Re: The Barnes & Noble Effect

On Jul 26, 5:20 am, Hayek <haye...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
On Jul 26, 3:41 am, Hayek <haye...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
On Jul 25, 4:35 pm, Hayek <haye...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
PD wrote:
Over time, several people have wondered why it is that relativity
draws more cranks than, say, quantum theory. Why isn't there a
sci.physics.quantum full of cranks attempting to show that Heisenberg
 was a nincompoop, a plagiarist, or a charlatan?
Einstein would have been a frequent poster there.
Why? Do you regard the majority of the population here as folks with
bachelors and doctorates in physics?
No, but at least bachelors and doctorates who know the difference
between "here" and "there". "There" in this context refering to
"sci.physics.quantum", and as you maybe know, Einstein doubted the
probabilities and non-locality from QM. Some even claim that Eintein has
said "God does not play dice".

On the other hand, Einstein helped with the fundamental development of
QM in addition to creating some very interesting tests that QM managed
to pass.

Yes, but it was not Einstein's intention. He hoped that QM would fail EPR..

The intentions are irrelevant. Though to my knowledge Einstein did not
contribute directly to the _theory_ of QM past his work on the
photoelectric effect, he made incredible bounds in making it
_accepted_ and _testable_. EPR is one example, photoelectric effect is
another, and a lesser known one is showing how quantum mechanics
applied to solids can [more] properly account for the measured heat
capacities of solids.

The cranks in this newsgroup are nowhere near Einstein's level.


Then you look at the newsgroups....name one meaningful advance brought
from the sci.physics.* hierarchy from a person who wasn't already
educated in the field. All I see is a population dominated by losers
and failures who have been spouting nonsense and bull*** for 10+
years.

Beware of doctorates : in Belgium, the secretary of the exchequer, Freya
  Van Den Bossche, doctorate holder of some liberal social
specialisation,  could not answer to the question when asked what the
square root of 25 was.

That's why I said PHYSICS, not liberal arts nonsense / hippie
bull*** / underwater basketweaving.

Just to give you a general idea of the inflation academics is undergoing.

I remember a discussion with a guy just doctoring in Physics, I was
invited at the University of Brussels, because of some internet
discussion. I t seemed that they just had discovered mach's principle
and its importance for and in GR. So we discuss some thought experiment
and we increase the mass of the universe, at that point he answers,
"then inertia should decrease". He was about to get his doctorate in
PHYSICS. But at least, he knew a little bit of the direction I was
pointing at.

If you increase the mass of the universe...inertia should...decrease?
Yea that makes no sense.

How about an operational definition of inertia? I'm assuming inertial
mass, which gets linked to gravitational mass through the equivalence
principle.

[...]

How can GR NOT be about gravitation when that's all it explains?
You ever heard about the equivalence principle and the
Eötvös experiment ?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E%C3%B6tv%C3%B6s_experiment

....which states that acceleration and gravitation are locally
indistinguishable effects. Try again.

And acceleration is ruled by inertia.
You try again.

Except the mass - thus inertia - of a particle has no relation to the
rest of the universe. The universe could be vacuum or a lattice of
black holes - the mass of a particle isn't going to change just
because there is more 'stuff' out there. The only thing the universe
controls is the /acceleration/, but that isn't the point of Mach's
principle.




How can a clock be an "inertiameter" when what a clock measures is
independent of the mass - or inertia, if you prefer - of the clock?
What you are saying is equivalent to saying that the apple falls from
the tree because the apple has inherent gravity.

The apple falls from the tree because of the planet surrounding it.
The mass of the apple is irrelevant - equivalence principle, remember?

I knew that. The problem is that it is the same for the apple's inertia.
But there it is a little bit more difficult : the apple's inertia stems
from the surrounding masses in the Universe. Or do you want to quit
believing in GR now ?

Inertia is _resistance_ to acceleration. Explain how what you just
said makes any sense in that context.


You might not now it, but you are constantly proving my point.

The equivalence principle, mach's principle, and Newtons Bucket, all
show that inertia is not an inherent property of mass, but is caused by
an external field. How does water know that it should rise against the
wall of the bucket when the bucket rotates ? If inertia is a property of
mass, why does'nt it always creep up the wall of the bucket ?
Stop calculating, and learning silly calculating rules by heart and see
if you can solve, or think about this really weird phenomenon. The water
in the bucket "knows" the position of the stars.

The water doesn't know - it travels along a geodesic until the bucket
gets in the way. It doesn't creep up the sides of the bucket because
the bucket is in the way and making the water rotate. Centrifugal
force holds it in place - an artifact from the fact the bucket is
rotating.

You learned your lesson by heart. And what creates the gesodesic ? The
masses of the universe.

Except that isn't inertia! Inertia is _resistance to acceleration_,
not the acceleration itself. Plus a geodesic is the path the particle
would take were it traveling freely, so the only "source" of inertia
in that case would be the matter itself and the bucket.

This is in no way Mach's principle.


You need nothing more than a universe with just the bucket, water, and
something to swing it. No "external field" crap, nothing.

It is the same field as gravitation, but without gradient, it is the
onyly content of flat space. Is there inertia in flat spacetime ?

This is why I think you don't know anything about general relativity.
You think in terms of Newtonian gravitation where the field is the
gradient of the potential. There is no gradient in general relativity
- no scalar, no gradient. Just tensor equations.

Well, how did it get there, and what does it do to clocks ?

Nothing. Time dilation is independent of clock composition.

That it makes no difference locally, I fully understand, but it is STILL
THERE. Suppose you double the field strength in that region of flat
spacetime, by doubling the masses of the surrounding universe, what
would a clock do ?

Nothing. There is no gravitation in flat spacetime.

Exactly run twice as slow ! THAT IS WHY I claim that
a clock is just an inertiameter.

Sure - _gravitational_ time dilation is a function of the mass of the
body. It, however, is not linear with respect to mass.

Your usage of "inertiameter" is inconsistent with the way inertia is
actually defined. Call it something else - but not inertia.




So

How can you make such broad claims about what GR is 'really about'
despite having no literature references or education in the subject?
Huh ?
Some 8 years ago, I scanned these pages of "Gravitation", exactly
because I constantly had these discussion with "learn by heart" idiots :http://www.xs4all.nl/~notime/inert/gravp543.html
It comes from this book :http://www.amazon.com/Gravitation-Physics-Charles-W-Misner/dp/0716703...

Yea - I have that book and I have read that before. GR, regardless, is
not about inertia.

Well, they must have added these pages for nothing. And early in the
book there is ample reference to Lorands eotvos's experiment.

Its' called "context". A thousand page book has room to explain how
the theory was developed.


The best you can claim is that the metric
corresponds to this "external field" since the metric is determined by
the matter content of the entire universe.

You know the facts, now draw the conclusion.

The pages I scanned are the basis of the Stanford experiment, now running :

http://einstein.stanford.edu

You are greeaaatly confused if you think the Lense-Thirring effect is
in any way related to Mach's principle.

Lense Thirring is not the only effect Gravity Probe B was intended to
measure. To establish teh effects Frame dragging was the main intention.

Sure - geodetic precession was the other effect.

The universe is just a bigger version of this frame dragging : it is THE
preferential frame. It seems to you that you are utterly clueless.

You are recasting "inertia" for a bunch of other roles that it has no
business playing. Looks like I found another aspergers sufferer.

[snip rest, interest lost]

.

Quantcast