 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Relativity / March 2005Why Relativity must be wrong...
Axiom: Time is a succession of events (a logic device created by man) Axiom: Events are absolute I can't believe that time is not absolute. Time is a succession of absolute events. For example, if one day you walk in your office and find the light bulb burnt out, and the day before the light bulb was burning bright, then the event of the light bulb expiring occurred without it's being related to you or I, it just occurred - an event. So to say that the moment the light bulb expired was different to you and I would be to assume that the event was not absolute - i.e. out of sync with itself. The argument that the event appeared to occur at different times depending on if, say, I were travelling at close to the speed of light and you were not would mean that in our own 'personal' time they occurred differently and were thus non-absolute. I believe that perhaps relativities assumption that all time is relative to the individual is actually a change in the scale used to measure time. I think that because an event such as a super nova for example probably occurred at some time in the universe and spreads it's effect throughout the universe evenly - despite the speed that other suns, galaxies etc. may be moving relative to it. Dear scm: > Axiom: Time is a succession of events (a logic > device created by man) > Axiom: Events are absolute > I can't believe that time is not absolute. Jane attributes 6 years of my time to the rise and fall of the Roman Empire. Given the Earth-rest frame duration, can you detemine how fast Jane was moving for this period? Note that Jane still has the same sequence of emperors that Earth observers agree on. Only the "distance" between events is relative. Time is an illusion. Quantum mechanics does really well without it. David A. Smith > Axiom: Time is a succession of events (a logic device created by man) In physics time is defined to be what a clock reads. Instead of introducing your own terminology how about sticking with what is standard? > Axiom: Events are absolute > I can't believe that time is not absolute. Many people can not. But experiment shows it isn't - http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf > Time is a succession of > absolute events. For example, if one day you walk in your office and [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > throughout the universe evenly - despite the speed that other suns, > galaxies etc. may be moving relative to it. You are talking about causality - SR has causality preserved. Instead of posting misconceptions learn about the theory you are criticizing - http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0110076, and ancient, but I still think excellent post by Tom Roberts http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&selm=54jfst%24glp%40ssbunews. ih.lucent.com and chapter 10 of http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/ under the heading of Relativity without c. Bill I am not trying to fight the current with this question i have posted. I have been thinking about this for some time and I am looking for an answer, not a bunch of referrals to other websites outlining proofs and experiments - no one understands SR, if the claim to they are lying - Feynman himself admitted that he did not understand. I want an answer by someone who can think outside the box. Instead of trying to quantize my question, treat it as a thought. I don't believe that they're are very many physicists (myself included) who can fit the the micro to macro. We all know the models are fundamenally flawed - Even mathematics - look at how Godel rocked the scientific community when he found a paradox in mathematica principia. Anyway that's not the point. My question stands. Dear scm: ... > My question stands. Reread your original post. You asked no question. You made a statement qualified with "I believe", then waved your hands at the wrong thing. Ask your question. Don't just imagine you asked it. David A. Smith It was a thought experiment - prove it wrong scm: >It was a thought experiment - prove it wrong Thought experiments don't invalidate real ones. Sorry - what I should have said in my initial statement, was: Could someone please explain why my logic is wrong on this statement.... > I am not trying to fight the current with this question i have posted. > I have been thinking about this for some time and I am looking for an > answer, not a bunch of referrals to other websites outlining proofs and > experiments - no one understands SR, if the claim to they are lying - Your evidence for such a silly statement is? > Feynman himself admitted that he did not understand. Reference please. > I want an answer by someone who can think outside the box. Translation - I want an answer form someone who agrees with me so I can bolster my opinions. > Instead of trying to quantize my question, treat it as a thought. I don't believe that > they're are very many physicists (myself included) And your qualifications would be? > who can fit the the micro to macro. Mind elaborating. If you are referring to quantum gravity please acquaint yourself with the facts - http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9512024 > We all know the models are fundamenally flawed - We do not know that at all. > Even mathematics - look at how Godel rocked the scientific community when he > found a paradox in mathematica principia. That is not what Godel found. I strongly suspect your knowledge of mathematics is on the same level as you knowledge of physics - which is to say non existent beyond kiddy level. > Anyway that's not the point. My question stands. When you are actually ready to discuss issues in a sensible fashion then we have plenty of people here. In the mean time you will get the treatment you deserve. By for now crank. Bill You don't understand anything I have stated do you? You obviously have gotten extremely defensive about my ideas and axioms - I made the axioms up. If you were truly an excellent scientist you would not dismiss my ideas so vehemently. Sounds like you've been molded into a physics ignoramous (you've proved that). You have also proven that you are the perfect example of the scientific community that is against any form of change (that is outside what is currently the conventional model). Non of my ideas are silly or supid- or render me a 'crank. By the way, the Feynman statement I referred to is quite famous, the fact that you have never heard of it is not my problem, and the fact that you don't know what an axiom is makes me severely question your credibilty... Don't bother responding > You don't understand anything I have stated do you? No - becauise it is drivel. > You obviously have gotten extremely defensive about my ideas and axioms - I made the > axioms up. That is obivous. > If you were truly an excellent scientist you would not dismiss my ideas > so vehemently. If you were actually serious you would express them better. > Sounds like you've been molded into a physics ignoramous > (you've proved that). You have also proven that you [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > that you don't know what an axiom is makes me severely question your > credibilty... Then you should be able to quote it and give context. The fact you do not choose to do so is very revealing. What you may be referring to is his statement about QM - but little niceties like that seem to not concern you at all. > Don't bother responding If you do not like my replies do not post drivel. Bill You are simply an argumentative waste of time- probably counting pebbles in some community college lab - way to show your stripes though. You have come across as the most angry and insecure member here - kudos mate! If you can climb off your perch go to physics.reality to see how questions are answere with objectivitity > You are simply an argumentative waste of time- probably counting > pebbles in some community college lab - way to show your stripes > though. You have come across as the most angry and insecure member > here - kudos mate! Why not answer the questions I asked such as your evidence for believing no one understands SR? Or is backing up your statements with fact a little nicety someone of your supposedly superiour sensibilities is not required to do? > If you can climb off your perch go to physics.reality to see how > questions are answere with objectivitity If you can actually back up your statements with a reasoned argument and objective evidence then you may be able to make a contribution to this group. But evasion and non responsiveness are standard crank tactics taken from directly how to be a crank 101. Bill > You don't understand anything I have stated do you? You obviously have > gotten extremely defensive about my ideas and axioms - I made the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Don't bother responding Had a couple of minutes to spare waiting for the market to open so I thought I would add a few more comments. Notice the way of the crank - he says: 'no one understands SR, if the claim to they are lying' to which I reply 'Your evidence for such a silly statement is'. Now a normal person would supply evidence to back up their assertion. But not the crank - what they do is say 'If you were truly an excellent scientist you would not dismiss my ideas so vehemently'. Asking for evidence to back up a statement is not dismissing an idea - quite the converse. But over the years I have noticed rational discourse is not the intent of cranks. Bill scm: >Axiom: Time is a succession of events (a logic device created by man) Have you performed an experiment that disagrees with relativity? If so, cite the reference to the journal in which it was published. If not, then you are attempting to argue that your opinion of how nature has to be is more important than the experiments that tell us how nature is. Your idea of logic doesn't supercede nature's idea of logic just because you don't like it. > Axiom: Time is a succession of events (a logic device created by man) > Axiom: Events are absolute [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > throughout the universe evenly - despite the speed that other suns, > galaxies etc. may be moving relative to it. Relativity is about laws of nature, which refer to measurements. The same word however is also used for a kind of philosophy that has nothing to do with laws of nature, nor with measurements. Einstein was incited to develop some laws of nature (GRT) thanks to his philosophy. But there is no need to adhere to his philosophy, just as Lorentz didn't adhere to it, and just as Newton even rejected it. Harald Harry: >Relativity is about laws of nature, which refer to measurements. As opposed to theories about the laws of nature that don't refer to measurement? Here in physics land, we don't consider theories that don't refer to measurements to be physical theories, because such theories can't tell us how to measure anything that would test them. ``The moon is made of green cheese'' is a theory that doesn't refer to measurement, since green cheese isn't well-defined by the theory. Green cheese is whatever the moon happens to be so astronauts would have no way of determining if that theory were true by putting a moon rock on a cracker and tasting it. Referring to measurements is a good thing. Your attempted use of legerdemain as a substitute for comprehension is a bad thing. > As opposed to theories about the laws of nature that don't > refer to measurement? Here in physics land, we don't consider theories [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > astronauts would have no way of determining if that theory were true > by putting a moon rock on a cracker and tasting it. Cheese is organic, by definition, regardless of its color, being clotted rotted mammalian milk curd. So the proposition "The Moon is made of green cheese" can be tested. If the rocks brought back by the U.S. astronauts are typical of the Moon's makeup we can conclude that the Moon is NOT made of green cheese or any other kind of cheese for that matter. If the Moon were made of green cheese it would require milk from the cow that jumped over the Moon or the goat that jumped over the Moon. The Islamic Crescent portion of the Moon would be made from camel milk of the mother camel that jumped over the Moon. Bob Kolker robert j. kolker: >> As opposed to theories about the laws of nature that don't >> refer to measurement? Here in physics land, we don't consider theories [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Cheese is organic, by definition, The ether is a medium, by definition, too, but that doesn't stop the kook contigent from trying to work the word ``vacuum'' into their spiel to try and mitigate the distinction between the vacuum and a physical medium. >regardless of its color, being >clotted rotted mammalian milk curd. So the proposition "The Moon is [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Islamic Crescent portion of the Moon would be made from camel milk of >the mother camel that jumped over the Moon. But that would be a ``physical process'' that explains the moon, It eliminates all of the abstract ``principle theories'' that are just ``math theories.'' Since, like lesage gravity, it's a ``physical theory,'' there is no need to do anything but assert that it works. As a ``physical theory,'' it's automatically exempt from any scientific criteria applied to ``math theories.'' Just don't introduce virtual cows. > Harry: > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > As opposed to theories about the laws of nature that don't > refer to measurement? No, of course not! "laws of nature, which refer to measurements" = "laws of nature refer to measurements" (try Microsoft grammar check). Harald Thank You... > For example, if one day you walk in your office and > find the light bulb burnt out, and the day before the light bulb was [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > and I would be to assume that the event was not absolute - i.e. out of > sync with itself. Say I left the office yesterday at 6:45pm. I came back today at 9:15am. So the event occurred between 6:45PM yesterday and 9:15am today. The security guard saw the lamp burning at 1:20am and noticed it was out at 2:40am. So the event occurred between 1:20 AM today and 2:40am today. How are the two out of sync?  SignatureIt is frightening when you read many of these posts and you realize that most have been carefully thought out before posting. Observations of Bernard - No 73 > Axiom: Time is a succession of events (a logic device created by man) > Axiom: Events are absolute Is this to mean that all observers agree on all aspects of a given event? > I can't believe that time is not absolute. Time is a succession of > absolute events. In relativity, the "absoluteness" of time refers not to "absolute events," but only to the simultenaity question of two separated events. In Newton's mechanics, all inertial frames would agree on the simultenaity of separated events. In SR they do not. Patrick > > Axiom: Time is a succession of events (a logic device created by man) > > Axiom: Events are absolute > > Is this to mean that all observers agree on all aspects of a given > event? Just different perceptions of the event. There is only one reality, but there can be different observations and perceptions of it. > > > Axiom: Time is a succession of events (a logic device created by man) > > > Axiom: Events are absolute [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Just different perceptions of the event. There is only one reality, but there can be > different observations and perceptions of it. What does it mean to say that there is only one reality? Patrick > > > > Axiom: Time is a succession of events (a logic device created by > man) [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > What does it mean to say that there is only one reality? I fail to understand what it is you don't understand. There is a single reality. > Axiom: Time is a succession of events (a logic device created by man) > Axiom: Events are absolute > I can't believe that time is not absolute. Nature has no need to adhere to your beliefs. In fact, your belief here is contrary to actual observations. > Time is a succession of > absolute events. So you claim. But "succession" is merely an ordering, and does not necessarily imply a scale (the duration between the successive events). Indeed, in relativity all observers will observe the same series of events (happenings), but they can ascribe different durations between them. What we call "time" includes not only the ordering, but also the durations, and it is not "absolute" in any meaningful sense in the world we inhabit. > [...] Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com The duration of time in-between events does not exist. I urge you to visit the physics.reality group and read the last post under the same heading - you should find it quite interesting as it is an excellent reply to your question. > The duration of time in-between events does not exist. > > I urge you to visit the physics.reality group and read the last post > under the same heading - you should find it quite interesting as it is > an excellent reply to your question. There is no sci.physics.reality group on Usenet or Googlegroups. Where do you find this physics.reality group? Vern Follow this link... ttp://groups-beta.google.com/group/Physics_reality, Regards > The duration of time in-between events does not exist. > > I urge you to visit the physics.reality group and read the last post > under the same heading - you should find it quite interesting as it is > an excellent reply to your question. Do you actually read peoples replies or do you simply give pat answers depending on whim? Having read Toms reply I can find no question. Bill > Axiom: Time is a succession of events (a logic device created by man) Time for an event is what is measured by a clock that resides at the event. > Axiom: Events are absolute In what sense? > I can't believe that time is not absolute. It's a mental constipation. Try hard. [snip] |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.