It is generally accepted by them that they work within a paradigm
donchu mean pachyderm ?
Does True Randomness Actually Exist? ( ^&*#^%$&#% )
Sort:
Feb 17, 2020
0
#963
Optimissed wrote:
Prefer my wife by a long way.
No it isn't. Photons have zero mass.
Really??
But they act as if they have mass.
No, they act as if they have no mass.
To be precise, the rest mass of the photon is empirically found to be less then 10^-27 electron volts, a truly miniscule amount (about 10^-36 less than the mass of a hydrogen atom). To get an idea of how small this is, even the tiny energy of a radio frequency photon may be 10^20 times larger than this bound on the mass of a photon.
https://wiki2.org/en/Photon#Experimental_checks_on_photon_mass
https://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/science/toolbox/spectrum_chart.html
Feb 17, 2020
0
#964
Optimissed wrote:
All you are doing is repeating that the experts know best. They might well be experts on elephants' toenails but they aren't tall enough to see the whole elephant and they don't live long enough to walk halfway round it.
In the Facebook age, the world is full of people who reject expertise based on their own ignorance of it.
Expertise is tested and works. And the test is a lot harder than you being able to type something in a forum and feel happy about it.
Feb 17, 2020
0
#965
What does "zero mass" mean Elroch ... if not to mean ZERO ?
And then proceed to explain how the mass is "truly a miniscule amount."
Feb 17, 2020
0
#966
That's how science works. You can't prove the mass is exactly zero by experiment, but you can show it is less than some really tiny amount. This happens to mean all predictions will be accurate if you assume the mass is exactly zero.
And I didn't say the mass of the photon was "truly a miniscule amount.", I said that it was known to be no larger than a (specified) tiny amount, a statement about empirical knowledge. I have no reason to believe it is not zero, and believing this is consistent with all data, so that's what I believe (and that is what is done in physics).
then I have a question. If i go outside and point a flashlite to the sky and turn it on and then off really quick ?....did i just make a irreversible ray that cant ever be extinguished ?
....and then what if i did it under water ?
Feb 17, 2020
0
#968
It's true that if you shine a light at the sky, the photons can travel way out across space over the years - in principle as far as you like. But they would spread out rapidly and become indetectable very early in their journey, because of background light.
king, i think we had a failure in communication. i lost you.. lol
but never mind that, all i can think of right now is a deluxe tuna sandwich made with smoked ahi and waldorf salad : )
....People who try to be Einstein get their random privileges revoked after so long...
Elroch wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
Elroch wrote:
Optimissed wrote: Qualitatively, are there any differences between what happens here and the interaction of, say, a large star and a photon, both which can be assumed to have been randomly chucked there?
Yes, several crucial differences.
However, you won't venture to say what they are. Could the most crucial difference be that for the purposes of your argument, you are claiming they are different? I was attempting to illustrate, by reductio ad absurdumification, that the curvature of space is the consequence of inserting a massive object into that space; and there is no reason to think of it as being real, other than as a device to portray the behaviour of the object in the space.
"This means that the "curvature of space" is just a means to DEPICT the effects of gravity. We have no reason to assume it's real but, as usual, the mathematicians take their own metaphors literally."
So, a false statement "means" another statement is true. You know enough logic to know now that even if the inference was valid, the conclusion wouldn't be.
Sorry but I don't. I believe that cognitive dissonance is the most psychologically healthy state of being. My wife told me only yesterday that Gurdjieff wrote that a human cannot hold two conflicting beliefs at one time. She's a very talented professional psychologist and she thinks he was talking bullocks.
The reason physicists use the models they do is that they are the best known models. If you had produced a better one that would put you in a position to disagree with them. Note also the only meaning of "real" for a model in physics is if its predictions are correct. General relativity (with a positive cosmological constant) is currently consistent with all experimental data.
You have twisted the discussion, somewhat, to make it appear that I disagree with general relativity. Let's assume that we're talking about BBT and not GR please. You make the hidden assumption that GR leads directly to BBT.
So .... only with the data they accept. I have a theory about why universal models tend to involve similar (but not identical) mathematics and data. I won't bore you with it, though. Anyway, I disagree with them because I think that Reginald Kapp's model is superior. It dates from about 1959 which is before the Big Bang became accepted, back in the era of steady state theory. The only reason the people accepted the Big Bang Theory was that it was assumed to explain CMB (my wife's initials) and it was assumed to follow Occam's razor. It clearly doesn't do the latter and consequently there is no reason to accept such a dinosaur of a belief. Basically, mankind has a drive to believe in things that are intuitively illogical. I was one of the first to accept the BBT and I dropped it as soon as I read Kapp's book in about 1967 when I was 16. All this was before the BBT was accepted by people not very well versed in physics and cosmology, as it is now. I have known since 1967 that the BBT is wrong because I assumed that expansion of the universe was expanding, which all the evidence pointed to although it had not been finally proven.
Accelerating expansion makes the BBT untenable. The fact that many cosmologists do not accept this and cling to the Flat Earth theory is possibly because they do not have the intelligence to think about it accurately for themselves in the face of accumulated pressure to conform to the beliefs of others who are too scared to question it, for various reasons.
If you read Kapp's book from cover to cover (you can ignore the appendices as these were more creative and less perfect) then and only then will I take you seriously, because if you do not read it then you're ignoring the evidence. Like me, Kapp was a layman in cosmology terms. BUT he was one of the World's leading authorities on HYPOTHESIS FORMATION. Like me, he had always been interested in cosmology.
Feb 17, 2020
0
#972
"Accelerating expansion makes the BBT untenable"
I interpret this to mean, if the observed expansion were accelerated, as if a cosmological constant can predict the rate, by NOW, with the BBT predicting 13+ B years, the theory becomes illogical.
Thee_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
then I have a question. If i go outside and point a flashlite to the sky and turn it on and then off really quick ?....did i just make a irreversible ray that cant ever be extinguished ?
....and then what if i did it under water ?
short answer? its not irreversible because sooner or later the photons you create will get absorb by other objects that they hit on their path.
a good example for this is our eyes. they absorb photons that "bounce" off the objects we look at, and then the brain recreate the images. (of course there is much more to it but never mind that for now : )
Elroch wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
All you are doing is repeating that the experts know best. They might well be experts on elephants' toenails but they aren't tall enough to see the whole elephant and they don't live long enough to walk halfway round it.
In the Facebook age, the world is full of people who reject expertise based on their own ignorance of it.
Expertise is tested and works. And the test is a lot harder than you being able to type something in a forum and feel happy about it.
Yes, it means that they don't have to think and they can feel happy about it. IMO you're losing this because your only refuge is the argument from authority. It's very visible. You admitted you don't understand the subject. So read Kapp's book.
opti: "the curvature of space is the consequence of inserting a massive object into that space; and there is no reason to think of it as being real, other than as a device to portray the behaviour of the object in the space."
Do you happen to know what was einstein take on this?
Einstein eventually identified the property of spacetime which is responsible for gravity as its curvature. ... This is the core of Einstein's theory of general relativity, which is often summed up in words as follows: "matter tells spacetime how to curve, and curved spacetime tells matter how to move".>>>
My take is that he was talking crap.
No-one has proved that there is a composite entity, "space-time". The curvature of a real entity, space, would act in time no differently from a real entity, space-time. We say "matter acts as if space is curved" but equally, we can say "matter acts as if it interacts in ways that are not wholly governed by Newtonian or Cartesian physics".
We have similar ambiguity regarding the reality of light, which can act as a particle or as a wave. The idea of the wave itself is also ambiguous. It is described as a probability wave but is the probability inherent in the wave or is it a device used by the mind to understand a different reality?
I have given up on Elroch because he's stopped thinking entirely, sorry to say.
Optimissed wrote:
Einstein eventually identified the property of spacetime which is responsible for gravity as its curvature. ... This is the core of Einstein's theory of general relativity, which is often summed up in words as follows: "matter tells spacetime how to curve, and curved spacetime tells matter how to move".>>>
My take is that he was talking crap.
calling him out ?....luvit Opti !!
L, L and trying to stay strong
I have given up on Elroch because he's stopped thinking entirely, sorry to say.
some call him a pseudytroll (well, just me)
this thread's embedded mole
nothing is impossible to him
yet he does nothing all the time
plonk plonk burp....giv'em more wine
blah blah huh ?....you're challenging mine ?
math *poof* theory - this sends me bonkers
would s/o pass the screaming yellow zonkers ?
Feb 18, 2020
0
#980
Optimissed wrote:
Einstein eventually identified the property of spacetime which is responsible for gravity as its curvature. ... This is the core of Einstein's theory of general relativity, which is often summed up in words as follows: "matter tells spacetime how to curve, and curved spacetime tells matter how to move".>>>
My take is that he was talking crap.
There are reasons why Einstein has somewhat (ahem) higher status among all physicists than you (and I) and that is why it is foolish for you to say that. He rewrote part of physics and his work has stood the test of time.
Shortly after Einstein published his work, other physicists deduced a phenomenon called gravitational waves - a form of energy that consists of ripples in the curvature of space-time, with no other substance. It took about 100 years before these were finally detected, after several decades of failures (due to the great precision required). Few physicists were surprised by the distinctive patterns detected (rather they were delighted) because they knew there was good reason to believe the implications of Einstein's theory and this is what it predicts when black holes and neutron stars merge.
This is no petty phenomenon: the gravitational waves that were detected amounted to up to about 5 solar masses being converted to pure gravitational energy in a fraction of a second, up to billions of light years away. These are some of the most energetic events in the entire Universe.
https://wiki2.org/en/Gravitational_wave#LIGO_and_Virgo_observations
https://wiki2.org/en/List_of_gravitational_wave_observations
Prefer my wife by a long way.
No it isn't. Photons have zero mass.
Really??
But they act as if they have mass.