Re: The Paradox of Zeno

From: Androcles (dummy_at_dummy.net)
Date: 11/22/04 

Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 00:47:27 GMT

"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in
message news:e3e772-gih.ln1@sirius.athghost7038suus.net...
> In sci.math, Androcles
> <dummy@dummy.net>
> wrote
> on Sun, 21 Nov 2004 20:13:50 GMT
> <2G6od.37907$Y7.36407@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
>>
>> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote
>> in
>> message news:3j1772-h0h.ln1@sirius.athghost7038suus.net...
>>> In sci.math, Androcles
>>> <dummy@dummy.net>
>>> wrote
>>> on Sun, 21 Nov 2004 13:15:20 GMT
>>> <Ix0od.34256$Y7.29056@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
>>>>
>>>> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net>
>>>> wrote
>>>> in
>>>> message news:fn8572-ddg.ln1@sirius.athghost7038suus.net...
>>>>> In sci.math, Androcles
>>>>> <dummy@dummy.net>
>>>>> wrote
>>>>> on Sat, 20 Nov 2004 22:45:34 GMT
>>>>> <iOPnd.13091$08.8986@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net>
>>>>>> wrote
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> message news:u0j472-e3c.ln1@sirius.athghost7038suus.net...
>>>>>>> In sci.math, Jim Greenfield
>>>>>>> <greenfield_7@hotmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote
>>>>>>> on 17 Nov 2004 00:23:23 -0800
>>>>>>> <3c4afb26.0411170023.1a53f2f4@posting.google.com>:
>>>>>>>> "eleaticus" <eleaticus@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:<MQfmd.32027$IQ.22645@bignews6.bellsouth.net>...
>>>>>>>>> "Jim Greenfield" <greenfield_7@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:3c4afb26.0411151934.534e4f6c@posting.google.com...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> > Jim G
>>>>>>>>> > c'=c+v
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> How right you are! (Probabaly)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Remember; I am always referring to c in vacuum. Refraction and
>>>>>>>> prisms
>>>>>>>> incline me to the view that things are not right in material
>>>>>>>> light
>>>>>>>> velocity either (source dependency), but I'm not going there.
>>>>>>>> Just
>>>>>>>> let
>>>>>>>> a space-race of two pulses of EMR, one from a stationary
>>>>>>>> source,
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> another simultaneous from a source moving ref us, decide the
>>>>>>>> matter
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> c'=c+v
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And the reason supernovae don't satisfy this condition is
>>>>>>> precisely why?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here's a supernova (several images).
>>>>>> http://www.star.ucl.ac.uk/~apod/apod/ap040220.html
>>>>>> http://www.star.ucl.ac.uk/~apod/apod/ap000512.html
>>>>>> http://www.star.ucl.ac.uk/~apod/apod/ap020331.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And the reason you don't believe supernovae don't satisfy the
>>>>>> condition is precisely why?
>>>>>> What is it about those images is it that tells you the speed of
>>>>>> light is precisely c?
>>>>>> Androcles.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's hard to say what exactly things would look like were
>>>>> c' = c+v,
>>>>
>>>> Those images ARE what it looks like, because the velocity of light
>>>> IS
>>>> source dependent.
>>>
>>> Of course it is, that's why the Crab Nebula glowed in the daytime
>>> for almost 50 years.
>>>
>>> Erm...wait. It didn't.
>>
>> You are really good at manufacturing fake evidence, are you not?
>> Whoever said it should? You, obviously. Why would you claim it
>> should and did not, when you haven't a clue what you are going on
>> about?
>
> Well, I'd have to go look at the records, but AIUI the
> nova was observed during the *day* for a few weeks.

So what?
That doesn't make emission theory wrong. Why do you imagine it does?

>
> How does one reconcile this with gas speeds of 1/190 c
> and an estimated distance of 7,000 ly?

How many weeks do you want for a single explosion?
Of course it lasted for several weeks, that's what emission
theory predicts. Acording to relativity, the glow should have
been a single flash, over in a second.
How do YOU reconcile the fact that it lasted for several weeks?

>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> but the problem is that the nebula of
>>>>> the Crab Nebula is estimated (presumably by simple
>>>>> trig) to be 10 lightyears in diameter, and is known
>>>>> to have exploded 950 years ago (our time),
>>>>> thus leads to gases moving about 1/190 c from the explosion,
>>>>> and a 73+-year delta, give or take, assuming that the
>>>>> supernova is exactly 7,000 light-years distant.
>>>>
>>>> Why is that a problem?
>>>
>>> This is problem setup.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If one doesn't like the Crab, one can go with SN1987A, which is
>>>>> estimated to be 170,00 light-years distant. Assuming similar
>>>>> parameters for the gases, the object would glow for almost 1800
>>>>> years given the ballistic light theory.
>>>>
>>>> Are you going to stick around for 1800 years to see if goes out?
>>>
>>> It's already violated the light curve. Try slicing up an orange,
>>> for example, using a cleaver or paper cutter (if it's sharp enough).
>>> The orange slices represent the nascent glowing gasball expanding
>>> from the explosion; for various reasons all points on the edge have
>>> the same speed relative to Earth and will arrive at the same time
>>> in either theory.
>>>
>>> Therefore, the perimeter of the slice represents the intensity
>>> of the glow.
>>>
>>> As the slices get larger, the perimeter gets brighter, but
>>> gradually, then dim just as gradually. This does not fit
>>> the intensity profile of the explosion, which is a sudden
>>> increase of brightness, followed by a gradual dropoff.
>>> Also, the size of the sphere, assuming my assumptions of
>>> gas speed are correct, would result in a 50+ year interval
>>> of this increase in brightness.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There's also the little problem of the neutrino precursor.
>>>>> We were lucky and caught 19 of them, apparently:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/guidry/violence/sn87a.html
>>>>>
>>>>> and then the light show began 3 hours later, approximately.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, that event would indicate neutrinos travel FTL, wouldn't it?
>>>
>>> I don't have enough information to state either way at this point.
>>> A more logical (or consistent with SR; take your pick) conclusion
>>> is that the event generating neutrinos, whatever it is, predates
>>> the actual collapse/expansion by about 3 hours.
>>
>>
>> Logic is where SR breaks down completely, and so does your argument
>
> Yes, of course. Supernovae do not disprove c' = c+v, and
> the observations thereof merely show strong evidence that
> all light rays have source-invariant speed.
>
> (And I have bridges for sale.)

I'm not buying one from someone that thinks an explosion lasts
for weeks.

>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> At this point I'll have to refer you to the particle physicists.
>>> I do know that the Si => Fe fusion event takes at most 1 day.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The SR explanation is relatively simple, even accounting for the
>>>>> neutrinos having a small amount of mass. The star in its
>>>>> final death throes collapses, then in one gigantic energy burst
>>>>> the neutrinos come flying out as it explodes "on the rebound",
>>>>> along with a lot of other crap (the above does not mention
>>>>> gamma rays but I wonder). The light show, of course, is from
>>>>> the very hot gases of the explosion.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, how do these observations reconcile with the ballistic light
>>>>> theory?
>>>>> Bear in mind the gasses are moving at 1/190 c, if Crab Nebula
>>>>> estimates
>>>>> are correct (but even if they're not they're not that far off,
>>>>> presumably).
>>>>> The leading edge of the explosion would therefore come well ahead
>>>>> of
>>>>> the neutrino burst.
>>>>
>>>> You do a lot of guessing, don't you?
>>>> The velocity of the neutrinos is also added to the velocity of
>>>> their
>>>> source.
>>>
>>> Which means we'd be treated to a steady shower of them as well,
>>> in the c' = c+v world. Funny thing, though; nobody's noticed such a
>>> steady shower. We got a single burst of 19; that's it.
>>>
>> How on earth do you come to that conclusion?
>>
>
> I'm assuing neutrinos have a similar speed distribution to
> light quanta. It is admittedly possible that they do not.

Good at assuming, aren't you? You also assume that a
neutrino has a 3 hour head start on the light and I'm gullible enough
to believe it. Guess what? I've got a bridge for sale. Interested?
Pay now and I'll deliver to your doorstep in three hours.

>
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> As for lightspeed being "precisely c", I cannot show this; I can
>>>>> only show with these supernova that the lightspeed is
>>>>> approximately
>>>>> c, and very constant whatever its speed actually is. Since
>>>>> the theoretic discrepancy between SR and the ballistic theory is
>>>>> so great an approximate result seems good enough for now.
>>>>
>>>> In other words you are claiming that the velocity of the neutrino
>>>> is
>>>> less that c but they win the race, therefore they had at least a
>>>> three
>>>> hour head start on the light.
>>>> Next time we decide to explode a thermonuclear device at the top
>>>> of a tower, there should be a three hour warning of neutrino
>>>> emission
>>>> before the main event.
>>>> To be honest with you, I think you are one teat short of an udder.
>>>
>>> If you wish FTL travel of neutrinos, fine. I think other
>>> experiments
>>> don't fit that data, although there is the "ohmygod" particle that
>>> ran through our detectors at one point, with a phenomenal (for a
>>> particle) amount of energy.
>>>
>>> However, I don't know if anyone was able to measure its actual
>>> speed.
>>> It's clear, however, that Galilean physics predicts that we can
>>> accelerate a phenomenal number of protons with little more than
>>> a flashlight battery's worth of energy. We should be doing so
>>> routinely by now -- and we're not.
>>
>> So you really do think that we get a 3 hour warning of a neutrino
>> burst if we are going to explode a bomb. What happens if we get the
>> neutrino burst and then decide not to do it?
>> Androcles.
>
> The bomb in this case is a large ball of silicon -- the remnants of a
> star.
> Since we can't even contemplate manufacturing one you probably needn't
> worry overmuch. :-)
>
Get yourself a detector, and when your fridge starts emitting neutrinos
leave and come back three hours later. It will have turned to gold,
alchemist.
Androcles

> [rest snipped]
>
> --
> #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
> It's still legal to go .sigless.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Paradox of Zeno
    ... > In sci.math, Androcles ... >> You are really good at manufacturing fake evidence, ... > How does one reconcile this with gas speeds of 1/190 c ... neutrino has a 3 hour head start on the light and I'm gullible enough ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: The Paradox of Zeno
    ... > In sci.math, Androcles ... >> You are really good at manufacturing fake evidence, ... > How does one reconcile this with gas speeds of 1/190 c ... neutrino has a 3 hour head start on the light and I'm gullible enough ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Wielding Ockhams Razor
    ... This is primarily for Androcles, ... | neutrino bursts are now routinely used as additional observations ... Einstein's relativity requires one too many contortions. ... I did say it was a dumb question. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Why Dont Einsteinians Search for their Aether?
    ... that the MAXIMUM relative discrepancy between neutrino speed and ... about anything, at root level, then my ideas are as good as ... speeds at which they were emitted from SN1987A were the same to ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The Paradox of Zeno
    ... > In sci.math, Androcles ... >> Here's a supernova (several images). ... > supernova is exactly 7,000 light-years distant. ... > There's also the little problem of the neutrino precursor. ...
    (sci.physics)