Spirits live in the forest. They try and get you lost. I don't get this new age nonsense where something is magically created. You are using words that generate a sense of reality but the words do not compensate for the lack of science. Making an observation and then assuming space can bend is not scientific. Not until all the other alternatives have been fully exhausted.Geordie Ross wrote:Exactly, so why raise ether? Is it simply to be argumentative, or is it a distraction from the questions I asked?
Are spacial dimensions and volume "nothing"? Do they "not exist"? Would a change in the dimensions ultimately change the geometry and therefore the trajectory of anything moving through it?
Asserting that it doesn't exist, just doesn't cut it.
The God particle is a fraud
-
- Posts: 5963
- Joined: December 27th, 2010, 11:37 am
- Location: Cornwall UK
Re: The God particle is a fraud
- Geordie Ross
- Posts: 1644
- Joined: May 4th, 2013, 5:19 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell
- Location: Newcastle UK.
Re: The God particle is a fraud
Are spacial dimensions and volume something or nothing?
-
- Posts: 5963
- Joined: December 27th, 2010, 11:37 am
- Location: Cornwall UK
Re: The God particle is a fraud
They are what they are and nothing more. It is pure desperation that attempts to claim that gravity can exert a force on nothing of substance. Gravity is a relationship between objects of mass.Empty space can not be influenced by gravity.Geordie Ross wrote:Enough nonsensical vapid rhetoric, answer the question.
Are spacial dimensions and volume something or nothing?
The U.S. and Russia routinely send laser signals to retro-reflectors that have been installed on the Moon in order to measure distances to our satellite accurately. The Moon is slightly over one light-second away and, therefore, the round trip for a photon would take a little over two seconds. A particle emitted from Earth would have trouble retracing its identical path after the Earth moved some 70 km from origin, especially if space is also warped and more so if we factor that “light ‘travels’ as a wave and departs and arrives as a particle.” The rope model avoids these predicaments since every atom comprising the Moon is bound to every atom comprising the Earth via twined EM threads. A torsion has no chance of getting lost because it consists of the twisting of the elongated mediator itself.
Is that sufficient.
-
- Posts: 886
- Joined: May 9th, 2012, 8:05 am
- Location: The Evening Star
Re: The God particle is a fraud
The scientists don't send a single photon and then wait for that photon to return! Laser light, like any other light, diffracts (spreads out) due to its wave nature. The laser beam is miles wide by the time it reaches the moon. Only about one in every million trillion photons that are emitted by the laser reflects back the detector.
-
- Posts: 5963
- Joined: December 27th, 2010, 11:37 am
- Location: Cornwall UK
Re: The God particle is a fraud
It does not matter the same principle applies.Dolphin42 wrote:A point of order about laser retro-reflectors on the moon:
The scientists don't send a single photon and then wait for that photon to return! Laser light, like any other light, diffracts (spreads out) due to its wave nature. The laser beam is miles wide by the time it reaches the moon. Only about one in every million trillion photons that are emitted by the laser reflects back the detector.
- Geordie Ross
- Posts: 1644
- Joined: May 4th, 2013, 5:19 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell
- Location: Newcastle UK.
Re: The God particle is a fraud
-
- Posts: 5963
- Joined: December 27th, 2010, 11:37 am
- Location: Cornwall UK
Re: The God particle is a fraud
Who said they were? Did you read that link because your ignorance of Bills hypothesis is becoming boring. It is only a precis so it should not take you long.Geordie Ross wrote:So gravity is also a "rope", with a physical attachment? And light is a similar rope? Why is it that gravity ropes and EM radiation ropes are vastly different in many, many ways?
- Geordie Ross
- Posts: 1644
- Joined: May 4th, 2013, 5:19 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell
- Location: Newcastle UK.
Re: The God particle is a fraud
-
- Posts: 5963
- Joined: December 27th, 2010, 11:37 am
- Location: Cornwall UK
Re: The God particle is a fraud
Back to your old self Geordie boy. I did expect as much.Geordie Ross wrote:No, I'm not letting you fob me off with links. If you cannot answer questions about it, why propose it as a viable alternative to standard physics?
- Geordie Ross
- Posts: 1644
- Joined: May 4th, 2013, 5:19 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell
- Location: Newcastle UK.
Re: The God particle is a fraud
You simply state
And simply leave it at that? Expecting me to politely nod my head in mutual agreement? Well no, you can't just assert any old nonsense and fob me off with a link. Explain it, or stop saying it.The rope model avoids these predicaments since every atom comprising the Moon is bound to every atom comprising the Earth via twined EM threads
-
- Posts: 142
- Joined: August 1st, 2012, 12:03 am
Re: The God particle is a fraud
Why is that? What is this 'trouble'? You say that the Earth moves, but you mean the Earth moves relative to the sun? So does the moon. Then, relative to each other, neither the Earth nor the moon moves. Do you just toss this stuff out to see if anybody knows the answer, or are you really impressed? I wonder where you pick up these figures, what is 70 km, this is how far the Earth moves in 2 seconds, relative to the sun? It might trip you up to picture the sun as being the thing that is moving, given the Copernican revolution, but these observations are relative. The Earth isn't moving towards or away from the moon at all, and when the earth orbits around the sun, of course the moon is always tagging along at the same distance from the earth. The orbital speed of the Earth around the Sun averages about 30 km/s, which is only slightly off, if you work for her majesty the queen, maybe. That's how you get 70 km in 2 seconds? Maybe I better show my work, I figure that the circumference of the Earth's orbit is 940 million kilometers, so I divide that by the hours in a year to get our orbital speed in kilometers per hour.Xris wrote:The U.S. and Russia routinely send laser signals to retro-reflectors that have been installed on the Moon in order to measure distances to our satellite accurately. The Moon is slightly over one light-second away and, therefore, the round trip for a photon would take a little over two seconds. A particle emitted from Earth would have trouble retracing its identical path after the Earth moved some 70 km from origin, especially if space is also warped and more so if we factor that “light ‘travels’ as a wave and departs and arrives as a particle.”
But also, perhaps one might emphasize that we are moving with the Sun around the center of our galaxy. And/or, that we are moving with our galaxy as it drifts through intergalactic space. I'm not sure what you make of this, but I'm suspecting that your relationship to astrophysics is not what you think it is. If you shine mirrors about, and try using lasers and reflectors between two boats/trains/airplanes/of course spaceships, apparently you assume that something breaks badly at what, some threshold speed?
I could add, that the laser beam that we are talking about, is 6.5 kilometers wide, and out of 10^17 photons aimed at the reflector, only one will be received back on Earth every few seconds, even under good conditions. 'Conditions' being the relative motion of the Earth and the Moon, the rotation of the Earth, lunar libration, weather, polar motion, propagation delay through Earth's atmosphere, the motion of the observing station due to crustal motion and tides, velocity of light in various parts of air and relativistic effects. Nevertheless, that the universal force of gravity is very stable, is one of the findings of this experiment, or still operating Apollo science experiment.
I'm flabbergasted that you think you've come up with a thought that didn't occur to, say, whoever has been in charge of lunar laser ranging activities, since 1969. People who actually hang out at observatories are not so clever as to have thought of this? I'm also flabbergasted that you bring this up, something that could have found a crack Einstein's great edifice of General relativity, and may yet. But so far, lunar ranging results support Einstein. But, you miss that point. Flabbergasting. Are you, then, in fact, putting ludicrous effort into joking w/us?
-- Updated October 20th, 2013, 7:40 pm to add the following --
You have read and reread 'the claim'? That, General Relativity predicted that gravity would influence the passage of time? Have you, then, read the General Theory of Relativity, or more widely in Einstein? You seem skeptical that Einstein meant to predict any such thing, but how did Einstein become mega-famous? He predicted that stars would be measured as being in slightly the wrong coordinates in the sky, and not where expected, if they were observed during an eclipse. How did he manage to come up with this outlandish prediction? His formulas are relating gravity to time, those are the general relativity formulas. You're probably familiar with the Newton gravity formulas, or at least this might look familiar, Force of Gravity is proportional to mass1*mass2/distance2Xris wrote:Thanks for trying but I am aware of the claims but to say his theory predicted such a thing is not true. It might have predicted the curvature of space but not time dilation. I have read and reread the claim and can find no direct correlation to the theory and how it predicted that gravity would influence the passage of time.Maybe someone can explain it to both of us.
Or, the force of gravity acting between the earth and any other object, for example, is directly proportional to the mass of the earth, directly proportional to the mass of the object, and inversely proportional to the square of the distance that separates the centers of the earth and the object.
And, alternatively, Force of Gravity = Gmass1*mass2/distance2 And, here, G represents the universal gravitation constant. The units on G are sensible, but may seem rather odd. And, knowing the experimentally determined universal gravitation constant (a constant of proportionality) allows you to calculate the force gravitational attraction in Newtons - the unit of force.
How, then, is Einstein different? I'm not just confident, I know of a certainty, that this has been competently explained to you before, and all the effort that went into the posts was wasted because you only pretend to be interested. But, how is Einstein different. Well, first of all, you get essentially identical predictions as long as the strength of the gravitational field is weak. However, there are several crucial predictions where the two theories diverge. This is if if velocities are comparable to that of light, or gravitational fields are much larger than those encountered on the Earth.
What I specifically want to get to, here, is that Einstein's theory predicts that the direction of light propagation should be changed in a gravitational field. As has been proven right, which is indicated by precise observations, and I'm talking, both about the effect, and its magnitude. And this is that eclipse business. Einstein predicted that light is bent by the gravitational field around the Sun. Why? Because, he had extended the principle that Inertial mass = Gravitational mass
Like this, suppose that the earth, at one instant, is observing a light ray that came from a distant star. But, because of the influence of the gravitational field near the Sun, the light ray was deflected as it passed near the sun. Starlight will have an angular deflection. Observed in 1919. The stars appeared shifted from their true positions. Spacetime must be curved. And, Einstein used mathematics to describe gravitation, not by a force, but by the curvature of spacetime. Then, it is often useful to think in geometrical terms when discussing concepts in relativity. Say that you have a geometrical concept of a 'point'. But, let's add the time dimension, and refer to a fingersnap, shall we say, not merely as a point, but as an 'event'. And now, when we're doing General Relativity, time read off a wristwatch is thought of as Spacetime-length, along a timelike curve. And, the the separation-distance you measure between two events, is going to be, well, you'll need to do a radar measurement. And, you're looking for the average of your clock times, or one-half the sum your clock-times. What if you want, rather, the elapsed-time you measure between two events. Again, do a radar measurement, and you want, in this case, one-half the difference of your clock-time. And, meanwhile, a light-ray is a lightlike geodesic curve. Which is a geometrical concept. And, how fast the other guy seems to be moving, well, this too, is a geometrical concept, it's the spacetime-angle between two lines. Specifically, you would decompose his velocity-vector into a spatial-part and a temporal-part. Divide the spatial-part by the temporal-part.
But I suppose that you've put all the effort that your going to put, into understanding Relativity, I suppose that it will never be for you, anything but a bore and a humiliation. And, probably, for most everybody who reads this. It's a bit technical for a forum thread, but I don't blame myself. Invest in your education in physics. I'd like to introduce you to this, so that you get something out of it, but you still think that you're going to win a debate for your cult-like crackpot leader. And, I suppose that you should never change, because I don't like surprises.
But I do like relativity, I really do, some people do.
-
- Posts: 1298
- Joined: April 14th, 2013, 4:30 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Stephen Hurrell
- Location: Australia
Re: The God particle is a fraud
Geordie Ross wrote:Enough nonsensical vapid rhetoric, answer the question.
Are spacial dimensions and volume something or nothing?
How about you answering some questions about gravity.
1. How does gravity pull from a distance, what is its mechanism?
-- Updated October 21st, 2013, 10:57 am to add the following --
Unfortunately, photons don't exist. Its just waves through the ether. The wave is detected as a quantum force on arrival which creates the illusion of a particle.Dolphin42 wrote:A point of order about laser retro-reflectors on the moon:
The scientists don't send a single photon and then wait for that photon to return! Laser light, like any other light, diffracts (spreads out) due to its wave nature. The laser beam is miles wide by the time it reaches the moon. Only about one in every million trillion photons that are emitted by the laser reflects back the detector.
-
- Posts: 142
- Joined: August 1st, 2012, 12:03 am
Re: The God particle is a fraud
The math is necessary for the results. The photon math, etc., that's how we get the nuclear bombs, etc. What there is, besides the math, is blather. The math is the part that does the lifting, the math is the theory part, the scientific part.
-- Updated October 20th, 2013, 8:29 pm to add the following --
"How about you answering some questions about gravity.
1. How does gravity pull from a distance, what is its mechanism?"
That's just one question. Anyways, how does gravity pull from a distance. This is not something that gets explained in physics. I mean, sure, Aristotle might try to answer it, but see what you get. There is no 'how', in physics, this is not a scientific question. It's the wrong rhetorical mode. Instead, what you get is description. How do we construe the purposes and conventions, of Physics? Well, what are its most basic concepts? It gets much more basic than 'gravity'. Conservation of a few kinds, that's very basic. And Newton's gravitational formula, that expresses conservation of what, now? Inertia. But in Einstein's theory, there is no longer any conservation of intertia. The idea of 'what mechanism' is 'what mechanism overrides interia', but now, in General Relativity, there is no intertia to override. probably, F=MA is somewhat familiar, force = mass*acceleration. But, there is no 'mass' in General Relativity, as there is no 'inertia', and no 'conservation of inertia'. The idea, in general, of this-causes-that, like the force of gravity causes motion, is somewhat imperfect, in reality. It doesn't map perfectly to any mathematical formula. there's never 'cause' or 'effect' in a mathematical formulas. And, something's got to give, something's got to go. What we keep, is the mathematical formulas, and what we lose, is what makes sense to you. Bye!
-
- Posts: 1298
- Joined: April 14th, 2013, 4:30 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Stephen Hurrell
- Location: Australia
Re: The God particle is a fraud
A photon is not a mathematical object. It can be explained using mechanical processes. The turning of a hypothetical 2 strand rope creates both clockwise and anticlockwise simultaneously from each end of the rope. Thus, spooky action at a distance can be explained mechanically and quantum physics is not required.DanLanglois wrote:what is the point of this, 'the illusion of a particle'? So okay, you want to call it an illusion. Call it your aunt Jemima, what's at stake here? You're slinging abstract, informal points, when the entire subject that you are trying to discuss is rooted in math that you do not appear to understand, or find necessary.
The math is necessary for the results. The photon math, etc., that's how we get the nuclear bombs, etc. What there is, besides the math, is blather. The math is the part that does the lifting, the math is the theory part, the scientific part.
http://blog.darkbuzz.com/2012/09/a-phot ... bject.html
You still haven't answered the question. If physics can't answer this question who can?How does gravity pull from a distance?
That's just one question. Anyways, how does gravity pull from a distance. This is not something that gets explained in physics. I mean, sure, Aristotle might try to answer it, but see what you get. There is no 'how', in physics, this is not a scientific question. It's the wrong rhetorical mode. Instead, what you get is description. How do we construe the purposes and conventions, of Physics? Well, what are its most basic concepts? It gets much more basic than 'gravity'. Conservation of a few kinds, that's very basic. And Newton's gravitational formula, that expresses conservation of what, now? Inertia. But in Einstein's theory, there is no longer any conservation of intertia. The idea of 'what mechanism' is 'what mechanism overrides interia', but now, in General Relativity, there is no intertia to override. probably, F=MA is somewhat familiar, force = mass*acceleration. But, there is no 'mass' in General Relativity, as there is no 'inertia', and no 'conservation of inertia'. The idea, in general, of this-causes-that, like the force of gravity causes motion, is somewhat imperfect, in reality. It doesn't map perfectly to any mathematical formula. there's never 'cause' or 'effect' in a mathematical formulas. And, something's got to give, something's got to go. What we keep, is the mathematical formulas, and what we lose, is what makes sense to you. Bye!
-
- Posts: 809
- Joined: March 30th, 2012, 2:42 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Nietzsche
Re: The God particle is a fraud
Nowhere does he attempt to deceive anyone or to achieve financial gain as a result of that name. He chooses the name in order to illustrate the value to quantum physics of establishing the presence of a fundamental "particle" (for want of a better word). This is not fraud.. The rest of the discussion may be interesting but irrelevant to the original premise.
http://books.google.com/books?id=-v84Bp ... &q&f=false
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023