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.
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 36
P
pmb Offline
Member
Offline
Member
P
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 36
Originally Posted By: Orac

ROFL..

Laughing? Are you frigging kidding me? What are you, 12 years old?

If you can’t be respectful to people and you need to laugh at those are helping you then you will never get any help from me again – ever. Life is to short for your childish nonsense and behaviour. I also have to patiece for people who think that they can defeat th elaws of physics by playing with definitions.

You had a expert in relatvity here and Orac's childish laughing made him realise this is a bad place to try to help people. Good by little boy.

Last edited by pmb; 01/20/14 05:57 AM.
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 84
P
Member
Offline
Member
P
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 84

"...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."


Bill S,

How is that working for you?

I'm sure you're learning something!

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: pmb
You had a expert in relatvity here and Orac's childish laughing made him realise this is a bad place to try to help people. Good by little boy.


Sorry what I am laughing at is the way you are dealing with the issue, hey I know you are right and I know you are an expert but you aren't explaining why you are right you just saying I am an expert believe me which is Bill S complaint in the first place.

Is it only me that see's that as funny?

What you haven't done is explain the sanity you had to put under your answer because to you it is natural you learned all that when becoming an expert but it's not obvious to the layman and the problem is shooting over his head.

Bill S happily believes a tachyon might exist and to it time would go backward as just one example. To you or I time going backward and retro causality are a drop dead no go but not to Bill S he has no basis to know why that is.

I am not laughing at you personally PMB, I am laughing because the basis you and Bill S are working in are totally different.

My comment about string theorists I am sorry is very true they extend the laws of physics into domains and universe that are very different to ours and so under the way you are answering they must be treated the same way which I also find amusing.

I am very respectful of your knowledge I am however very critical of your teaching ability to date ... explain to him why you need sanity under time, distance and forces and the answer becomes obvious rather than berating me.

The only difference between Bill S and a string theorist in reality is the string theorist realizes the universe he is describing is not ours and Bill S can't see that, he is not trying to directly violate the laws of physics he violates the sanity under it.

If you don't want to discuss the sanity we are forced to put in place because it is "beneath you" or "too silly" don't beat me up about it that's the reality layman see. Yes this would be filtered off a real good science forum but it isn't here so either deal with it or not and that is outside my control much as I would prefer we could get rid of this sort of rubbish. At the moment I am feeling a bit of a case of the messenger getting shot, I am clarifying the argument and getting abused for doing so.

Last edited by Orac; 01/20/14 07:20 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 962
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 962
Orac,
You are descending into the depths of murky firmament. Please try to elevate your discussions to the professional level, and quit trying to deliberately antagonize people. It is childish to play games with people like you seem to enjoy. It is even more childish to brag about it. This forum is here to consider serious questions by people who are sincere in their curiosity, not for you to lord it over them and make fun of them. It is a bad reflection on the forum, and I have had complaints from persons who object to your brinksmanship and teasing. Cut the crap, or I will delete your posts. I may not be a physicist, but I recognize a bully when I see one. Please mend your ways. I'd hate to lose you as you have some good insights and have made good posts in the past. But this form of behavior will not be tolerated.

Amaranth


If you don't care for reality, just wait a while; another will be along shortly. --A Rose

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
I was definitely not trying to even incite or tease PMB I actually rather like the guy but I was having a bit of a chuckle at the way he was handling the discussion which he obviously took the wrong way and caught me by surprise. Clearly he didn't see the situation as I did and took offense and if PMB was offended I sincerely apologize it was not intended, I have a lot of respect for him.

One of the problems I have and I am often told is my English is brutal it does not necessarily come out the way it is intended.

I will leave Bill S and PMB to it but I am perplexed how I became the bad guy in all that, and it was so bad it was clearly obviously to you AR2. I have re-read the exchanges a number of times and I was even trying to pacify PMB at the end but it wasn't working. Hey I am used to being the SAGG bad boy so I guess I will have to grin and bear it even though I am completely puzzled.

Personally I doubt the forum could get more bad reputation, you know my view that there should be a hell of a lot more moderation and that is not intended to be antagonistic to you either (I am worried how that translates, I have had 4 goes at it)... I am on record for that many times as you know so it is not a response to your rebuke to me. Does that make sense and come out without antagonism?????.

If you want to enforce more moderation and that includes my comments I am all for it.

As for playing childish games what can I say the forum allows childish posts not moderated out that should be and I am sure the complaints you had were from people playing every bit as childish a game as I was. I know for example Newton and Paul will has issues with me because 99% of their posts are childish junk that shouldn't be on the forum and I am happy to play their silly games.

I post here under an Avatar for a reason because I will happily discuss anything and everything that is allowed on the forum without worrying about the politics and norms involved in such discussions. In taking the Avatar I claim no authority or expertise of anything and in fact when asked I usually go for janitor as my profession because I want people to take my arguments at face value. I am completely comfortable I can prove whatever I want to off first principles.

You said the forum guideline is

=>This forum is here to consider serious questions by people who are sincere in their curiosity

The ones who no doubt have issues with me will be Newton, Paul because I don't consider they meet the guidelines on 99% of there posts because they aren't serious questions. I could choose to ignore them but I tried that for a while and it didn't slow down the only thing that seems to keep the stupidity to a reasonable level is out and out confrontation. Confrontation and bullying is a slippery slope and I may from time to time overstep the mark and you may indeed need to pull me up on it from time to time, I have no issue when you feel that.

I am sure a number of people on the forum would prefer I not act the way I do but it is in response to their actions. The question they then need to address is I am willing to change and act better on the forum are they.

Last edited by Orac; 01/20/14 09:45 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
...I know you are an expert but you aren't explaining why you are right you just saying I am an expert believe me which is Bill S complaint in the first place.


What?? Are you serious?? What a load of crap. I already explained exactly why I'm right, i.e. the non-existence of a photon rest frame is implied by the fact that the speed of light is the same in all inertial frames of reference. You don't think I've proved it because you're understanding of physics is just too poor to understand even that simple argument. That you can't understand a simple explanation is your problem, not mine. For cripes sake, I even had to explain to you the when I wrote "Let v = speed of light" that this didn't mean that the “v” was the velocity. Until your skill level increases to the point where you can understand even the most basic logical reasoning I will never respond to such nonsense posted by you ever again. You simply don’t have what it takes to understand it. When you grasp the fact that semantics and word games don’t count as physics arguments I’ll never respond to anything you ever post again because you keep proving to me that you’re unable to grasp it.

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
PMB you need to decide if you want to discuss it or not ... make a choice?

I said to AR2 I would leave the issue alone because I was being a bully and taunting you which was obvious to even her apparently, and that wasn't my intention I am sorry it came out like that, now look carefully at your response.

The issue is dead as far as I am concerned each to his own, you are an expert and I am a janitor and I claim no right or authority lets both be happy in that and move along I am not interested in an ego bashing contest. I was hoping to get a different result and discussion about some background going but it isn't going to happen and if Bill S is still interested I can peel the discussion a different way without offending you.

It is only a semi science discussion so you don't have to worry but it will teach Bill S a very important thing about the consequences of background choices you make and it will depend if Bill S is still interested, he may accept your answer and think I am just plain stupid as you maintain.

I am so stupid I am not even going to give him the answer he will have to choose his own answer and live with the consequences.

Last edited by Orac; 01/20/14 01:32 PM.

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
If anyone here recalls how Einstein came to create the special theory of relativity then you'll recall that he once contemplated what it would be like to ride along next to a beam of light, i.e. to be at rest in a frame where there was an electromagnetic wave.

Einstein realized that in that frame there'd be a spatially oscillating magnetic field at right angle to a spatially oscillating magnetic field. He realized that in that frame the fields would violate the laws of electromagnetism. As Einstein recalled
Quote:

...a paradox upon which I had already hit at the age of sixteen: If I pursue a beam of light with the velocity c (velocity of light in a vacuum), I should observe such a beam of light as an electromagnetic field at rest though spatially oscillating. There seems to be no such thing, however, neither on the basis of experience nor according to Maxwell's equations. From the very beginning it appeared to me intuitively clear that, judged from the standpoint of such an observer, everything would have to happen according to the same laws as for an observer who, relative to the earth, was at rest. For how should the first observer know or be able to determine, that he is in a state of fast uniform motion? One sees in this paradox the germ of the special relativity theory is already contained.


Einstein realized that if he were to chase and catch up with the wave and be moving with it He would see a frozen light wave that violates Maxwell’s equations. Since the first postulate requires the laws of physics be the same in all frames of reference then there can be no frame in which light is at rest. This is therefore another proof that light has no rest frame. It follows directly that a photon has no rest frame since photons are merely particles of light. Therefore any claim that there is a need of yet another postulate requiring that there be no rest frame of light is preposterous. Only someone who doesn’t know relativity could come to such a bogus conclusion.

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Woot there you go and see that doesn't involve what the speed of light ACTUALLY IS it is what happens at the speed of light that is important in my opinion and I am going to be careful here that it is my view, you can peel away all the mathematics and definitions.

That's all I was trying to drag out of you PMB to show Bill S that there is things far far more important than mathematics or definitions really strange things happen if it was real, he won't understand of that implication is so spell it out for him.

The point I was trying to make to him is decisions have consequences that are real and problematic and you can't just use mathematics or definitions to object or try and talk your way around them.

I don't know what the whole fight was about to be honest as I said you were right I just objected to how you explained it to a layman and with that answer in place I now totally agree with you. In your mind and science world the initial answer and that answer are the same and I fully accept that which is why I was trying to not offend you, but layman don't live in your world.

Last edited by Orac; 01/20/14 06:26 PM.

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
Bill S happily believes a tachyon might exist and to it time would go backward as just one example. To you or I time going backward and retro causality are a drop dead no go but not to Bill S he has no basis to know why that is.


You disappoint me Orac. I am very doubtful about the existence of tachyons, and I certainly do not believe they travel backwards in time. Time was you would have read my posts carefully enough to have realised that. The same goes for retro causality. If I have ever said anything that might have given the impression I believed in that (and I would interested if someone could find such a post), it would have been a case of “devil’s advocate”.

Originally Posted By: Orac
If you don't want to discuss the sanity we are forced to put in place because it is "beneath you" or "too silly" don't beat me up about it that's the reality layman see.


Could it be that the reality the layman sees is the readiness of “experts” to berate one another.

Quote:
The only difference between Bill S and a string theorist in reality is the string theorist realizes the universe he is describing is not ours and Bill S can't see that, he is not trying to directly violate the laws of physics he violates the sanity under it.


Is it worth looking again at the OP and telling me where I violate the laws of physics, or the underlying sanity?


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

Originally Posted By: Pokey
How is that working for you?

I'm sure you're learning something!


I like to think of everything as a potential learning situation. I’ll leave it to you to work out what I learned from:

“To me it's a bit of harmless light relief playing in the lunatic sandpit.”

Quite illuminating, wouldn’t you say?


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 disappoint me Orac. I am very doubtful about the existence of tachyons, and I certainly do not believe they travel backwards in time. Time was you would have read my posts carefully enough to have realised that. The same goes for retro causality. If I have ever said anything that might have given the impression I believed in that (and I would interested if someone could find such a post), it would have been a case of “devil’s advocate”.


You did it a couple of times sorry in previous discussions and sorry I didn't pick it as devil's advocate.


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Is it worth looking again at the OP and telling me where I violate the laws of physics, or the underlying sanity


Sorry I am reading that again and it is probably coming across offensive and it wasn't intended you won't realize why you violate the sanity because we have just got there. I did however agree and say to PMB you were not violating the laws it was just the underneath sanity that was an issue.

As per PMB's post from Einstein everything at the speed of light is not like we see the world, EM waves can't oscillate because they would be in a standing wave and there are a number of other problems I am sure PMB will also give you as he tries to explain the consequences.

The sanity problem becomes if you really were traveling at the speed of light the universe looks a hell of a lot different to what our universe looks so much so it probably causes issues with the definition of "experience".

See in the above example from Einstein he shows great insight you can't just follow mathematics or your own logic of how you experience things now and assume you can infer things at every speed, speed causes observational issues not just with order of events but with what the universe looks like.

So to answer your question you need to fill in sanity underneath it because "experience time" requires a basis.

So if I was going to be non dogmatic a photon experiences something but it is so far from what we see the universe it would make no sense and be meaningless and it's pointless to speculate.

Does that explain by what I mean about the underlying sanity?

My more brutal answer to you is basically this is not a science question because you would have to define "experience time" and the answer revolves around that. Thus any answer is correct and believe what you want because there is no way to put an agreed or sane universe we could all agree on under the answer.

I am comfortable with a photon experiences no time, it experiences all time, it experiences time as pink frilly rabbits, it thinks it's in Rio on a sunny day or any and all of these answers at the same time.

The question has an underlying sanity issue which doesn't involve science smile

I managed to offend both of you and get told off by AR2 thanks for the question smile

Last edited by Orac; 01/21/14 01:55 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
Lest anyone should think I am arguing against Miles Mathis, let me be clear that I have no vested interest in whether or not photons travel through time in what might be considered as their frame of reference, if they had one. All I am really interested in is why people believe what they do. I am perfectly content to say “I don’t know”, but doesn’t stop from speculating, then I want to know how reasonable my speculations are.

Just a couple of thoughts arising from the Mathis article.

Quote:
The question is about the photon's own clock.


The photon has no F of R in which to have a clock. Trying to reason from what a non-existent clock, in a non-existent F of R might show is, surely, pure speculation, whichever side of the argument it is applied to.

Quote:
Since you see light moving relative to you, light must see you moving relative to it.


Does this mean that the “rules” of relative motion apply to light, but the equations do not?


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.
Does this mean that the “rules” of relative motion apply to light, but the equations do not?


I am going to leave that one to PMB as an expert to have a final say on what GR/SR says.

From my point it all gets a bit tricky because of that same issue of sanity what do the equations really mean. Inferring physics from maths is dangerous as is inferring maths from physics dangerous there is no right answer and as we saw thru Einstein's insight neither may even be close to what really exists.

For me if you go back to first principles I would say it is unsafe to assume the equations hold.

There is a classic infamous example of this which is quite topical at the moment. Here is the mathematics in question

1+2+3+4+5+ .... infinity = -1/12

The answer seems so stupidly wrong but it's not smile

Here is the lecture 1 by Carl Bender there is a series of 12 in it you can follow the rest



It was topical because back in 2007 Lubos used it as an example with string theory and someone tried to attack him on it and he has a detailed background nicely done on it on his blog.

http://motls.blogspot.com.au/2014/01/sum-of-integers-and-oversold-common.html

So whats going on well if you try to make physics and mathematics equal each other be prepared for some very ugly results for maths.

So the point to that was I can't rely on the mathematics to mean anything, all my actual physics equations are invalid so it's best I not try and tell you anything !!!!

So the message in that example is the same as the Einstein example I need you to fill in some more detail we all agree on sanity rules before I can say anything meaningful smile

Last edited by Orac; 01/21/14 04:32 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 962
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 962
Orac,
Could you refrain from calling people's sanity into question? It is demeaning and insulting, and not called for. It is degrading to the forum, and not very nice. Grow up from name calling and accusations to people's mental states. I doubt you know what true insanity really is, or you wouldn't bandy it about so broadly. I am reasonably sure that none of our posters is currently confined in a mental institution, and your use of questions of insanity is not at all appropriate.


If you don't care for reality, just wait a while; another will be along shortly. --A Rose

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Umm I am not sure how to answer that .... all I can suggest is you re-read it all again.

At the moment there is only one person's sanity I am questioning ... and that is a joke.

Let me put it clearly there are many things that have sanity and many of them are not humans. If you look carefully at the context the sanity I am talking about has nothing to do with any human smile

I think you totally got the wrong end of the stick.

I don't know what other word to use but I am open to suggestions because clearly sanity has one very distinct meaning to you which is not as it is in the dictionary and I don't wish to offend you either.

Here are the two possible definitions of sanity

(http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sanity)
1. The quality or condition of being sane; soundness of mind.
2. Soundness of judgment or reason.

Try substituting number 2 into where I use it in posts and see if what I say makes more sense to you then, I am pretty sure I haven't used definition 1 anywhere in the entire thread except my gentle joke at you right above no offense intended.

You may begin to understand why I am stunned by your comment ... if I was sensitive I would think I was being picked on about now.

Bill S or anyone else is there an issue with my phrasing and translation or has AR2 completely misunderstood and is there possibly a better word a could use?

Last edited by Orac; 01/21/14 12:44 PM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
I asked the translation service and they have offered "sound logic" might have been a good substitution but they can understand clearly what I said with the choice of "sanity".

So I am sorry AR2 I think the issue is with you unless others have problems.


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
N
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
N
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
Dear Orac before You want to speak aout problem

please study below post

http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=50899#Post50899

Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 36
P
pmb Offline
Member
Offline
Member
P
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 36
Originally Posted By: Orac
Umm I am not sure how to answer that .... all I can suggest is you re-read it all again.

At the moment there is only one person's sanity I am questioning ... and that is a joke.

The moderator doesn't need to read it again. He/she knows exactly what they're talking about. It's inappropriate to use issues of mental health when making jokes. It's never appreciated and always very unwelcome. Don't you get it you get it yet? Nobody here appreciates at all what you think of as a "sense of humor." You laugh when it's never clear what the hell you're laughing at. Nobody wants to sit around trying to figure out if you're laughing at them or with them. If you'd simple grow up a little and stop all this nonsense then you wouldn't be pissing people off as much as you have been. You claim it's because of your English. Fine. We're telling you quite clearly that you’re not funny at all. Nobody gets your sense of humor Orac. And we don’t want to. This isn’t a comedy club. It’s a science forum.

Now please stop using mental health as a point of laughter. It’s like making fun of people with no legs. Don’t you get that? It’s not funny to make fun using an illness to do it. Now stop it!

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Sorry can't understand much of that.

It looks a bit like children's painting or abstract art to me.

ORAC => <I removed this comment because of current accusation no joking at the moment to show I am taking the accusation seriously>

Last edited by Orac; 01/22/14 03:45 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: pmb

Now please stop using mental health as a point of laughter. It’s like making fun of people with no legs. Don’t you get that? It’s not funny to make fun using an illness to do it. Now stop it!


PMB I assure you there absolutely no reference to mental health on anyone in the whole thread.

Can you cut and paste me a sentence that does that because I am taking this seriously it doesn't make sense to me and I think you all have completely the wrong end of the stick. I have asked AR2 to do the same.

I will start for example and go back to my last comment to Bill which includes the word "sanity" which seems to be the issue.


Here it is

=>So the message in that example is the same as the Einstein example I need you to fill in some more detail we all agree on sanity rules before I can say anything meaningful

So the use of sanity has nothing to do with people or anyone's mental state it is used in definition two meaning "sound reasoning" so in other words sound reasoned rules which is exactly what was intended. The sentence makes no sense if you try to add a persons sanity or definition 1 of sanity in it's place.

I am not sure of how else I could phrase it to Bill S he is asking me to speculate on something where I have no references and no laws (IE no sanity), so if he wants me to comment lets talk about what we know and define some sanity rules (good & logical) ... that is what I believe that sentence says and it is what was intended.

It has nothing to do with Bill S or anyone else sanity or else I would use the correct form which is insane. You seem to be reading the word sanity as an offensive word and I am stunned by that.

I took the accusation from AR2 seriously because I was shocked, I got a translation service to check several of my sentences so I can hardly say I am not taking the matter seriously and they translate the sentences back to me the way they were intended.

So to me you are accusing me of something that I did not do and I am sorry but now I am offended.

Besides my slight dig at AR2 could you please show me a sentence where I did anything with mental health.

90% of the use of the word sanity appears to be in discussion with Bill S and if he thought I was calling him insane I think he would let me know. I used expression like "put sanity under" "use sanity with" which is quite clear in context I am describing the surrounds (usually physics) not him personally.

I have asked Bill S if he thought I was insulting him and until he answers we are stuck.

So I guess I should ask did I call you insane or question your mental health in any sentence PMB?

I have clearly got your back up but now you are accusing me of something that is totally off the planet because nowhere in the whole thread before AR2's comment was there anything about mental health not even remotely.

So you have made an accusation provide evidence can you please show me the offensive sentence because I am sure you have miss read something?

Last edited by Orac; 01/22/14 03:47 AM.

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
Orac, you don't understand what Rose and pmb are talking about when they complain about you use of 'sanity'. You say that you are using it in a perfectly normal way. Well, since at least 2 people don't understand what you mean by it that should tell you that it is a poor use of the word. To correct the problem just find a different way to say whatever you are trying to say. Try using words that don't have any negative connotation, even if they have a meaning that you think is appropriate.

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
Yes I already did that in a post response above I cut a comment, Bill.

I will avoid the word, I did not know it was a sensitive word to some, I use it routinely at work so it is something that I have to consciously try because "sanity values", "sanity tests on a parameter or result" "put sanity under" etc are standard expressions for me. I wasn't aware it was almost a swear word to some/anyone and hence it's rattled me a bit because I have used it for years without comment before. If I am responding to a post without thinking hard it may slip which actually worries me, I am sure I will have used the expressions historically in other posts.

When AR2 first responded I thought she had just read the word sanity and in skimming through just assumed definition 1. I was still a bit shocked because it was out there to me because if you actually read any sentence which I use the word in, the use of it is clear.

As you say PMB also seems offended and so I need to clear up with PMB the issue because he totally got the wrong end of one of my comments.

So I am trying to

(A) avoid the use of that word
(B) clean up the mess to show I am taking it seriously
(C) find any offensive sentences and work out how I could translate it better.

I don't know how by action I could show I am taking the matter any more seriously even if I am slightly stunned by it all because until the reply post to AR2 the issue of mental health of anyone was not even jokingly referred to by me in this thread.

Last edited by Orac; 01/22/14 04:16 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
PMB I assure you there absolutely no reference to mental health on anyone in the whole thread.

Why do you assume that I'm so stupid as not to know that? It's the word itself that is offensive since it refers to mental health. First off you've taken a word that refers to mental health and have used it for an altered meaning. That in itself is ridiculous because it tells me that you don't know how to explain yourself using regular English to your using a poor bastardized version of it. I.e. you're not using it as the term is defined in the dictionary. The best I can figure out is that you're referring to reasonableness or logical but for some sad reason, perhaps you have a need to impress someone with what you think is a clever play on words, you have to change it to a use that nobody on earth uses except you.

The reason its offensive is something you’re having a hard time understanding so let me give you an analogy; Suppose there are some posters here who live normal lives and are otherwise highly intelligent but have mental health issues, namely they suffer from paranoia which is a thought process believed to be heavily influenced by anxiety or fear, often to the point of irrationality and delusion. Now suppose that person posts in a forum where some jerk is using the term “paranoid” to refer someone who, perhaps rightly so, questions their behavior. That’s a term people toss around lightly because they don’t realize that people with actual problems are around and are being offended by hearing all this kind of talk. I.e. some jerk calls someone paranoid because they saw right through his veiled attempt at harassing behavior and who tried to cover it up by claiming the other person is “paranoid.” The point is that people can be hurt by it. Same with you. What if there are people posting here who have mental health problems and all they’re seeing you do is using the term “sanity” is a rather light and childish way, while you could be hurting someone who comes here to forget their problems.

The fact is that you don’t need to use that term and you certainly aren’t using it correctly, so knock it off!

Why do we have to keep telling you the obvious???

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: pmb
The best I can figure out is that you're referring to reasonableness or logical


That is exactly the meaning that is intended where I used the word

Originally Posted By: pmb

but for some sad reason, perhaps you have a need to impress someone with what you think is a clever play on words, you have to change it to a use that nobody on earth uses except you.


Sorry there was no play it is an expression(s) we use in my circle of work and friends routinely and is interpreted exactly as per your meaning above,it may have become a bit like the teens use "cool", "rad" etc by looks.

Originally Posted By: pmb

The fact is that you don’t need to use that term and you certainly aren’t using it correctly, so knock it off!

Why do we have to keep telling you the obvious???


I have stopped using it PMB because it is blatantly obvious it offends you and others.

You had to tell me because it wasn't obvious to me, I use the expression routinely.

You have now explained it is the word itself is the problem not something contextual within a sentence so I can simply avoid the word. I will do my best but I am slightly worried because if I don't think it may slip because I really do use it a lot.

If you go back to AR2's response it is not clear the word itself was inappropriate so I thought it was something contextual that AR2 was reading.

I can't fix what I don't understand and "using a poor bastardized version" of English is because it is not my first language and I started on this forum expressly to try and improve my English as I am sure Bill and AR2 can verify it was my first thing I explained in my very first post.

You can't improve your language skills without interaction and this is one of those cases where I am trying to understand where it all went wrong.

Last edited by Orac; 01/22/14 05:09 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
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


distance --> 299,792,458 meters

time ------> 1 second

299,792,458 m / s

Orac, you might want to brush up on basic physics.

velocity requires distance , time , and direction.

speed requires only distance and time.



3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
Also my problem with you is that you don’t seem to know what you’re talking about.


cheers


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
PMB


I was just wondering , do you have any reservations
about the math below?

Quote:
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



ie..do you believe that either of the two equations above
could ever deliver a correct answer due to the underlined math?

ie..

(1-v^2/c^2) = 0 or a number lower than c.

(1-1^2/1^2) = 0

(1-299,792,458 m/s^2 / 299,792,458 m/s ^2) = 0

in the example above the velocity is c
yet the math reduces the velocity to below c.

9,333 x c.





Last edited by Amaranth Rose II; 01/23/14 05:59 AM.

3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 36
P
pmb Offline
Member
Offline
Member
P
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 36
Originally Posted By: paul
PMB

Im not trying to ruin you and oracs pissing contest
I was just wondering , do you have any reservations
about the math below?

I'd like to make a recommendation. If you want someones advice then don't accuse them of being part of a "pissing contest." It's a sure fire way of not getting what you're looking for.

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
when you look in a mirror do you see your reflection or
something that you perceive yourself to be?

I call it as I see it , no sugar coating , no cult beliefs
standing in the way of what I say.

I dont fear reprisal from my peers , and when I used the term
pissing contest I meant just that.

I know from past experience what having a pissing contest with
orac looks like.

and if you dont feel comfortable answering any questions of
mine then dont , at least I have provided you a safe way out.

right

you did say you are an expert on SR , and an expert in a
study that has been built on a foundation that consist
of conjured math probably wouldnt feel comfortable discussing
the very thing that allows his expertise to remain valuable.




3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Originally Posted By: Paul
1-v^2/c^2) = 0 or a number lower than c.

(1-1^2/1^2) = 0

(1-299,792,458 m/s^2 / 299,792,458 m/s ^2) = 0

in the example above the velocity is c
yet the math reduces the velocity to below c.

Paul, That actually looks just exactly right. Although you seem to be slightly misinterpreting the result. What this leads to in the total equation is that you find that you wind up dividing by zero. This of course is not allowed, because it means that your answer is: x/0 = infinity. So the mass m becomes infinite. Since it would take infinite energy to accelerate anything with a mass m_0 greater than 0 to a speed of C then you can't do it. Since light has an m_0 = 0 then you wind up with the mass m still = m_0, or 0. In this case you are still dividing by zero, but what you are dividing by zero is zero, that is; 0/0 = 1, because any number divided by itself is 1. And any number multiplied by zero is zero.

I'm not sure where you are getting the idea that the speed is reduced below C. In fact the speed is canceled out in the division and you have a dimensionless number. There is no speed in the answer, all you have is mass.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 36
P
pmb Offline
Member
Offline
Member
P
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 36
Originally Posted By: paul
when you look in a mirror do you see your reflection or
something that you perceive yourself to be? <snipped rest of childish nonsense>


Orac posted provoking comments. I responded out of frustration. That's the difference that you're proving that your unable to understand. Now you're staring in with comments intended to provoke and that's why I've reported them to the moderator. If the day comes when you get back to physics only and cease this childish nonsense, let me know. Otherwise I have nothing to do with people who act like you're now acting.

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
not that I believe that relativistic mass has anything to
do with reality but you should realize that.

relativistic mass m_r is different from invariant mass m_0

the invariant mass m_0 of a particle is independent of its velocity v, relativistic mass m_r increases with velocity and tends to infinity as the velocity approaches the speed of light c.

Quote:
m = m_0/sqrt(1 – v^2/c^2)


LOL , if thats always going to be the answwer then why not
simply use

m = m_0/0

and leave the useless rest of the equation out of it.

Quote:
Since it would take infinite energy to accelerate anything with a mass m_0 greater than 0 to a speed of C then you can't do it.


the problem is that .999999991 c is really very close to c.

can we actually account for the energy input that accelerates the proton to that speed in the LHC?

not counting any of the energy that is used other than the actual acceleration itself.

in other words does the earth experience a total blackout
when the LHC is accelerating a proton from
.999999990 to .999999991 c?

I really dont think so , in fact a tiny amount of energy is
required to accelerate the proton and all of this fabricated
math requires more energy than any portion of the earths energy that the LHC has ever used.

the energy of the latest record breaking collision was 14 Tev

but lets light that up with a comparison to a 100 watt light bulb.

14 Tev = 0.000014 J

100 watts / second = 100 joules / second

the energy required to light up one 100 watt light bulb for 1 second is enough to perform 7,142,857.14 of the 14 Tev LHC collisions.

so that extra 0.000000001 m/s to reach c would require all the remaining energy in the multiverse?

I dont think so.

the math guides you to believing that the speed can not increase to c , but then it leads you to believe that the
accelerated particles mass can increase infinitely.

thats some pretty far fetched stuff to be believing in.

I havent ever heard of an example of mass increasing due to speed.

do you know of any real world examples of mass increasing due to increasing speed?

now if relativistic mass m_r is not really to be confused
with actual real world invariant mass m_0 then Im ok with it.

because that would mean that all this talk of matter becoming
so massive as it approaches c that there isnt enough energy in the multiverse to accelerate
matter further to c would all be used in a relativistic sense and would have nothing to do with reality.




3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
prehaps the terminology needs clarification.

Quote:
I'd like to make a recommendation. If you want someones advice then don't accuse them of being part of a "pissing contest."


http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pissing%20contest

Quote:
pissing contest
A pissing contest is any argument that just goes back and forth between two individuals but never gets resolved.
Joe: "I can piss farther than you can."
Bob: "No you can't!"
Joe: "Yes I can!"
Bob: "No you can't!"
Joe: "Yes I can!"
Bob: "No you can't!"
Joe: "Yes I can!"
Bob: "Prove it!"
Joe: "OK, you go first!"
Bob: "No, you go first!"
Joe: "No, you go first!"
Bob: "No, you go first!"
Joe: "No, you go first!"
... and so on.

Pete: "Man! That's one helluva pissing contest you two guys are having."


I would say that the terminology that I used perfectly aligned itself as a clear and meaningful description
of the post that you and orac were trading back and forth.

I know , because I have traded post with orac in the same manner.





3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
N
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
N
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
Anyone have problem to add below three drawings

and repeat MICHELSON MORLEY but BRIGHTNESS VERSION


Light it is not flat line but 3D ball !!!






1930 Tolman surface brightness test
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolman_surface_brightness_test





ONE astronomer ESCAPE from point 1 ,2,3,4,
Next astronomer Go opposite to Light

who will register more biger brightness of the same bulb ?


NOT EXIST C + 30 km/s !!!
for distance L2 or L1 light need short time T1 and T2

during light is going to astronomer - astronomer is moving with Earth

VERY IMPORTANT ANIMATION ( in my test I have two astronomers !!! )

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6d/Aberrationlighttimebeaming.gif

Last edited by newton; 01/23/14 09:00 PM.
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
N
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
N
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
ONE simply test

MICHESON MORLEY - BRIGHTNESS EDITION !!!!


Brightness = Energy / Area = Jouls / mm^2








Last edited by newton; 01/23/14 09:10 PM.
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
I have asked Bill S if he thought I was insulting him and until he answers we are stuck.


I must have missed that. The answer is no, but I have a thick skin, even Pre didn't succeed in getting an insult through.


There never was nothing.
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209
N
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
N
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,209


We Have Einstein's train and station

inside train is bulb at the end of train we have SENSORS

(to start Senor that will open door we need
energy Estart = A * T [Joules /mm2 ] * sec )

Many people who designe similar sensor know that we can
change sensitive of the sensor by changing Time or Intensity of the signal

What Is it Intensity of the signal ?


More far from place where
the signal started = lower intensity of signal
( "lower brightness" )
1R = brightness X , 2R = brightness X/4 , 3R = X/9
X- brightness, R- radius
the same energy portion but different area


What happen if Bulb is moving in space
below oryginal Doppler's drawing


The bulb is sending 3D wave from each new point in space where is ,was, and will be ..

Rear sensor and Front Sensor inside train is feel in one and the same time different Intensity of the signal



sensor..........bulb...........sensor ++++ motion

The DOORS wait for Sensor signal
;please open
,
,
Senor wait for energy portion Estart Joules-
.
.
the doors will be open for observer inide
train not in one and the same time !!!


Einstein made huge mistake
light it is not FLAT line but 3D Signal
to open door sensor need Energy portion Estart


Intensity of the signal is different for front and rear sensor

first test in HOME 2012 poland
30 km-s Earth around the Sun

C constant determinate direction
below I showed strait line
graph explain what will register Front and Rear sensor
How many joules per mm2


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 UsokĀž»­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