Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Following a link from another thread I found:

http://www.askamathematician.com/2011/07/q-does-light-experience-time/comment-page-1/#comment-304613

In answer to the question: "Does light experience time?" the physicist's answer was "Nope!". He/she went on to say:

"There are some things that behave differently when investigated from an “approaching light speed” way of thinking and the “being at light speed” way of thinking. In this case there’s no difference. When something travels at the speed of light it really doesn’t experience any time.

On the flip side of that coin, it also doesn’t experience any distance. The time and location of its emission and the time and location of its absorption are the same from a photon’s perspective."

Nowhere in the rest of the answer, nor in some 30+ comments does anyone mention that this is not universally accepted. No one, that is, until some Bill S. character tentatively chucked a spanner in the works.

I'll not reproduce any more here, but would appreciate comments.


There never was nothing.
.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Well, stop and think about it. Speed is distance / time. That is the distance traveled divided by the time required to travel that far. According to the Special Theory of Relativity when speed reaches C, then time reaches 0. So distance is speed * time. That is distance is some finite number multiplied by 0. Therefore the photon sees a distance of zero.

Now let's look at it from another point of view. Assume you are the photon. Then from your reference frame the universe is traveling at C. And the universe then has a length (in the direction of your motion) of 0. So the photon once again sees a distance of 0.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
See Bill S you have made it to advanced understanding of physics and you didn't even need all the complicated mathematics smile

What do you want me to say other than correct but the problem is deeper.

It's one of the things that happens when you create a theory you make assumptions or axioms. It is one of the axioms of special relativity that the photon has no rest frame and hence the theory leads directly back to that axiom.

The question you need to think about is why was the axiom put in place.

There is a deeper issue here that a photon has no mass but momentum. Momentum by definition requires time but a photon doesn't have time so you can't allow a photon to have a reference frame or else the conservation laws all crash and burn around your ears.

So Science & Einstein didn't put the axiom in place because it makes all the graph lines converge nicely it puts in place because otherwise you have a big mess with conservation of energy in the photon reference frame.

That is the real reason for the axiom, so until you can sort out what to do with the momentum in the photon reference frame all you have is a pile of broken physics in the photon reference frame and no-one has any idea how to put humpty-dumpty together again.

I guess if there is a photon reference frame it might as well be another universe because none of our laws work there.

Last edited by Orac; 01/17/14 01:09 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Orac
Momentum by definition requires time but a photon doesn't have time....


Could you say a bit more about that, please? You seem to be saying that there is a problem with the definition of a photon's momentum because it does not experience time.


There never was nothing.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
WOW I didn't think I would have to explain that to you Bill S.

Look at the definition of momentum

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum

Tell me what the momentum of something is without time smile

Here try it .... I have a 5Kg mass, I can't tell you the velocity because time doesn't exist what is the momentum of the 5Kg mass please?

See the problem even for basic classic momentum you need velocity which needs time. Spin momentum is no different how do you measure a different rate of spin if time doesn't exist.

The problem is time is going towards zero as speed increases, so suppose that isn't right time doesn't change .. I leave you to ponder what goes wrong under that idea smile

Einsteins axiom about the photon reference frame exists because Einstein gives a photon momentum but it has no mass. It solves that problem of how a photon can have momentum but no mass he uses an axiom nothing with mass can travel at the speed of light.

You want to give the photon a reference frame I have no issue with the idea but now you need to go back and fix up the physics so start with the photon.

Here let me show you the simple 4 steps you solve it smile

1) I have a photon in my reference frame which appears to have no mass but momentum under my definitions. Define those yourself if you want however you like you are defining the photons energy in my reference frame.

2) Decide in the photon reference frame what is the mass and momentum of the photon? Define those yourself however you like it also defines the photons energy in the photon reference frame.

3) Now develop the mathematics that seamlessly transitions between each of those cases so energy conservation works.

4) Now go out and measure real world photons and check they are obeying your formula.


If you can do steps 1 to 4 you now have a theory that works and can replace Einstein.

Last edited by Orac; 01/18/14 04:20 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Thanks for that explanation Orac.

I didn't make it clear what I was asking.

You said that " a photon doesn't have time", and I was asking if I should equate that with "a photon does not experience time".


There never was nothing.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
You said that " a photon doesn't have time", and I was asking if I should equate that with "a photon does not experience time".


Ok "experience time" then are you talking about in a human mind sense?

Inanimate objects usually experience time via the laws of physics they have no other way as far as anyone knows except if there is a god smile


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Quote:
When something travels at the speed of light it really doesn’t experience any time.


It seems that if you are a qualified physicist you can say this. You can say the opposite, and you can also say that neither is true.

Ah; the freedom conferred by a PhD!

Of course, I will not suggest any sort of thought experiment that might throw any light on this, because someone (possibly Pete?) would justifiably point out that nothing with mass can be accelerated to “c”, so any thought experiment involving such heresy would be based on something that broke one of the cardinal laws of physics, and was therefore invalid.

Isn’t it a shame that Einstein is not still with us. He accelerated himself to “c”, in a thought experiment, and survived. (Did he have a PhD at the time?) It might be argued that he was justified, because that cosmic speed limit had not been established then. In fact this thought experiment was largely responsible for the establishment of that law.

I suppose that only a philistine would mention that this means that one of the bastions of modern physics is based on an invalid thought experiment. What a good thing there are no philistines in this thread.


There never was nothing.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Actually Einstein said this is what I think now prove me wrong .. put up or shut up.

No scientist and no layman has been able to do so .... you can moan and complain all you like but all it requires is but a simple fix, and I even gave your the simple 1..4 steps to do so smile

I don't even really like the axiom myself but here I am having to defend it because the only other science selection criteria would be popularity and that would work ever so well with all the religious lunatics and crazies.

So I accept the science normal when dealing with such things I can't disprove it or replace Einstein's theory so it stands and I just explain the science reasoning gritting my teeth if necessary.

I just find you complaining about the acceptance on a science forum about adherence to science standards beyond very silly. If you want to complain with these sorts of arguments perhaps find a more appropriate forum like the woman's weekly magazine, or weekend warrior for disgruntled old blokes daily or such forums.

I was going to suggest the topic should be moved to not quite science but I think it actually requires posting in a different area NRS or "not remotely science".

Last edited by Orac; 01/19/14 03:39 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
It’s interesting that an expression of frustration should be construed as moaning.

Why frustration? Because it is so easy to find experts expressing opposing views, sometimes quite aggressively, and it can be very confusing for a non-expert trying to form any sort of coherent picture.

Take my opening sentence for example. Is that wrong?

Can you not also find experts who say categorically that gravity is not a force; and those who say it definitely is a force?

Only today I found a reference to QM holding that a particle can be in more than one place at a time. You don’t have to look far to see that shot down.

We have already talked about claims that a particle can be here now, and on the other side of the Universe an instant later.

Then there is the question as to whether a particle has to move relative to the Higgs field in order to gain mass.

No one with any sense would expect experts to agree on everything, but when so many insist they are right, I think the diligent hitch-hiker should be allowed just a little frustration occasionally.


There never was nothing.
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 36
P
pmb Offline
Member
Offline
Member
P
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 36
Originally Posted By: Bill S.

In answer to the question: "Does light experience time?" the physicist's answer was "Nope!".

That really depends on which physicist you ask. One who really knows what he’s talking about won’t respond like that. To answer that one has to, at least in principle, be able to have an experimental setup to test such a statement. Since nothing can travel at the speed of light, including clocks, there is no way to experimentally verify such an assertion. In any case what could it possibly mean for light to “experience” time? All this really refers to is an extrapolation regarding things approaching the speed of light. However since nothing can actually attain the speed of light this question can’t be answered, never mind actually accomplishing such a feat.

And think about what it means to “experience” something. The very term means the process of doing and seeing things and of having things happen to you. Since this cannot be applied to time the question truly is meaningless.

However in a very real sense light, which is an electromagnet (EM) wave, exists in time since an EM wave oscillates in time at a particular frequency (or finite to infinite Fourier sum of frequencies). So in that sense light exists in time.

The same is true for distance and mass.

Originally Posted By: Orac

It's one of the things that happens when you create a theory you make assumptions or axioms. It is one of the axioms of special relativity that the photon has no rest frame and hence the theory leads directly back to that axiom.

The question you need to think about is why was the axiom put in place.

There is no such axiom. It’s a simple theorem. The real axiom is that the speed of light has the same value if all frames of reference. Einstein postulated that law so that the laws of electrodynamics would make sense. It’s trivial to show that if the speed of light is always c then there’s no frame in which it’s zero.


Originally Posted By: Bill

According to the Special Theory of Relativity when speed reaches C, then time reaches 0. So distance is speed * time.

That’s not quite right. You’re referring to proper time. That’s the time as recorded on a clock moving in the reference from one is speaking of. No such frame can move at the speed of light if there is a clock in it. If you take the clock out of it then you can’t measure time coming to a stop. That’s why that argument always falls apart upon inspection.


Originally Posted By: Orac

There is a deeper issue here that a photon has no mass but momentum. Momentum by definition requires time but a photon doesn't have time so you can't allow a photon to have a reference frame or else the conservation laws all crash and burn around your ears.

That’s quite wrong. A photon has no proper mass. However it does have inertial mass, i.e. the mass that gives a body momentum.

When it comes to defining the momentum of light it’s defined as one defines the momentum for anything else. Consider the momentum of a photon. Let v = the speed of light, m the inertial mass of light (not the proper mass) and p is the momentum of light. Then p = mv = mc. We know that the energy of light E is related to its momentum p by E = pc or p = E/c. Substitute this in this the expression for momentum to obtain

E/c = mc

Multiply through by c to obtain

E = mc^2

This is the mass-energy relationship that we’re all familiar with.

Quote:

Nowhere in the rest of the answer, nor in some 30+ comments does anyone mention that this is not universally accepted. No one, that is, until some Bill S. character tentatively chucked a spanner in the works.

You can sign me up for saying that it’s a load of nonsense. It’s an invalid extrapolation, one that real physicists stay away from. Notice that the page doesn’t tell you exactly who made such a claim.

I haven’t read this whole document yet

http://milesmathis.com/photime.pdf

but I do agree with one thing that it says – Since the photon travels it must experience time.

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
First I found your response interesting at one point slightly weird. Here let me show you the problems I had.

I said => There is a deeper issue here that a photon has no mass but momentum.

You said => That’s quite wrong. A photon has no proper mass. However it does have inertial mass, i.e. the mass that gives a body momentum.

Is there something wrong with my translation of English I left out your word "proper" but don't those two statements say exactly the same thing or am I missing something?

Then I really laughed when you said this

Let v = the speed of light

How do you let v = speed of light, velocity requires distance/time, rotation/time or something/time and therefore you have time and therefore a photon has a reference frame.

I am sorry but GR/SR is not my strong area but I disagree with you, the axiom that frame is not allowed to exist is required. I note it is listed as such on many of the physics forums and discussions

FAQ for http://www.physicsforums.com states it's an axiom and they even agree with my logic.
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=511170

Physics Stack Exchange and quite a few other forum FAQ also declare it as either a special case or axiom.

The problem I believe comes about Frame of reference only requires the existence of time however GR/SR moves that to an "observational reference frame" so it comes down to that definition and I thought that involved excluding the speed of light itself as a frame of reference but I may be wrong here.

I am not trying to be anal but I could not see how your logic stops a photon having a reference frame and that is why I always believed and still do that it requires the axiom. It's not that important and certainly not worth a huge argument over and correct me if I am wrong.


Beyond the GR/SR stuff however all I can say is I totally disagree with you on almost every science level because your view is a very GR/SR heavy view which I have always had issues with.

"Time" and "proper time" become abstract parameters which becomes an interval between Einstein's events which I find an absurd notion.

QM takes time into a much more formal setting than that and you can't play around with time in this dare I say ridiculously trivial way.

Eli Megidish & Hagai Eisenberg work in entangling two photons that never exist at the same time takes this problem to a whole new level which you just sort of ignore.

In Eli Megidish & Hagai Eisenberg's work you can see the real problem time is much deeper than just an interval between two events because somehow QM is tracking and synchronizing things beyond time. Wheelers delayed choice eraser and many other QM examples show this problem over and over again.

What you do with your sort of response to me is ignore the real science work done on time and goes for some GR/SR view as the answer to the whole problem.

Last edited by Orac; 01/19/14 06:58 PM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Originally Posted By: Orac
Beyond the GR/SR stuff however all I can say is I totally disagree with you on almost every science level because your view is a very GR/SR heavy view which I have always had issues with.

Now I think that that kind of epitomizes your problem in regard to physics. You have decided that QM is the only thing that is real, and ignore the fact that GR/SR has had a tremendous success in describing the universe. Both QM and GR/SR are correct, as far as we have been able to measure at this time. So running down GR/SR the way you do is not a very good scientific attitude. You really need to accept the fact that they are both right, but are different ways of viewing the universe. What is much more important than trying to show one of them is wrong to attempt to reconcile them.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Confession time :{

I have to admit to some self-interested motivation in my earlier post.

Orac, I really appreciate your patient efforts to explain things to me. However, I feel sometimes that my lack of background knowledge prevents me from getting the most from your efforts, and may even cause my responses to add to the problems.

Part of the objective of my post was to try to lure Pete into the thread, as I felt I could learn more from being privy to discussions between you and Pete than I would from wrestling with your explanations alone.

I apologise if anyone’s professional pride was dented. Please consider that as collateral damage in pursuit of a worthy cause.


There never was nothing.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570

Quote:
Since the photon travels it must experience time


Isn't it difficult to discuss this without using the word "experience"?

Would it not be consistent with relativity to say that the experience of time occurs only in the F of R of an observer, and that we can say nothing about what the photon might "experience", because relativity does not allow it an inertial frame?


There never was nothing.
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 36
P
pmb Offline
Member
Offline
Member
P
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 36
Originally Posted By: Orac

First I found your response interesting at one point slightly weird. Here let me show you the problems I had.

I said => There is a deeper issue here that a photon has no mass but momentum.

You said => That’s quite wrong. A photon has no proper mass. However it does have inertial mass, i.e. the mass that gives a body momentum.

Is there something wrong with my translation of English I left out your word "proper" but don't those two statements say exactly the same thing or am I missing something?

The terms proper mass and inertial mass mean very different things. Consider the momentum p of a point particle. It can be expressed as

p = m mv = m_0v/sqrt(1 – v^2/c^2)

where

m = m_0/sqrt(1 – v^2/c^2)

is called the inertial mass of the particle and m_0 is called the proper mass of the particle

Originally Posted By: Orac

Then I really laughed when you said this

Let v = the speed of light

How do you let v = speed of light, velocity requires distance/time, rotation/time or something/time and therefore you have time and therefore a photon has a reference frame.

You shouldn’t laugh at these things until you know where the resolution lies. Otherwise you might end up laughing at your own mistake as in this case. When I said v = the speed of light I meant exactly that. I did not say velocity I said speed. How you could make such an obvious error is very confusing.

Originally Posted By: Orac

I am sorry but GR/SR is not my strong area but I disagree with you, the axiom that frame is not allowed to exist is required.

You’re wrong for the reasons I explained above. An axiom is something that cannot be derived from simpler principles. That a rest frame of light does not exist can be very easily derived, in fact it is quite directly implied by, the invariance of the speed of light. There is no need to create another postulate whose premise is implied by the second postulate of special relativity.

Originally Posted By: Orac

I note it is listed as such on many of the physics forums and discussions

An there’s a huge number of errors made on forums every single day and some of them are never caught and propagate as if they were truths. However if you were to contact any university professor that is an expert in special relativity they’d tell you the same thing I just did. In fact I myself am an expert in special relativity.

Originally Posted By: Orac

I am not trying to be anal but I could not see how your logic stops a photon having a reference frame and that is why I always believed and still do that it requires the axiom. It's not that important and certainly not worth a huge argument over and correct me if I am wrong.

Are you seriously telling me that you honestly can’t understand how the axiom The speed of light has the same speed in all inertial frames of reference implies that the speed of light can’t be zero????

Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 36
P
pmb Offline
Member
Offline
Member
P
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 36
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Part of the objective of my post was to try to lure Pete into the thread, as I felt I could learn more from being privy to discussions between you and Pete than I would from wrestling with your explanations alone.

I apologise if anyone’s professional pride was dented. Please consider that as collateral damage in pursuit of a worthy cause.


Bill - I would appreciate it if you would simply contact me and ask me directly anything you want me to explain to you. Having me get into a debate where I have to explain why the basic principles of relativity are not wrong is something I don't want to waste my time on.

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: pmb

Are you seriously telling me that you honestly can’t understand how the axiom The speed of light has the same speed in all inertial frames of reference implies that the speed of light can’t be zero????


Simple answer as to how wrong that is

I am doing the speed of light now how do I measure the speed of light if that is the case?

Your reference above is built around the term "inertial frames of reference" and there is nothing to stop that being the speed of light or faster than the speed of light at this point. You are also using the definition of speed which involves distance and time. So there are many ways that the speed of light can be altered according to the relationships many of which you would probably call not real but you have no way at this point to prove that. You can't rely on something you later prove to come back here as an assumption because it's a circular argument.

This is my problem with your answer you are assuming a pile of things to make that leap, it is a pure classical view, and if QM teaches us anything it is the danger of making assumptions.

I understand your position and what you are doing PMB I just don't like making classic physics assumptions it's dangerous, my argument isn't your answer it is how you are getting there !!!

The other possible solution is put the words "Under classic physics" in front of your statement and I agree totally with you. What to me you have done is made the "classic physics view" the only and "correct" view on the issue which is I guess what I object too.

Last edited by Orac; 01/20/14 02:54 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 36
P
pmb Offline
Member
Offline
Member
P
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 36
Originally Posted By: Orac

Your reference above is built around the term "inertial frames of reference" and there is nothing to stop that being the speed of light or faster than the speed of light at this point.

That is incorrect. I already explained that the second postulate of SR states that the speed of light is invariant. The nonexistence of a zero rest frame follows from that.

Originally Posted By: Orac

You are also using the definition of speed which involves distance and time.

O for crying out loud! Will you knock if off please? That’s total nonsense for Christ’s sake. I expect a great deal more from you than silly word games like this. No respectable physicist on this planet would waste his time with this crap. No scientist in this planet has ever entertained the notion of creating theories based merely on coming up with new meanings of words. It’s a useless exercise and does nothing so resolve this problem in SR. Please don’t waste my tome with this crap again. I’m willing to give this place a try but never by entertaining this kind of nonsense.

Originally Posted By: Orac

So there are many ways that the speed of light can be altered …

That’s a load of crap. It’s merely semantics and no physicist in the world would ever take such nonsense seriously. I certainly won’t and that’s why I will never entertain such silliness again. Stop it!

Originally Posted By: Orac

This is my problem with your answer you are assuming a pile of things to make that leap, it is a pure classical view, and if QM teaches us anything it is the danger of making assumptions.

You’re way off base here. And I certainly don’t appreciate you making assertions about “assuming a pile of things to make that leap”. I don’t make accusations about you like this so please have the decency not to make such accusations about me. If you have something to claim then do so. Don’t merely make an unfounded claim about it.


Originally Posted By: Orac

I understand your position and what you are doing PMB I just don't like making classic physics assumptions it's dangerous, my argument isn't your answer it is how you are getting there !!!

And my argument with you is that you keep making unfounded accusations. It’s beneath me to entertain such nonsense and I won’t do it again. If I see you do it again I promise you right here and now that I will never respond to anything you ever post again.

Also my problem with you is that you don’t seem to know what you’re talking about. You’re really wasting my time with all this talk about semantics and so called assumptions and leaps. I don’t have time for such nonsense. If you’re going to make an argument please do so in a realistic way and not by playing around with definitions. That’s a waste of everyone’s time. And don’t go around claiming that SR/GR and/or quantum mechanics is wrong. If I want to entertain such claims I’ll seek out crackpots. When you make such claims you’re being a crackpot. Especially since it’s all claims and you’ve done nothing to back them up.

I’m very disappointed in this forum. I was hoping to find something more than people claiming standard physics is wrong and silly word games.

Please don’t waste my time with this childish nonsense people!

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
ROFL and all I did was ask you to clarify assumptions you must get on real well with string theorists laugh

I was deliberately not trying to play word games and picked my words carefully and I was even clear I viewed the results may not even be real or that I remotely believed them.

Unlike your claim in your response I fully believe GR/SR and QM are correct as anyone one the forum would know.

The point to Bill S question was he doesn't think science is right and if that's the case pull out all the assumptions and lets play ball and he is on a very very slippery slope. I am going to pull his whole universe apart drape it around his neck as trophy and he won't be able to be sure he or anything even exists.

You are right PMB it is a very silly argument and no physicist would really propose any of this but the OP is a layman and sometimes it's fun to play along and lead them along until they drop down the hole and see where alice goes smile

The point to the discussion is they learn why such things are silly as opposed to you claiming some sort of authority and telling them it's silly they work it out for themselves. At the moment all you have done is claimed some sort of authority position as far as Bill S will be concerned. You are correct and realize that at some point you have to make sanity decisions which is often not obvious to a layman. So what I was trying to do was not claim authority but that antagonized you smile

Yes it is childish nonsense but layman are like children and rather than try and force the science on them get them to play around and they work it out in there own way that they have to make some decisions for sanity. Trust me at times they frustrate me as well in that they can't see the inevitable problems laugh

So it is probably best you ignore these sorts of discussions if it annoys you PMB but I find it the most effective way to turn a layman problem with science back on themselves.

Unfortunately the lack of moderation on this forum means these sorts of discussions are inevitable so you can either ignore them or play with them or find a new forum.

Your response to me is why I post on here as an avatar some in the profession will not bother to try and understand. To me it's a bit of harmless light relief playing in the lunatic sandpit.

Last edited by Orac; 01/20/14 05:35 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5