Re: What before big bang?
From: Bjoern Feuerbacher (feuerbac_at_thphys.uni-heidelberg.de)
Date: 09/02/04
- Next message: Henri Wilson: "Re: SR's velocity addition -- ANY Experimental Evidence?"
- Previous message: The TimeLord: "Relativity Problem (?)"
- In reply to: truegridtz: "Re: What before big bang?"
- Next in thread: robert j. kolker: "Re: What before big bang?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 10:17:21 +0200
truegridtz wrote:
> You said pertaining to "c": "You might try being more precise. Constant
> with respect to what? Do you know the answer to that question?"
>
>
> "c" is constant no matter what the velocity of the observer.
Right.
> The space-time alterations due to velocity are all automatically adjusted so
> that "c" is perceived to be the same.
"space-time alterations" is a strange way to express this, but
essentially this is right.
> You also said: " Please present that evidence. For starters, you could
> explain how electrons can be EMR."
>
> I am not saying that they are. I am saying that they could be.
*sigh* Don't play word games.
Please explain how electrons *could be* EMR.
> I don't know what the actual waveform would be.
What do you mean by "waveform"?
> I see considerable evidence that
> most everything in the atomic world is EMR.
What is this evidence?
> What happens when light travels in a circle?
How should that happen?
> It would continually
> accelerate toward the center wouldn't it?
Yes. But where should the force needed for that come from?
> IOW there would be a factor
> involved that is not seen in rectilinear motion.
>
> My position is that science is closed minded.
Have you ever read a scientific journal? Have you ever looked at the
proposals science makes to explain the natural world?
My position is that crackpots are close minded. They wish to return
to a Newtonian, mechanistic world view, and can't accept that this
is not possible.
> Piling up evidence is not
> going to lead to a useful application of present knowledge.
The point of science is not to find applications of knowledge. That
would be the point of engineering.
> Sooner or later the nature of gravity will be discovered.
Why do you think that General Relativity does not describe the nature
of gravity?
> I have little doubt that whoever first generates the gravitational field
> will do it with a specific EM waveform. I cannot prove this.
Well, then why do you have little doubt about that?
> Whoever does
> this will not arrive at the understanding by piling up more quarks and
> other such evidence.
How do you know?
> Relativity is a continuously adjustable multi-dimensional feedback system.
Huh? What is "adjustable" in relativity?
> Evidence concerning this universal system keeps piling up through the years,
> but there seems to be little effort to see what it all leads to.
> It is obvious to me that it points to EMR as being the prevailing component,
> if not the only one.
Would you please explain what evidence points to this?
> Virtually everything has electromagnetic qualities.
Neutrinos haven't.
OTOH, *everything* has "gravitational" factors - everything reacts to
gravitational forces.
> EM is the common
> factor. It seems logical to look at the nature of gravity through EM.
According to my argument above, we should look at the nature of EM
through gravity.
Hint: people tried this for decades (in both ways). It simply does not work.
> I don't see why you, and probably most, think that laboratory evidence is
> all that matters. Sure, science is based on fact (or what is perceived to
> be fact), but there is also the important element of interpreting the
> evidence and theorizing about what it could mean.
Did I ever dispute that?
> AE taught us that things aren't always as they appear. Newtonian mechanics
> was not the whole story. This lesson should not be forgotten.
And it isn't. Why do you think it is?
> IOW, don't be so quick to assume that what we perceive is what is really
> there.
I don't. Why do you think I do?
> These manifestations that appear in laboratories could easily be
> something far different than what they appear to be.
If you have another theory which explains the evidence as well as the
ones we have, feel free to provide it. OTOH, if you only have "there
could be something wrong with our theories, I feel intuitively that
they can't be right", then you are not doing science.
> When the Hubble went into operation it was stated that 70% of all that we
> believed about the universe was proved to be false.
Quote, please.
> I don't know what else to say. I can see where you are situated (to a
> certain extent), but I don't see why you are so committed to remaining
> there.
I doubt that you can see where I am situated. For starters, some of the
thoughts you ascribe to me above and below are totally false.
> I don't mean to be rude, but judging from your reactions, I would say you
> know very little about relativity.
ROTFL!!!
As you show shortly below (rest mass), you yourself know only very
little about relativity.
> Much of what I said was basic theory.
> You don't seem to recognize it.
Err, maybe, just maybe, the fault may lie on *your* side? You have a
*very* strange way to phrase relativity. And you have several
misunderstandings about it.
> Perhaps you are so involved with current laboratory evidence that you can't
> see it.
Hint: I work in theoretical physics, not in laboratory science. And I
have even *taught* relativity so some people already.
> You said: " What properties of matter does light have? For starters, it has
> neither rest mass nor charge."
>
>
> E=MCsquared: The energy of a photon is its mass times C. Rest mass of
> light?
*sigh* And *you* want to lecture *me* on relativity? You don't even know
what "rest mass" means!!! Try reading this:
<http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/SR/light_mass.html>
Light has no rest mass. If you don't understand or accept this, you
don't understand relativity, plain and simple.
And I notice that you ignored my argument above that light has no charge.
> You don't understand the redshift?
Huh? What makes you think so? I understand it perfectly. Much better
than you, Mr. "redshift is due to the gravitational effect upon the
propagation medium, the ether".
> You don't understand that the light
> changes direction when in the vicinity of a large mass?
Again, why on earth do you think so? I understand that perfectly well.
> These effects are attributed to the properties of free space.
These effects are attributed to the properties of space *curved* by the
presence of a mass in the vicinity.
> This is what amazes me. Relativity theory is used as a computation tool,
> but the actual understanding of it seems to be relegated and ignored.
Why do you think so?
> It is a partial explaination of how material reality operates.
>
> You said :
>
> "Fields in a transformer are not radiation."
>
> Yes they are.
No, they aren't. Thanks for demonstrating yet again that you don't know
what you are talking about.
> The propagation velocity of any electromagnetic field is "c".
Fields don't propagate. Only waves propagate. Thanks for demonstrating
yet again that you don't know what you are talking about.
> I don't mean to be rude, you haven't been rude to me. I suppose we are in
> two different worlds and yours is the most common one.
Yours is the one of the people who don't understand physics. Yes, that is
rude, but from your comments above, it is a simple fact that you don't
understand physics.
> I welcome any replies you may have, but I don't know how to answer them.
> There is obviously a very wide communication gap. Many of your questions
> make sense. Many of my statements are basically out of order on a
> scientific basis.
For starters, you could explain why you think that EMR is the basis
for everything, and how an electron could consist of EMR.
> For example: "> So it assembles in basic packages, call them quantum.
>
>>How does EMR "assemble" in packages?"
>
>
> With very poor context I was trying to say that the means whereby particles
> come into existence could be a purely EM event.
What is an "EM event"?
And what about neutrinos? They have no electric or magnetic properties,
so how do they come into existence?
> My basic perspective is
> that little effort is put forth in physics to understand more about EM
> propagation.
Why do you think there is anything left to understand there?
> I'm sorry, I don't have the words.........physics is stuck in
> the mud in a certain way.
Why do you think so?
> Since there is insufficient focus on the EM evidence
What evidence is that?
> there is consequently
> little or no effort to explore the possibility that what is perceived to one
> thing is really something else: The possibility that what is perceived as
> particles is really a form of EM.
Say, do you think that everytime someone who knows little science makes
a proposal how the world could be, scientists have to jump and examine
this idea at once?
If you have *evidence* for the idea that particles are a form of EMR
(other than your vague argument that essentially everything "seems to
have electromagnetic qualities", which is wrong anyway), feel free to
provide it.
> There is overwhelming (as I see it) evidence that the relativistic effects
> (I am at a loss of words)
That is a nice sign that your ideas are rather callow.
> of reality are causing, perpetuating, and
> accommodating EM waveforms that have yet to be identified.
What evidence is this?
> Nobody seems to
> entertain the possibility that much of what is detected is explainable
> with (as yet unknown) knowledge about EMR..
Because there is no evidence at all that there *is* any unknown
knowledge about EMR.
The theory we have today for describing electromagnetic phenomena
(Quantum Electrodynamics) is able to make predictions which agree with
the experimental tests up to an accuracy of twelve (!!!) significant
digits. How could that be if there is any significant "unknown
knowledge" about EMR?
> I strongly suspect that the answer lays hidden within the relationships of
> the Theory of Relativity. I wouldn't be surprised if the answer was hidden
> in plain view.
>
> The one thing that most students in enginerring and physics don't understand
> is the basic theoretical relationships upon which things are based. They
> work the equations and get the answers, but they never really understand
> what the equations really mean.
So you think that *you* know better what the equations really mean than
all those hundreds of thousands of students? You might try to look up
the terms "arrogance" and "overestimation of one's own capabilities".
You also might try reading this:
<http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html>
[snip]
Bye,
Bjoern
- Next message: Henri Wilson: "Re: SR's velocity addition -- ANY Experimental Evidence?"
- Previous message: The TimeLord: "Relativity Problem (?)"
- In reply to: truegridtz: "Re: What before big bang?"
- Next in thread: robert j. kolker: "Re: What before big bang?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
