science progress if no one is allowed to have new ideas?
    You know, even if your idea wasn't provably wrong (which it is), it would still be an example of a "Russell's teapot"

    Science doesn't progress by people making up random ideas. You need some evidence and/or mathematics to support your idea: show us what predictions it makes and how they match reality.
    Strange - thank you for the thoughtful observation - I believe that there is some medium or cosmic background (yes, I am aware of aether theories and their objections). It would explain the apparent "absoluteness" of acceleration, as well providing a medium for propagation of EM waves It's existence allows an explanation of gravity as magnetic attraction, based on the Lorentz force law.

    I propose that it is comprised of elementary charges. Ir appears to be the "vacuum of space" because the charges are massless, and electric fields superpose to zero.

    I would provide more details on these ideas, but I do not think I will bother..

    This of course is contrary to mainstream theory. - Regarding that other theory - Have you ever heard of a "Rube Goldberg machine"? It is something that is functional; it performs the intended task, but does so in a complex and outlandish manner. Unfortunately, modern science is devoted to refining the "Rube Goldberg machine" rather than seeking better alternatives.
    Just because YOU don't understand modern physics and think it is complicated doesn't make your crazy theory right. If that were the case, I can propose a simpler theory to explain everything:
    Q:What is the origin of Life, how did the universe form, and how does everything work?
    A: Teapots orbiting mars. That is all.
    Its so much simpler than modern physics! So unfalsifiable! So non-explanatory! So provably wrong! It must be right! Anyone who tells me I'm wrong is just a closed minded "mainstream" scientist!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #272  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,531
    Quote Originally Posted by johndavidbest View Post
    [Strange - thank you for the thoughtful observation - I believe that there is some medium ...
    You can believe whatever you want, of course. However, with no evidence there is no reason for anyone else to take the idea seriously.

    p.s. thanks for attributing the "Russell's Teapot" comment to me, but I didn't say that.

    I would provide more details on these ideas, but I do not think I will bother..
    Fair enough.

    This of course is contrary to mainstream theory. - Regarding that other theory - Have you ever heard of a "Rube Goldberg machine"? It is something that is functional; it performs the intended task, but does so in a complex and outlandish manner. Unfortunately, modern science is devoted to refining the "Rube Goldberg machine" rather than seeking better alternatives.
    There are two points here:

    Is modern physics a Rube Goldberg machine? Obviously not. It is not full of unnecessary components (see Occam's Razor); it is just complex.

    Are scientists seeking alternatives? Of course, that is what scientists do all the time: try and destroy existing theories and establish a new one. They may do this with the enthusiasm/arrogance of youth, or to pursue fame and a Nobel Prize, or just because they don't like the current model. That is how science advances. Many of these attempts to overthrow existing theory end up strengthening it by suggesting new tests (see EPR, for example).
    exchemist likes this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 73
    Last Post: May 4th, 2013, 06:42 PM
  2. Which thaws the slowest and fastest?
    By thurrmac in forum Chemistry
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: January 31st, 2013, 08:57 AM
  3. Fastest technological progress possible
    By freemarketfascist in forum Politics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: June 28th, 2012, 02:39 PM
  4. fastest speed of spaceship?
    By noob in forum Physics
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: September 27th, 2008, 01:34 PM
  5. fastest 1/4 mile
    By william in forum Physics
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: September 29th, 2006, 08:00 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •