“If man is to survive, he will have learned to take a delight in the essential differences between men and between cultures. He will learn that differences in ideas and attitudes are a delight, part of life's exciting variety, not something to fear.” ―Gene Roddenberry
Well, it happened, everyone! I flew out to the official Star Trek convention in Las Vegas, and the people I met there and the events and panels I attended (and participated in) were largely fabulous! Best of all, I got to line up a number of future podcasts about science, Star Trek, and everything in between, so stay tuned in the coming weeks and months for more. In fact, there's a new one up already: the Trolling With Logic podcast!
- Does Light Always Move At The Same Speed? (for Ask Ethan),
- Universe’s Largest Black Hole May Have An Explanation At Last (for Mostly Mute Monday),
- Maryam Mirzakhani, A Candle Illuminating The Dark (by Paul Halpern, about an amazing life),
- How to catch the Perseids and beat the almost-full Moon,
- Ripples In Spacetime: From Einstein To LIGO And Beyond, and
- America's Previous Coast-To-Coast Eclipse Almost Proved Einstein Right.
There were a lot of old topics that you kept bringing up, but if that's what you've been interested in, who am I to say no to more science of whatever flavor you're into? Let's continue the discussion right now -- and kudos to those of you who caught my one mistake this week -- on this edition of our comments of the week!
Correctly calibrated satellite data, as well as the more recent temperature data up through 2016, shows that climate predictions and observations are perfectly in line with one another. Image credit: HadCRUT4.5, Cowtan & Way, NASA GISTEMP, NOAA GlobalTemp, BEST, via Ed Hawkins at Climate Lab Book.
From Denier on climate science, and specifically models vs. predictions: "If you feel the need to shout me down so that you can use your platform to present the approved “full suite of evidence” and leave out “misleading, not to be included in the full suite because they muddy the facts” science such as Santer(2017), NOAA data that shows falling relative humidity, etc., just let me know."
No one is shouting you down. Don't confuse "shouting you down" with "ignoring the non-relevant parts of your argument," which is, as you know as you make it, most of your argument. I have repeatedly said:
- The climate models are flawed and do have systematic errors, but they are not as fundamentally flawed, quantitatively, as sites like Heartland claim.
- The climate models, even with their flaws, do a much better job than "overestimating the actual warming in 95%+ of the models," as Heartland claimed.
- The main thrust of the climate science story remains unchanged from the standard narrative, which is:
- The Earth is warming,
- Humans are the primary cause,
- It is bad,
- And we can do something about it if we try,
- Your red herrings of Santer et al. (2017) and the falling humidity from the NOAA data represent small corrections and, in the Santer (2017) case, improvements to climate modeling and measuring, and do not change the story.
Economic studies are not part of the climate science studies. As, again, I have repeatedly said, the full suite of scientific evidence in climate science is what you must consider before considering economic and societal impacts. Then, the full suite of all impacts -- although this is now a matter of my opinion -- is what should be considered before making policy. What we have instead, as the status quo, is policy makers making policy based on ideology that does not accept the full suite of scientific evidence in climate science. You yourself, like many others here, do not do that, and still refer to outdated and incorrectly calibrated UAH data when you make arguments, and do so unapologetically.
Yes, I do see you deliberately muddying the waters, because I believe your intent is to support the conclusion of "allow unregulated and untaxed emissions to continue" regardless of what the quantitative impacts are. If that is not your intent, you should demonstrate something different than what you've demonstrated so far, because I don't believe you have any interest in the scientific truth in this matter. You have made no convincing arguments toward that end. But you cannot argue your way to a different conclusion than what the evidence presents. That might work in many arenas of life -- and it may even work to fool the majority of the public -- but it doesn't change the scientific facts.
The interplay between the atmosphere, clouds, moisture, land processes and the ocean all governs the evolution of Earth's equilibrium temperature. Image credit: Smithsonian Air and Space Museum.
From John on how to make a difference: "[quoting me]“So maybe I need to take a different line of argument if I want to make a difference.”
In what way(s) do you thing you can make a difference other than by providing the best Science Explanations you can?"
I think that's the biggest difference-maker I can do, and I anticipate continuing to do so. But perhaps I need to address the falsehoods in a different regard. If I allow it to be presented as a "some scientists say this thing, but others say that thing," it gives the impression of a false legitimacy to the opinions of a few fringe scientists, and undercuts the overwhelming evidence in favor of the consensus conclusion.
I don't write about variable speed-of-light cosmology, even though there are legitimate (fringe) scientists working on it. I don't write about spatially anisotropic variations in the fine-structure constant, even though John Webb's research is intriguing, if not necessarily compelling. I don't write about the ekpyrotic Universe alternative to inflation, even though a small number of high-profile cosmologists support it. Why should I grant that legitimacy to those who claim that:
- The Earth isn't warming, or
- Humans aren't the cause, or
- Even if it happens, it will be a good thing?
That is how I'm considering making a difference: by putting good science out there without providing any undeserved legitimacy to the fringe alternatives. I am not 100% sure how to execute that, but that's what I'm thinking about.
An illustration of gravitational lensing showcases how background galaxies — or any light path — is distorted by the presence of an intervening mass, such as a foreground galaxy cluster. Image credit: NASA / ESA.
From CFT on (suddenly?) denying general relativity: "How many masses can you put into the same space time matrix? And have them, you know, interact?"
An arbitrary number. Really. Just because you cannot write down a solution to the Einstein equations, analytically, with an arbitrary number of masses, does not mean you cannot do relativity with them. You can't solve the Navier-Stokes equations analytically either, except in some very simple cases, but you don't deny fluid dynamics. We can solve arbitrarily difficult problems to arbitrary precision, numerically, and that is in fact how we do it. This is how we solve all classes of problems in all sorts of robust fields -- perturbatively -- like quantum field theory. Do not conflate "I don't have an exact, analytical solution" which, practically, we do not (usually) do, with "this theory is useless," which it most assuredly is not.
How do you think we calculate black hole inspirals, mergers, binary pulsar decay rates, ultramassive black hole precession, and more? Numerical relativity. And when we do the observations, the agreement is remarkable.
The event horizon of a black hole is a spherical or spheroidal region from which nothing, not even light, can escape. But outside the event horizon, anything that isn't yet inside has, with the right energy inputs, a chance to get out. Image credit: NASA; Jörn Wilms (Tübingen) et al.; ESA.
From Adam on answering his question about falling into a black hole with a tether: "Thank you for your patience Ethan! My own physics education was undergrad only and multiple decades ago at that. Questions above our level were usually rebuffed, so thanks again!"
Adam, as you can see, I don't get a whole lot of appreciation on this blog. But I do very much know that the majority of people who read what I put out there are interested, curious, and supportive of what I'm doing. I know the appreciation is out there, but I truly appreciate hearing it. That this encouraging comment was left just prior to my birthday was a big deal to me, so as I celebrate the start of my 40th trip around the Sun, I want to thank you for this. In other words, you're more than welcome.
From Frank on changing the orbit of another world by adding a second world into the mix: "I admit I didn’t realize total mass in the asteroid belt was so small. But still there maybe a solution by stealing some moons of Jupiter etc (assuming we could have the energy/tech in distant future)."
I mean, you could, but what is the advantage? What you're talking about is changing the orbit of a large mass, imparting energy to it, causing it to fly-by another large mass, and thereby to change that mass's orbit. Sure, you can do that. But the energy cost to unbind, say, Callisto from Jupiter, send it towards Mars, and have it change Mars' orbit to migrate wherever you want to have it migrate to, is no less than the energy cost to simply change Mars' orbit without the middle-man. It's a possible solution, but what is the advantage? I don't see it.
Humans can routinely view the Earth from outer space, orbiting our world once every 90 minutes. The imprint of the human impact on our world, particularly at night, is easily visible. Image credit: NASA / International Space Station.
From Michael Mooney on changing the rotation of Earth: "Do you believe that an observer traveling at high speed can affect the spin and orbit of Planet Earth?"
This was an interesting question for two reasons to me, even though it occurred way down in a thread that largely wasn't interesting to me. The first reason I found it interesting is because it gives a great opportunity to talk about the difference between an object moving with a constant velocity or angular velocity, and an object with a changing velocity or angular velocity. If you are an observer who was at rest and accelerates to a large velocity/angular velocity, you do change the motion/rotation of the Earth. This is true in relativity... but it's also true via Newton's laws. That's the "equal and opposite reaction" imparted by your change in momentum (or angular momentum).
But the other reason I found it interesting is because you asked "do you believe" to someone. Why would you ever ask that question in physics? Do you believe that 0 + 5 = 05? Do you believe that 7 + 5 = 75? Do you believe that Plymouth rock weighs 10^22 kilograms? I assert that beliefs, when concerning questions that have demonstrable, definitive answers, aren't "right or wrong" as much as silly and useless. It's a free world (mostly), so believe what you want. But don't expect anyone to take seriously the substitute of a belief for actual, existing knowledge. I think that goes for everyone.
From MobiusKlein on the topic of Pentcho Valev: "Pentcho Valev, you are not contributing anything to the comments except walls of text.
Ethan, please ask Pentcho Valev to stop too."
No. I won't ask him to stop. This week, in my estimation, has been too much. particularly his ongoing cut-and-paste hack jobs. His presence has degraded the quality of the comment section of this blog, and has no positives to offset that. As of this moment, he is now banned.
The first pendulum clock, as designed by Christiaan Huygens, provided the first accurate measurement of time for humans that didn't rely on astronomical phenomena. Atomic clocks can now achieve precisions better than ~10^-15 seconds per day.
From Naked Bunny with a Whip on absolute time: "Even the most rudimentary study would tell you that Special Relativity overthrew the assumption of time as a constant."
One of the really fun, relatively early direct tests of relativity -- both special and general, together -- is told in Govert Schilling's book, Ripples in Spacetime. Imagine you had an atomic clock on the ground, and an identical, synchronized (initially) atomic clock that you took with you, wherever you went. And you took a journey, up in an airplane, at a specific speed and a specific altitude, moving with the rotation of the Earth. Then, you did the same exact experiment, except this time, you moved in the airplane at the same speed and altitude, except this time you moved against the rotation of the Earth.
How many times would the clock on the ground, the clock in the counterclockwise-moving (with the Earth) airplane, and the clockwise-moving (against the Earth) airplane "tick" away during those respective journeys? If you want to get the answer that agrees with the experiment, you need to include everything: the motion (and direction) of the airplane, the rotation (including direction) of the Earth, and the effects of the gravitational field/potential at every location along each clock's journey. The idea that time could be a constant between all three observers was directly disproved as soon as we were able to measure to the necessary accuracies. But the notion that relativity provided the right answer is far more powerful, because it tells you how time actually works!
My original caption, "An ultra-distant quasar showing plenty of evidence for a supermassive black hole at its center. How that black hole got so massive so quickly is a topic of contentious scientific debate, but may have an answer that fits within our standard theories." may be flawed. Image credit: X-ray: NASA/CXC/Univ of Michigan/R.C.Reis et al; Optical: NASA/STScI.
From Michael Richmond on the quasar shown in the above picture: "The first image on this page has the caption “An ultra-distant quasar showing plenty of evidence for a supermassive black hole at its center. ” The picture is an HST image of the quadruple gravitational lens RX J1131-1231, in which the foreground lens is at redshift z=0.295 and the background quasar at z=0.658. Those redshifts indicate that the objects are very distant from the Sun, certainly, but “ultra-distant” seems a strange term to use; astronomers have catalogued thousands of quasars at redshifts larger than z=1, some up to z=6."
You know, this is an extremely good catch. I came across this image in the wild, where it was described as a quasar at a distance of 12.4 billion light years away, where distances were (incorrectly) equated to lookback times, a lazy convention that many scientists and science writers still (unfortunately) use. Since the lazy convention gave almost the same lookback time as the z=3.3 quasar I discussed, I thought I would use it as a proxy for the one I wished there was an optical picture of: S5 0014+81. (Alas, I can still find none.)
But it is not at a distance of 12.4 billion light years, but much closer than that. You have identified it correctly, and I owe myself admonishment for leading you astray with the use of an image that does not reflect what I was attempting to illustrate. Thank you for keeping me honest.
Two neutron stars colliding, which is the primary source of many of the heaviest periodic table elements in the Universe. About 3-5% of the mass gets expelled in such a collision; the rest becomes a single black hole. Image credit: Dana Berry, SkyWorks Digital, Inc..
From Graham dickin on making truly ultra-massive elements: "When the big bang happened we had hydrogen and helium plus a small amount of others the amazed over time and created an environment to produce the atomic table .What if this is still being produced in the centre of black holes .That in there the atomic number 1000 exists or even 1 million or one billion ."
So, you want to make an ultra-massive element, do you? Unfortunately, black holes aren't going to be the way to do it. Unless, that is, you mean the by-products of forming a black hole in a very specific fashion. When you collide two neutron stars, you're basically colliding two giant atomic nuclei, each with about 10^30 (okay, "a few" 10^30) neutrons in that nucleus. So, you start out a nucleus with about 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 nucleons inside, but since they're all neutrons, it's not really interesting with respect to the periodic table.
When these neutron stars collide, however, about 3% of the total mass flies off outwards, while the other 97% collapses into a black hole. But of those 3%, you get "chunks" that fill out the very high ends of the periodic table, producing the majority of gold, platinum, palladium, uranium, plutonium, and other very-heavy elements in the Universe... but they also produce elements that most likely have not yet been discovered, containing perhaps hundreds or thousands of protons, or even more. If we could smash two neutron stars together and examine the debris up close, we'd be able to find these ultra-heavy elements for ourselves, even for the tiniest of timescales.
A room where the walls, even if completely covered with mirrors, would never have every location illuminated, was a mathematically interesting conjecture that was only solved recently. Image credit: Mathematical Sciences Research Institute (MSRI) / Numberphile / Brady Haran / Howard Masur.
From Denier on Maryam Mirzakhani's contributions: "The Illuminated Room problem was solved by Roger Penrose over 20 years before Mirzakhani was born using curved mirrors. It was solved by George Tokarsky in 1995 using the 26-sided room in the image you’ve got in the center of your article. His solution had NOTHING to do with Mirzakhani. A more elegant solution was authored by David Castro in 1997 with a 24-sided room that again had nothing to do with anything Mirzakhani was working on as an undergrad in Iran at the time."
The work of Penrose, Tokarsky, and Castro is all as you say. But how does this detract from the contributions that Mirzakhani subsequently made to the Illuminated Room problem? Mathematicians don't say, "oh, that's a tough problem, but I found a solution, and now we're done." Nope. Mathematicians will math a problem until it can be mathed no more, until it has given up all of its secrets in every exhaustible fashion. Evolution didn't end with Darwin, and the Illuminated Room problem didn't end with Penrose, or Tokarsky, or Castro, or Mirzakhani. But that does not diminish the accomplishments of any of them, as dean rightly points out.
From Ragtag Media on the speed of darkness: "With each meteor falling, does the darkness collapse around the trail of each photon of light at the same speed of light or slower?"
Darkness, as we have gone over many times before (although not recently), does not have a speed, because it is not a physical "thing." Each photon moves at the speed of light; darkness is the absence of photons. Observers on Earth that are viewing the same meteor from different locations and orientations will see darkness propagate at different speeds, but it isn't a sensible thing to measure. You're welcome to nail down a better definition of what you're trying to measure than "darkness collapsing around the trail of each photon," but I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean.
For the first time in almost 40 years, the path of the moon's shadow passes through the continental United States. This visualization shows the Earth, moon, and sun at 17:05:40 UTC during the eclipse. Image credit: NASA's Scientific Visualization Studio.
And for the last comment this week, I'll give it to MobiusKlein, whose comment in response to Pentcho Valev's Friday article was as follows: "And nobody since 1919 has bothered to do this test during an eclipse, with better equipment? Or has Big Einstein silenced them all? Watch out, YOU may be the victim of BE’s reign of ERROR!"
I am glad that MobiusKlein's very sarcastic response was here. Science, just to be extremely clear, does not rely on one experiment to settle the matter, and then never perform the experiment again. No; we are constantly checking our results, gathering more data to improved precision, and looking for flaws in our predictions at the 10% level, then 1%, then 0.1%, then 0.01%, etc.
The story of scientific investigation is a story of ever-increasing precision and ever decreasing uncertainty, and one that I value and will keep telling, no matter what some (or many, or even most, sometimes) of the commenters here or elsewhere say. The scientific truth is too important, even if (and when) public opinion is against it. It's why I'm here, and it's what I've been doing -- somewhat successfully, mind you -- for over nine years now. In fact, when January rolls around, that will mark 10 years since the inception of Starts With A Bang. That we're all here, thinking about the Universe and how it all works, is something worth celebrating, even when it's difficult.
Thank you all for joining me, and looking forward to all the wonderful moments to come in the journey ahead!
Any object travels with a constant speed ,when strike with any obstacles, the object's velocity decrease. If you want to gain the same previous speed, then requires some force to gain the same speed, but in the case of light, why it not happens?
When light is enter in denser media it's velocity decreases,after the refraction how light have same speed as before refraction.
How light achieve a very high speed in a nano second.
Why is ground observation of total eclipses still so important when we have had manned and unmanned observation from orbit for decades?
"I don’t get a whole lot of appreciation on this blog."
You're doing a great great job a favor to all of us here, don't ever stop!! :)
Mathematicians will math a problem until it can be mathed no more, until it has given up all of its secrets in every exhaustible fashion.
More directly, a slightly simpler version may be attacked first, with interest as much on the process used to solve it as the solution. As restrictions on the problem statement are weakened work (often) goes to modifying what worked earlier in hopes on the more general problem.
Ethan it's such great way to explore the great depth and vast universe and realise that we just have this tiny itsy bitsy planet and we are sucking it dry, burning it, cutting it up a total abuse. Oh the shit has hit the roof. I don't want to paint a wall with just words adding nothing positive, though I hope the medium doesn't become more predominant factor and undermining the zest of media.
#ethan I have a list of 12 questions, I don't want to fill up the wall here. Send me an appropriate mode of communication for further communications.
@Tumul #6: Ethan has set up an entire page for this. Look at the very top here, on the right hand side. You'll see "Questions / Suggestions" which links to
Oh, yeah. I remember reading about the airplane experiment, probably in the first book I ever read about relativity back when I was a teenager in the 80s. (Unfortunately, I don't remember what the book was called; I only remember the first one that gave me an "ah-ha" moment, Bertrand Russell's ABC of Relativity.) Thanks for reminding me of it.
I actually laughed out loud when I saw someone suggest that physicists are going wrong because they assume that time is a constant. That's the sort of thing the freakin' back covers of lay books about relativity will tell you is wrong.
OK. So if you can't solve the GR equation with more than one mass, you merely say you 'can't solve the problem analytically', and then claim it's true anyway....and that would be because, oh yeah, there is no known solution to even TWO masses (much less more than two) in the same space time matrix. That's not a little thing to gloss over like a minor typo. You certainly have a way with bullshit terminology Ethan, much like a run of the mill trekkie, you can string meaningful words into meaningless 'scientificky' sentences while looking dead serious about it. Ever consider working for the fertilizer industry instead?
Atomic clocks can now achieve precisions better than ~10^-15 seconds per day.
Well, sure, but TAI is still different from UT1. I for one would prefer noon to still be determined by astronomical phenomena.
"So if you can’t solve the GR equation with more than one mass, you merely say you ‘can’t solve the problem analytically’, and then claim it’s true anyway"
So numerical solutions aren't solutions? Seriously?
Do you even know enough basic mathematics to realize that simply because a function doesn't have a basic anti-derivative it can still be integrable? How are these things fundamentally different in your mind?
"... That is how I’m considering making a difference: by putting good science out there without providing any undeserved legitimacy to the fringe alternatives."
Good. Continue to do so. The subjective portion is deciding what parts of Science are "fringe".
Ethan: "But the energy cost to unbind, say, Callisto from Jupiter, send it towards Mars, and have it change Mars’ orbit to migrate wherever you want to have it migrate to, is no less than the energy cost to simply change Mars’ orbit without the middle-man. It’s a possible solution, but what is the advantage?"
Because changing orbit of Mars (to bring it closer to Sun to warm its climate) is not the only goal. I think Mars has a very thin atmosphere because it does not have enough mass to keep a thick atmosphere; like Earth does because of having much more mass.
#1: "When light is enter in denser media it’s velocity decreases,after the refraction how light have same speed as before refraction. How light achieve a very high speed in a nano second."
Same thing happens with sound/earthquake waves. They change speed as they pass different density mediums (which is not impossible to explain).
For converting Mars similar to Earth, just adjusting its orbit and increasing its mass is not enough, of course. We would also need to capture comets (which keep entering inner solar system) and redirect them to collide with Mars, to create an ocean similar to Earth. (Of course it may take a very long time.) Then some of that water could be separated to oxygen and hydrogen. Hydrogen could be released to space. Then maybe we could also create an inert gas from rocks to finally have a thick oxygen rich atmosphere on Mars.
Wow, what a surprise: that the same person ("Denier") who thinks he knows better than the climate scientists who spend their careers thinking (much more deeply than he can) about the problems of measuring and modelling climate change, ALSO thinks that Maryam Mirzakhani’s contributions to mathematics can't possibly have been as important as claimed in the IMU's citation (left unsaid, but just as clear as if he had spelled it out: since she was only a girl, and from Iran, to boot.) It's so obvious to the outside world that a person like this holds intransigent beliefs that are shaped by their angry ideology, and not by facts--but apparently too difficut for the person himself to rise above it.
Also assuming someday we will have ability to steal moons from Jupiter to collide with Mars, we could choose a moon like Europa to provide both mass and water at the same time.
"How do you think we calculate black hole inspirals, mergers, binary pulsar decay rates, ultramassive black hole precession, and more? Numerical relativity. And when we do the observations, the agreement is remarkable."
Easy. You and others like you often make it up, Literally, like so many of the very colorful but fake CGI black hole pictures you keep publishing on your site, or like so much incredibly overhyped polarized BICEP2 dust, or fictitious black hole chirps of never observed black holes mathematical entities that you claim to know what they would even 'sound' like, which is utter hogwash, or monte carlo manufactured Higgs particles which don't apparently act like Higgs after all.
When you can use a computer to screw with your data until it fits whatever ridiculous speculation you can make, and then publish your altered data claiming it supports your manufactured 'discovery', anything is possible, including your numerical fantasies.
Damn, I thought you were using that Hurricane Elena image on top of the page to answer how 'Black Holes' at the center of large galaxies could be voids.
Just quit with the Alinsky style strawmen arguments, you aren't anywhere near rhetorically gifted enough to pull it off.
Some numerical solutions are useful, others are not, you well know that every equation does not produce meaningful solutions, often some or all are discarded (Just look at renormalization for cripes sake). .
Bluntly, I'm saying if you can't put more than one mass in your imaginary toy model, please do not tell me how much it explains about how mass interacts with ANYTHING in our universe, when it certainly doesn't interact with ANYTHING even in your toy model universe. Physics requires interaction, not magically viewed extradimensional static rubber sheets that don't do anything to anything for eternity...except get used to confuse people when you misuse them to describe our universe. You and Ethan actually have no idea of what would happen (mathematically) if two space times intersected or came together somehow...magically I suppose, since there is no known solution that is mathematically valid that could define such an interaction, just lots and lots of wishful thinking.
Ethan, you have the most well informed and basically totally awesome science blog on this planet. I read every article you post because you actually seem to understand the scientific method! (Which is rare). Keep up the good work.
ROOFL. You might be interested to know that we learned much from numerical relativity. Things that we simply don't get from just theory. i.e. that BH's after merger might slingshot because of linear momentum conservation. The rest of your post is just trolling without any comprehension of the actual state of affairs. Would be wise to study the matter that you're "supposedly" trying to show is wrong. At least put some strong arguments.
How do you know someone doesn't have any real support for their argument? They get called on it and are so out of their league they do something stupid. In this case it's CFT playing the favorite fake bogeyman alinskiy and toss accusations of oppression.
CFT, your comments are just the latest that demonstrate you don't have a clue what you're talking about. You know a bunch of words but not what they mean.
You are really saying "I don't care if all it works. If there isn't a way to see the result with pencil and paper it's wrong."
As always, your objections have no validity.
First, I want to say, that I do appreciate this blog, read it as much as I can, and I have been for close to 5 years. I rarely comment. however, since I'm an accountant, not a physicist. Honestly, the more technical discussions/arguments in the comments can be out of my depth. All that being said, you do a fantastic job of describing reality, as we (scientific community) have come to understand it, in a way laymen can understand.
Additionally, I hope some of your commenters don't get you down too much, specifically Denier, CFT and all the others that act similiar. I want you to keep this up for as long as you can, but they must make it difficult for you to want to as well sometimes.
Truly, I do not understand the type of people that can look at a suite of scientific data, then pull specific corner cases from that data and say 'all these hundreds of other analyses can't be right, because of this one.' I don't just see it in physics either. I see it in finance/economics, politics, history, and religious discussions. Why is it so hard to agree on what reality is?
^^^^^^^ Yes to all of this, Brian Grimm. Many thanks, better than I would have stated.
What's funny is that you can bet virtually all those that fall into that category do knowingly partake every day in the direct benefits of the very body of knowledge they insist so strenuously can't be correct.
"What’s funny is that you can bet virtually all those that fall into that category do knowingly partake every day in the direct benefits of the very body of knowledge they insist so strenuously can’t be correct."
cft, denier, mm, and others, have a little similarity with the folks in mathematics who don't consider existence proofs valid because they aren't "constructive".
The similarity is limited though, since the disagreement in the math world (and to some extent statistics: there are a few who don't like results in robustness for the same reason) doesn't extend to outlandish accusations of suppression or censorship, as the physics denialists seem to favor, but is simply a disagreement in methods.
Also, the mathematicians who object actually try to do the hard work, using valid methods, to address what they see as shortcomings. denier, cft, mm, and their ilk, don't have the means or interest in trying to fix what they see as flaws.
Please read Ethan's total avoidance, obfuscation and out -of-context, change-the-subject rant in his non-repy to my challenge: “Do you believe that an observer traveling at high speed can affect the spin and orbit of Planet Earth?”
The conversation was about "time dilation" and the variability of clocks as timekeepers, i.e., Do clocks measure variable time or do they just tick at different rates in different gravity fields and after acceleration to different speeds? Sean T. (if memory serves) said there is no standardized time, as clocks tick variably. I cited Earth's rotation and orbit, now precisely standardized as the day and year. He said that a high speed traveler will affect the spin and orbit of Earth, just like any other clock.
I pointed out how totally ridiculous that claim is.
But rather than addressing the issue at hand, look what Ethan took off on.
And he wants to bicker with my use of the phrase, "Do you believe...?
Ethan "believes" that the dimensions of physical objects (and distances between stars) depend on how they are observed, a "true believer" in SR yet in denial that it is a belief. (How about that flat Earth scenario?!)
I agree that real science is based on evidence, not on mere belief, like for instance that an observer's speed can change the spin of Earth... and shorten it's diameter.
I continue to ask for his disambiguation of the difference between apparent and physical length contraction... to no avail. Rather, he claims that if subatomic particles can be flattened in an accelerator, why not macro-objects like Earth and trains... as seen by ... whomever you care to ask at whatever relative velocity.
But, as demonstrated above, he thrives on praise and avoids science issues he is not "interested in." Sounds familiar these days, doesn't it?
mm, most people tired of spouting the same falsehoods and not only being told they are wrong by why they are wrong and what to read to improve their knowledge.
You seem to
a) never get tired of being wrong
b) never get tired of spouting new loads of crap
c) never care about improving your knowledge
Why is that?
So, you start out a nucleus with about 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 nucleons inside, but since they’re all neutrons, it’s not really interesting with respect to the periodic table...
That's not quite true. Unless that neutron star is in a *very* empty region of space, there will be a constant infallinng of particles. If the stuff falling in has protons (and it probably will), there will be some time required for those protons to be converted. In theory, we could calculate the "proton number" of a neutron star by knowing the rate of infalling protons and the rate at which beta + decay occurs after those protons hit the surface.
So neutron stars will have a Z > 0 for some fraction of each second that they're not in a pure vacuum. Though that fraction might be very small if the decay rate is much faster than the infall rate.
infalling of matter into it (just like th
Herer's an interesting news item about of reliable the data is from the signatories to Paris Climate Accord.
Not that these facts will change anyone's opinions, mind you. The commenters here seem to have stopped injesting new data, as doing so might compromise their conclusions.
A brief analysis of your psychological problem... Free!
"mm, most people tired of spouting the same falsehoods and not only being told they are wrong by why they are wrong and what to read to improve their knowledge."
You consider yourself a qualified judge of what is false and what is true. You elevate yourself as a teacher here to set me straight on orthodox relativity. (I'm really used to that kind of abuse, as is any critic of it.)
Please "improve my knowledge" as to how each observer creates his own individual version of the cosmos and all its contents.
Whatever happened to unbiased objectivity as the first rule of science? (Rhetorical... I know what happened.)
"You seem to
a) never get tired of being wrong"
You assume as above that I am wrong... as from omniscient knowledge.
"b) never get tired of spouting new loads of crap"
Simply another personal attack... not science
"c) never care about improving your knowledge"
Assuming my knowledge is misinformed, as with all critics of relativity. I've seen that crap for decades... that all its critics are simply ignorant and misinformed. "The flat Earth is equally valid, depending on the observer." No matter how many times one repeats the doctrine, it still isn't true!
Why is that?
Why is what?
Mm, your psychological evaluation is as worthless as your views on science. Why do I believe you are wrong?
A) The things you claim are.in perfect opposition to experimental results and collected data
B) People who are physicists point out your errors. You say they are wrong, without doing any of the hard work that would've needed to counter their argument. Your entire reason for objecting boils down to one thing (which is also true for denier and CFT): you don't understand the work, but you don't like it so you know it is wrong. That's the same gambit vaccine denialsits use, and it's just as stupid here as there.
Why is it you're viewed as a tiresome troll? Because that's what you are.
MM - "A brief analysis of your psychological problem… Free!"
By introducing a "psychological problem" claim towards another poster without reason and purely in an attempt to discredit, MM reveals his own. Keep digging that hole MM, keep on keeping on...
3x3=6 because multiplication is a falsehood!
Let's have an honest debate!
Listen up folks this is serious math criticism!
Answer my question, I have 3 apples in one hand and 3 in the other and this liar says that I will have 9 if I multiply them. Look, people there are only 6 apples in my hands!!!
We need to stop this spouting of falsehoods!
On to the next post, and the next post, and the next post … this is already going on for more than 18 weeks:
This joke is going on for far too long ?
@Sinisa Lazarek #22,
"You might be interested to know that we learned much from numerical relativity. Things that we simply don’t get from just theory. i.e. that BH’s after merger might slingshot because of linear momentum conservation."
Yeah, you've learned so much by diddling around with what amounts to aesthetic theoretical numerology that you think invalid mathematical operations are clever solutions to non existent problems. First, you don't actually have any merging black holes whatsoever, just lots of WAG speculation about stacked 'what ifs' and made up gravitational templates without any observational confirmation so far, and lots of blurry pictures that resemble pretty much everything ever looked at through a telescope from stars to quasars to nebulae and pulsars to Campbell's soup spiraling down a drain taken of things billions of light years away. Any day now I expect Ethan to post a picture of a toilet flushing with some giddy comment about it being a newly discovered black hole phenomena.
Do you even know how a black hole is mathematically derived? I do.
In order to create a black hole you must first manipulate a mathematical space time matrix in a way that is invalid even according to GR itself.
Ethan does not mention the sordid details of how black holes were theoretically created because it's a pretty pathetic trick by any standard, basically a linguistic sleight of hand, not actual physics. You first must remove all matter and energy from your space time matrix by setting your energy momentum tensor to zero, and then do some distracting hand waving while you pretend you can miraculously reintroduce mass back into your utterly empty space time matrix without bothering with the pesky physical cause of the matter or energy. This of course creates the ridiculous sink hole effect of a black hole, or space time acting incredibly strange because you have arbitrarily (without cause) decided you can assign infinite density or mass to something that isn't even there anymore due to your removal of the gravitational sources (This violates basic GR because the very basis for GR is to:
“couple the gravitational field (contained in the curvature of space time) with its sources."
To create a black hole, it is actually required you ignore this and do the reverse, and magically un-couple the gravitational field from it's sources (matter and energy) whereupon you substitute the point or singularity in their place by linguistics (just saying so), which is mathematically meaningless.
In addition to having a space time model which can contain only one mass, you have now also warped the model into including a conjecture that has no remaining physical source or cause of the mass/energy you claim it describes and are actually required in the first place to curve space time at all, and there is STILL no way for it to model interactions with anything else due the structural limitations of the model itself, namely that the Principle of Superposition does not hold in GR since it is a non-linear theory, which by definition means the individual space time matrixes can't be superposed.
"The commenters here seem to have stopped injesting new data, as doing so might compromise their conclusions."
"Yeah, you’ve learned so much by diddling around with what amounts to aesthetic theoretical numerology that you think invalid mathematical operations are clever solutions to non existent problems."
That's the clearest example that you don't understand mathematics yet.
Dean #32: "A) The things you claim are.in perfect opposition to experimental results and collected data"
A quick summary of a few of the "things I claim," supported by the vast body of solid epistemology called
Earth is physically nearly spherical, not flattened as claimed by SR in the "equally valid" measurement taken by a (hypothetical) very fast approaching observer.
A 100 meter solid steel train can NEVER fit into a 50 meter solid concrete tunnel as claimed, under very *special* circumstances, by SR. Nor does claiming that "length is not invariable" make trains, planets and cosmic distances shrink (via the math of the Lorentz transform... which only corrects for the high speed measurement distortion called "length contraction.")
I expect no reply from those thoroughly brainwashed by all of the above SR claims.
The distances between stars is not affected by very fast travelers with very slow clocks, as claimed by SR
The popular misconception ("time dilation") that time is an entity measured by variable clocks ( therefore itself variable) ignores the empirical observation that clocks vary in rate of oscillation under various circumstances, including being accelerated to different speeds or subjected to different gravity (force) fields.
I won't go into detail on "spacetime" which Ethan has called "nothingness itself" when he is not elaborating on all the tricks "it" can do when curved by mass. See also Wheeler's famous quote on how mass "tells" it how to curve and how that curvature "tells" mass how to move. The job of physics is to examine and explain how that works... not just state it as a fact without any real world mechanics.
Yes mm, you've demonstrated that you don't believe in many things in modern science.
You haven't done any hard work to explain why they might be wrong, only repeated that your "common sense" is violated.
That isn't providing a reasoned argument, it's childish whining.
not going into another round about "who's right" concerning earth and trains... just curious about one particular statement of yours. You claim:
"...things I claim, supported by the vast body of solid epistemology called scientific knowledge:..."
Would you be generous enough to offer some citations from scientifically proved /reviewed papers or textbooks or anything from the vast body of scientific knowledge that actually proves/agrees with your statements?
If you can't, then your claim is bogus and not backed by science. If you can, then we can have a debate. Again, this isn't about you asking us here to agree with you. This is you offering evidence for your claims. Just a simple couple of examples like.. I claim XY instead of ZW... and here are the references to studies/experiments which support it.
Some references would go a long way.
Dean and SL,
So again you blow off all my points above without comment except that i don't work hard enough or cite standard mainstream relativity... like a good believer should.
Just one thing: There is no empirical evidence for the *belief* in shrinking objects and distances on macro scale... or that "spacetime" is anything at all, let alone a malleable medium, so I leave it to y'all to cite empirical evidence in support of your belief.
MM @ 41: Once again you avoid answering a direct question (Sinisa's at 40).
That really doesn't help your (already pathetically weak) argument.
I haven't asked you about SR nor am interested in your points since you've stated them about 50 times already.
I specifically asked you about "“…things I claim, supported by the vast body of solid epistemology called scientific knowledge:…”
So are your claims supported by scientific knowledge or not? If they are you should have no problem in offering validated proofs.
If you look around any topic that's been discussed here, almost always it's supported by either papers from arxiv, or explanations from wiki or links to relevant researches etc. That's how proper discussion is done. Not about SR or GR or QM.. but everything and anything.
No one put words in your mouth. You made all of the claims yourself. Your last claim is that your views are supported by a huge body of established scientific knowledge. All I'm asking is for some links. How hard can it be? I'm not asking you to cite mainstream relativity. I'm asking you to cite something out of that vast body of scientific knowledge that you said is backing you up. What's wrong with my request?
then how do you explain the singularity in Newtonian gravity? After all, you've never dissed Newton, so I assume you're fine with Gm1m2/R^2 . But even here you have black hole... put enough mass into small enough R and you have a force that's greater then what nuclear forces can withstand, and you have a collapse that goes to infinity. What now?
@John: "That's harsh!"
Maybe so, but it's also accurate. Ethan and Denier have been talking past each other about AGW since ... forever? Ethan olny posts about the part he's comfortable with; the same is true for Denier.
Toss in the ad hominem attacks and the name calling between commenters, and it sure looks to me as if "new data need not apply".
Read the article from the BBC. All the striving for ideals is meaningless if the signatory counties lie about their emissions.
Other than playing second fiddle to Wow in the peanut gallery, and perpetually brown nosing Ethan's views, you haven't exactly shown much critical thinking or mathematical ability yourself.
Why not just say "What ever Ethan says, Me too!!" then wave your cheerleader pom-poms and call it a day. It could save us both a lot of time since you wouldn't actually need to respond any longer, you could just wait until Ethan tells you what to think, while I could also just respond to Ethan and not have repeat myself to you. It's a win win for both sides!
"you haven’t exactly shown much critical thinking or mathematical ability yourself."
Since you've not demonstrated you could pass my freshman non-major statistics course, let alone any of the upper level courses, you have nothing to comment on.
You're viewed as a joke for the same reason denier and mm are: objections to things that don't fit your definition of science are flung about widely, but you do nothing to explain where the science has gone wrong, don't do any work to present alternatives -- it's all that your sensitive little feelings are hurt.
You are no different than the anti-vaccination nuts who look thousands of studies on vaccine safety "in the face" and say you know they are wrong because your cousin's brother's kid got sick after getting a shot.
One more comment: it's a simple decision process to get to which group to respect, really: look at the explanation from people who have training in the relevant areas, see what is said, see that others who have similar training reach similar conclusions, and that the results the theory predicts should occur match what we see, and appreciate the science, or listen to trolls (you, denier, mm) who don't do any serious work and simply complain. Your type comes in third in that two category race.
"No one put words in your mouth. You made all of the claims yourself. Your last claim is that your views are supported by a huge body of established scientific knowledge. All I’m asking is for some links. How hard can it be? I’m not asking you to cite mainstream relativity. I’m asking you to cite something out of that vast body of scientific knowledge that you said is backing you up. What’s wrong with my request?"
Any link with content critical of relativity is immediately labeled a "crank" site. That's what's wrong with your request.
Start with Earth Science. All the links you want will verify its exact dimensions... a little flat at the poles... a little fat around the equator. There is no empirical evidence for a "pancaked Earth." But SR insists it's 'equally valid."
Then go to shrinking physical objects on smaller scale, like trains in tunnels and poles in barns. No empirical evidence whatsoever for any of those "thought experimental" hypothetical claims. Nor is there any physics which can explain shrinking large objects. Yet measurements of actual physical objects can be very precise... all the links you want... all based on "proper length," well established as the base for comparing all hypothetically distorted lengths ("depending on various high speed observers.")
Now lets go to distances between stars. In the real world, is there any way (empirical evidence) that they become shorter as hypothetical frames of reference travel between them at near lightspeed? None whatsoever. But astronomy has a mountain of empirical evidence for very precise measurements of distances between stars and galaxies.
That should be enough for any reasonably intelligent person to understand.... unless he is totally brainwashed by the new philosophy of shrinking objects... with no evidence to support it.
So, mm, you don't have loads of publications supporting you. What a non surprise.
Start with Earth Science. All the links you want will verify its exact dimensions...
Which is fully consistent with SR. Measuring the Earth from its rest frame will show it to be round.
Then go to shrinking physical objects on smaller scale, like trains in tunnels and poles in barns. No empirical evidence whatsoever for any of those “thought experimental” hypothetical claims.
Wikipedia has a summary of several. Just look up "length contraction."
Nor is there any physics which can explain shrinking large objects.
Because when I move, an object I'm moving relative to doesn't physically change in response. That's not what SR says or how frame-relative properties work. How many times does this have to be repeated to you?
Now lets go to distances between stars. In the real world, is there any way (empirical evidence) that they become shorter as hypothetical frames of reference travel between them at near lightspeed?
Yes. When short-lived particles go farther than they should in a statistically significant manner, this is evidence of foreshortening/time dilation. The empirical evidence you're ignoring here is the atmospheric muon data.
That should be enough for any reasonably intelligent person to understand
I harbor little hope my responses would change your opinion. But it is my hope that some of them, explaining what SR actually says (rather than your terribly misinformed version of it) will help reasonably intelligent people understand why you have no valid criticism of it.
CFT #46 - "Other than playing second fiddle to Wow in the peanut gallery, and perpetually brown nosing Ethan’s views, you haven’t exactly shown much critical thinking or mathematical ability yourself."
Yes, yes, what a Truth Warrior you are. Changing the world one anonymous, uncredentialed, internet blog comment at a time. What a brave, brave soul, fighting the valiant fight against....whatever it is.
@Another Commenter #44,
The honest truth is, what you are perceiving on this blog is in miniature much like the reality of 'science' and the scientific community. There is no serene lock step understanding or consensus of the community on many topics and issues. Scientists are just people, and aren't any better, more honest, wiser, more truthful, more kind or profound than anyone else. Scientists commit fraud, plagiarize, steal, cheat at cards, cheat on their wives and husbands, just as much as other non scientists. Scientists are also just as biased in their personal world views and politics as any other group of educated white collar workers, and are just as prone to being stubborn as anyone else.
Sadly, being a scientist also does not make you any more immune to subscribing to stupidity, insanity, mass movements, eugenics, mass murder, and particularly evil, than anyone else.
@Sinisa Lazarek #44,
You are practicing false equivalence again. Because I didn't mention Newton does not mean I believe or ever said Newton was correct about everything, he clearly wasn't. While his work on gravitation is much more useful than Einstein's for the most part, I never said he had all the answers, and remarked that his theory of gravity necessitated it propagate at infinite speed, more than once...which you never noticed, so your argument is already dead. No one contests Newton wasn't right about everything, so why are you fussing at me about it?
I also don't recall Newton ever considering a singularity as something in reality, only as a thought experiment at r = 0, which breaks down for the same reason it does with Einstein, you can't calculate a density at zero, as zero is not to be confused with something small, it has no size. (Black Holes originally were nothing but thought experiments as well). Newton certainly didn't try to model a black hole, if that's what you are implying. He did play around with black body thought experiments, which is a completely different entitiy, it's something that had so much gravity that light could not escape (though he didn't consider the speed of light a limiting factor in calculating what an actual escape velocity of such a black body would be). Unlike Einstein's GR, because Newton's gravity equations are linear, you CAN superpose different masses in them.
Newton did make efforts to resolve singularities through his Puiseux series in 1676. He did not seem to treat them as particularly desirable.
@Alan G. #49,
And yet, here you are, piping in with an anonymous uncredentialed blog comment yourself, with the somewhat stuffy pretense of you not being 'one of those people' who do such unseemly things... If you aren't interested in the particular thread, you aren't in any way compelled to respond or pile on.
CFT #52 - "And yet, here you are, piping in with an anonymous uncredentialed blog comment yourself..."
I can own my comments, evidenced by the use of my actual name. And I've made no claims of particular knowledge on the topics. Your MO of hiding behind a handle and seeking to diminish the discussion rather than lift it and expand it for everyone's benefit makes you just another troll.
"Any link with content critical of relativity is immediately labeled a “crank” site. That’s what’s wrong with your request."
untrue... there are valid, consistent models that try to go around/beyond relativity. Some better than others. Most, if not all of them, aren't in agreement with experiments. But they are not cranks. Cranks are the ones who make outlandish claims with no consistent model or with math that has been shown to be wrong.
For the rest, Eric's reply in #48 is right on the spot.
So either a) try to come up with better examples since current ones don't play in your favor, b) offer peer reviewed citations or c) admit that your claim was wrong
I've shown you that even Newtonian gravity has black holes, since you so wonderfully claimed that you know how they come about. And I've shown you that they form well before R=0. No singularity is needed for this. You have a body with R>0 that has Fg greater than escape velocity of "c".
Since you "know" they don't exist, please explain what prevents them to form. And use Newtonian gravity by all means, since " his work on gravitation is much more useful than Einstein’s for the most part".
sorry.. I see eric's post is now #51 and not #48. little correction
Bunch of comment number references have changed now. Looks like some comments up the chain were in the moderation queue.
@Alan G. #56,
And did it not occur to you that CFT could have as much to do with my name as what you call yourself does with yours?
Also, this IS the internet, putting your full written out name out there is usually not such a great idea, especially when some people (such as yourself) get offended by your name.
Is there anything else about my personal information you would like to nag about?
Me; Start with Earth Science. All the links you want will verify its exact dimensions…
"Which is fully consistent with SR. Measuring the Earth from its rest frame will show it to be round."
And measuring it from a high speed approach will show it to be pancaked in the direction of the approach, says SR. In the real world (yes, there is one independent of varying observations) is Earth flat or spherical? It can not be both.
Answer that honestly and you will be free of the delusion that Earth's shape (and objects' lengths in general) depend on the observer.
Me: Then go to shrinking physical objects on smaller scale, like trains in tunnels and poles in barns. No empirical evidence whatsoever for any of those “thought experimental” hypothetical claims.
"Wikipedia has a summary of several. Just look up “length contraction.”
As a banned Wiki editor ("LC Critic") I am very familiar with Wiki's mainstream stance, and criticism of SR is definitely not allowed, BY ANYONE.
The muon argument for a shrinking atmosphere is the only claim to "observable" length contraction on macro scale. See my latest reply to you in last week's comments.
Atmospheric science has no evidence for any shrinkage,... just a "for the muon" frame of reference thing, yet again.
You: "Because when I move, an object I’m moving relative to doesn’t physically change in response. That’s not what SR says or how frame-relative properties work. How many times does this have to be repeated to you?"
Again, this is your own version of length contraction. The mainstream says otherwise, including Ethan. And of course the ubiquitous train-in-a-tunnel bogus thought experiment, among many others, insists that stuff shrinks. How else does the 100 meter train fit into the 50 meter tunnel? (It doesn't.) You remain confused about what SR claims.
Now lets go to distances between stars. In the real world, is there any way (empirical evidence) that they become shorter as hypothetical frames of reference travel between them at near lightspeed?
Yes. When short-lived particles go farther than they should in a statistically significant manner, this is evidence of foreshortening/time dilation. The empirical evidence you’re ignoring here is the atmospheric muon data."
So you blew off my question/ challenge and went to the old muon standby. See my comments above and my reply to you in last weeks comments. The muon argument has been debunked.
"As a banned Wiki editor..."
Considering how lenient Wiki is with allowing people to make edits I cannot imagine how anyone could get banned from that job if they demonstrated even a minimal level of competence.
" In the real world (yes, there is one independent of varying observations)" - no there isn't. Galileo proved that in 1600 .. more than 400 years ago.
What you consider "real" is real as long as you are standing still in reference to it. That's the way it is. Not because of any belief but because of what experiments and nature show.
"It can not be both." - tell the Universe that... how dare it have multiple realities based on velocities... bad universe.. bad!
"As a banned Wiki editor (“LC Critic”) I am very familiar"
ROFL! Well, at least you're honest about it.
dean @ #50: "So, mm, you don’t have loads of publications supporting you. What a non surprise."
There are too many to list actually... all parts of accepted scientific knowledge:
Earth science for the spherical (nearly) Earth (not flat). Certainly not affected by various observations.
Atmospheric science for the fact that the atmosphere is not constantly changing in depth as muons travel through.
Astronomy for the fact that the distances between stars is not affected by whatever travels between them at high speed
The physics of rigid bodies, which are not affected by whomever/ whatever might be observing them at relativistic speeds.
Show me the evidence to falsify all the above.
The usual shifting from you mm, but not a surprise.
The articles supporting your "arguments" that SR and GR are inherently wrong. Where are they?
SL @ 62:
” In the real world (yes, there is one independent of varying observations)” – no there isn’t.
The universe is at least 13+ billion years old (if not eternal.)
It takes a special kind of stupidity to believe nothing existed in and of itself prior to modern science's all important observation.
And yes, I am one of multitudes who are critical of relativity but not allowed to to criticize it in Wiki. Check the "criticisms of relativity" page and see if you can find anything but the mainstream bullshit that it all depends on (and varies with) the observer. (The world according to Einstein.)
"prior to modern science’s all important observation."
I certainly wouldn't call Galileo a modern guy. On the other hand you don't know the meaning of the word "observation" and "observer" in physics (not that it hasn't been explained to you some 2-3 months ago). Hint: it has nothing to do with modern science or humans.
CFT #60: "And did it not occur to you that CFT could have as much to do with my name as what you call yourself does with yours?"
Certainly. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. That establishes the wish to remain anonymous. Lots of good reasons to do so. No clear identity is also very helpful if one's wish is to spread contempt, derision, and rancor for sport. Things that define trolling.
@Sinisa Lazarek #57,
You seem to think this an 'I gotcha' question, but I don't think you realize what you are asking, or even what you are implying historically.
Perhaps you are confusing the concept of a mathematical singularity (which Newton was familiar with) with a 'black hole' as it is defined by GR and relies upon the hypostatization of a diagrammatic singularity (point) into a physical entity capable of carrying mass. Newton did describe the center of gravity as a point in a given mass, but that point was merely a location and didn't actually carry any mass, you can easily actually have a center of mass in an entirely empty space, depending on the shape of the mass.
When you are talking about black holes, you are speaking of an effect purported in a purely mathematical space that didn't even theoretically exist at the time Newton formulated his gravity principia. Newton spoke of 'black bodies', which are not the same as a black hole as defined by GR. If what you are saying is that if you set the radius of your body (sphere) at zero you get a 'black hole', the answer is still no, as Newton did not employ 4D Minkowski space, and he defined gravity as a force, whereas Einstein used spatial curvature (curved math) to represent gravitational forces...technically, gravity isn't a force at all in GR. Newton did not believe space could be 'curved', or treated as any kind physical object with physical properties applied to it, which should not be surprising as these concepts hadn't been conceived of yet.
Newton is known to have treated space as a purely empty volume with a Euclidean geometry.
To produce a 'black hole' with Newton's equations in principal, you would have to be treating gravity as two entirely different things at the same time which would be in contradiction to one another, First as a physical force (that obeys Newton's laws within a Euclidean geometry) and secondly as a curved space time (following Einstein's equations employing hyperbolic geometry). Since Newton and Einstein model gravity in entirely different ways with differing geometries and with different initial premises (rates of propagation, spatial curvature, etc), you can't elide back and forth between the two theories in a meaningful way as if they were structurally or mathematically interchangeable or could exist within the same system.
Another reason as to why a black hole can't form in Newton's equations, is that all back bodies that Newton theorized did not set the speed of light as a limiting factor for an escape velocity. Newton proposed various black body gravitations for planets and cheerfully calculated the faster than light escape velocities necessary to leave them, which according to Newton's laws were perfectly allowable.
Perhaps you realize that you spewed out b.s. and now you think you're gonna change it by writing 6 paragraphs of some more b.s. Tough luck.
And no.. it wasn't a "I gotcha" question. No need for it really, since what you're writing is crystal clear crap. It might sound fancy and knowing to someone who has marginal awareness about the topic, but beyond that crowd, it's bullocks.
It was, and still is a very simple question. I really thought you had something better than what you wrote above. Oh well...
That does make for grim reading. I would not have expected that from EU countries. Sad.
In the real world (yes, there is one independent of varying observations) is Earth flat or spherical? It can not be both.
Let's try to start with a simple example. A guy on a train moving 10 m/s throws a ball forward at 5 m/s. Two guys with radar guns are recording this; one on the ground, one on the train. They record the ball's speed as 15 m/s and 5 m/s respectively.
"In the real world (yes, there is one independent of varying observations), is the ball moving at 5 m/s or 15 m/s? It can not be both."
The relativistic answer (which, in this case, is also the Newtonian answer) is: it can be both. It depends on the frame of reference in which you measure speed. Properties relative to a frame of reference can be both.
Do you understand that?
I have always agreed (and stated many times in this forum) that velocity is relative. I seriously question your reading comprehension and memory.
My statement which you quoted refers to the claims of SR's length contraction that the shape of Earth, length of trains, thickness of Earth's atmosphere, distances between stars, rotation and orbit of Earth, etc. depends on observational frames of reference and change accordingly.
Do you understand that? It is the last time I will explain it to you. You seem to have a serious learning disability and I am wasting my time with you.
But maybe it has served as clarification for the casual lurking reader.
SL @ #67,
I said there is a real world independent of observation and you said, "No, there isn't"
Now try to dodge the blatant stupidity of that denial by saying that physics has a "special" meaning for the word observation.
I am well aware that a muon for instance can be an "observer" in the theoretical sense, but their "observation" of Earth's atmosphere as contracted in depth does not make it physically vary... in the real world, which SR theory denies.
Again, the apparent vs physical discrepancy, which SR advocates refuse to deal with, saying there is no difference.
SL @ #67,
I said there is a real world independent of observation and you said, "No, there isn't"
Now try to dodge the blatant stupidity of that denial by saying that physics has a "special" meaning for the word observation.
I am well aware that a muon for instance can be an "observer" in the theoretical sense, but their "observation" of Earth's atmosphere as contracted in depth does not make it physically vary... in the real world, which SR theory denies.
Again, it's the apparent vs physical discrepancy, which SR advocates refuse to deal with, saying there is no difference.
Sorry for the duplication.I was trying to edit in "Now you try to dodge"... and it went bonkers on me.
dean: "The articles supporting your “arguments” that SR and GR are inherently wrong. Where are they?"
I gave four areas of science, each of which is full of empirical evidence that SR is wrong.
What is the shape (dimensions) of Earth? Look it up.
How thick is the atmosphere? Look it up.
What is the distance to the nearest star? Look it up.
What force would it take to compress a 100 meter steel train into a 50 meter train to fit into a 50 meter tunnel? Specify all relevant parameters and work it out according the physics of rigid bodies.
All the rest (all of SR) is about "for observer A vs for observer B"... different observations of images... *apparent differences*, as detailed by the Lorentz transform, not physical changes.
My frequent requests for Ethan to disambiguate the difference... and clarify the nonsense... has only resulted in his claim that if length contraction works on subatomic particles in an accelerator, why not on trains, Earth's diameter, etc. Why not, indeed!
"I am well aware that a muon for instance can be an “observer” in the theoretical sense, but their “observation” of Earth’s atmosphere as contracted in depth does not make it physically vary… in the real world, which SR theory denies."
Like I said before.. you are not aware and you prove it again. There is nothing theoretical about it. Observation=interaction. Not in theory... in reality. That's what that word means in physics. In psychology it means something else, in physics it means this. Interaction. There is no universe independent of interactions, except an empty universe, but that's not ours. So if interactions of things, from particles to planets, depend on their velocity i.e. and there is no preferred frame (a proton traveling at 0.2c will interact with rest of things in a certain manner, other proton traveling at 0.5c will interact (under same physics) a bit differently since it carries more energy and it's interactions are different because it observes/interacts with the rest of the universe differently. Both are valid and neither is more fundamental. Thus logic which even kids can follow is so obvious it's simply amazing it's beyond you. I really hope you were better in psychology then you are with this.
"I gave four areas of science, each of which is full of empirical evidence that SR is wrong."
You have some things but not what was requested. You stated there was published research that supported your views about the "errors" in relativity. I asked for links to some of it. You've dogged (blatantly dodged) providing those links and tried to dance away.
Where are those publications and researchers?
I have spent most of my adult life studying both standard (established!) relativity and arguments against it.
"You have some things but not what was requested."
Be more specific.
The published research supporting the views of relativity critics is all over the internet. All of it is considered (by the mainstream) to be the work of cranks not smart enough to study the Doctrine and accept it as the true world view... that observation determines what is true... with an infinite number of versions of the cosmos. Philosophical Idealism, as per Einstein.
(One more time):
'"Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the physical world." (1938, in a book with his associate Leopold Infeld, The Evolution of Physics.)
Chew on that until you can swallow and digest it.
This is false science.
I have been specific. I asked for examples of the peer reviewed studies you said exist. Three times now you have failed to produce anything, each time giving a different bogus reason.
That's not good behavior if you are trying to convince people you're telling the truth.
I have no faith at all in your "studying relativity" claim since you've done nothing along the lines of science to support your arguments. Your statements are simply repeated statements of "It's wrong because I say so."
I have always agreed (and stated many times in this forum) that velocity is relative.
I know you don't accept that the passage of time and measures of length are relative. And in fact I won't bother trying to convince you that they are. My goal here is to see if you understood that your claim that there is one true value to a property and "it can't be both" doesn't hold for relative properties. Do you agree to that?
Again, I'm NOT trying to get you to sign on to the idea that time and space are relative. I just want to see if we can find agreement on what the words "relative property" entail. Can we do that? Can we agree that if some property is relative, that means it doesn't have one true absolute frame-independent value?
The poor guy just can't understand things outside his own frame of reference. Explains a great deal about how he has trouble with frame-dependent observations.
This is like the end of a Benny Hill Show where they are all chasing him to the sound of yakety sax: https://youtu.be/D9I4nZx8UCs
He'll keep on holding on to this technicality of what someone is able to measure in a different frame of reference, and the 'real' size of something measured within the same frame of reference as the object being measured.
In his words the former is not 'real' this is a case of semantics. Those who want to 'teach him' should first contemplate about what the word 'real' means.
It is a bit similar to me calling all massive objects a 'hole in SpaceTime'. For MM a measurement from a distance isn't 'real' just like how for some of you a depression wasn't a 'hole'.
What 'real' is in Physics is a matter of convention and he doesn't want to accept the convention, because …
It's like in my other comment where someone doesn't accept 'multiplication' as a convention and sticks to addition, or what Ethan explained in his post here.
You can all keep on debating and trying to explain 'the issue' but if he won't except the terminology of what's 'real' than you won't be able to convince him that 'Einstein' was right.
Anyway have a look at what 'real' means:
1. actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed.
"Julius Caesar was a real person"
synonyms: actual, existent, non-fictional, non-fictitious, factual; More historical; material, physical, tangible, concrete, palpable, corporeal, substantial; rareunimaginary, veridical
"she treats fictional characters as if they were real people"
antonyms: unreal, imaginary
used to emphasize the significance or seriousness of a situation.
"there is a real danger of civil war"
relating to something as it is, not merely as it may be described or distinguished.
"Locke's distinction between the real and nominal essence of substances"
(of a thing) not imitation or artificial; genuine.
"the earring was presumably real gold"
synonyms:genuine, authentic, bona fide, pukka; More
informalhonest-to-goodness, your actual, kosher
"do you think it could be real gold?"
sincere, genuine, true, unfeigned, unpretended, heartfelt, from the heart, unaffected, earnest, wholehearted, fervent, honest, truthful
"there were tears of real grief in his eyes"
antonyms:imitation, fake, false
true or actual.
"his real name is James"
"it's not my real name"
rightly so called; proper.
"he's my idea of a real man"
synonyms:proper, true, rightly so called; More
"he was a real man with manly pursuits"
complete; utter (used for emphasis).
"the tour turned out to be a real disaster"
synonyms:complete, utter, thorough, absolute, total, prize, perfect, veritable; More
"you made me look a real idiot"
adjusted for changes in the value of money; assessed by purchasing power.
"real incomes had fallen by 30 per cent"
(of a number or quantity) having no imaginary part.
(of an image) of a kind in which the light that forms it actually passes through it; not virtual.
"my head hurts real bad"
I think people like MM can be thought as Don Quixote, with only difference that instead of a windmill they have Relativity to fight against. :-)
" My goal here is to see if you understood that your claim that there is one true value to a property and “it can’t be both” doesn’t hold for relative properties. Do you agree to that? "
I agree that different frames of reference (observers in the broad theoretical sense) moving at very high velocity relative to objects will measure them differently. I do not agree that these differences reflect physical differences in the dimensions of or distance between those objects.
I don't doubt that an observer approaching Earth at .86c would measure Earth's diameter (in the direction of his approach) as @ 4000 miles (via image distortion at near lightspeed), but its true diameter, ( also called proper length) remains always @ 8000 miles.
I was about to add, ..."in the real world", but that upsets relativity believers who insist that there isn't one independent of relative frames of reference... "It depends on whom you ask."
The same goes for all cases called "length contraction."
Apparent vs physical contraction.
well, relativity doesn't say anything changes for things in rest frame. and now you agree that things change for non-rest frames. so problem solved. You can stop claiming that you are a critic of it, since you just said that you agree with what we've shown. Your insistance that one is more true than another is your own. so now you can try to convince people that you/they are only true while sitting on sofas, and not when you pass them by in your car going shopping. but this is not SR's problem
@ dean #81,
As I said,sites debunking relativity are all over the net,... so where to begin?
Best to pick just one example for openers, say the "poster child" for macro- length contraction, the muon argument.
Here is one of many debunking it:
"Scientists have only noted the life span and speed of low energy muons produced in particle accelerators. How can the same be considered true for the high energy cosmic ray muons?
In fact, in the light of the above new findings why can’t we propose that muons can travel faster or live longer than what we knew of them?"
If you don't like this piece (they are all cranks, you say) browse on your own. Of course, if they debunk time dilation and length contraction they are all crackpot crap to a closed minded believer like you.
SL #87: "... and now you agree that things change for non-rest frames. so problem solved"
I have always agreed that *images of things* (carried by light, you know) might well change for a near- lightspeed traveler or observed object. However, SR claims that there is no difference between such contracted images (appearances!) and shrunken physical objects. That's how the train fits into the tunnel,... by the magic of different frames of reference dictating physical reality.
Problem back again!
EM waves carry much more then just images, it's your gag reflex that wants to diminish them to some sort of TV/photo thing.
and again, irrelevant to SR, we've known since 1600 a.d. that there's no difference if you're sitting in a sofa or driving a car. so no problem, other than you trying to create one just so you can retain something to argue about when in reality you're left with none. :)
p.s and it's not about light.. since light has nothing do with time and length. it's about space or spacetime to be more precise
Ever notice whenever it gets close to some sort of understanding MM manages to introduce (invent) a slightly new angle to take issue with? Chemtrail and HAARP folks do that also....hmmmmm......
yup, cause at the end of the day it's about him and not about science. narcissism comes to mind. he started here with claims of his own superior knowledge, then moved to how he's geting censored, then some derogation of everyone who won't listen to him, then again his knowledge snd expertise, then some more how his views are opressed. him him him him. it doesn't really matter to him what he'll write, as long as someone replies to him thus he can feel self important again and continue on. since noone reads his blog and he's banned from 97% of other forums, he's found hid stage here
Mm, you haven't produced any real research. You stated there were reviewed articles. A website put up by people as stupid as you isn't that.
But we all knew you were lying.
"Chemtrail and HAARP folks do that also….hmmmmm……"
And the anti-vaccination cranks.
SL, AG, and dean,
None of you commented on the content of the article I linked,... just more bashing of the credibility of anyone with argument and evidence against SR, as I predicted.
You will find the same avoidance in Wikipedia's page entitled, "Criticisms of the Theory of Relativity," summarized as follows:
"Though some of these criticisms had the support of reputable scientists, Einstein's theory of relativity is now accepted by the scientific community....
There are still some critics of relativity today, but their opinions are not shared by the majority in the scientific community."
(And the minority viewpoints are not allowed.... Not science.)
In spite of the title, absolutely no criticisms of relativity are allowed. Same here.
None of you have ever addressed the criticism that subjective perspectives (in the broad sense, including muons) do not alter physical objects or distances, like the depth of Earth's atmosphere, its diameter, interstellar distances, etc.... all claimed to shrink via observational differences.
Hell will freeze over before WIki allows any real criticism as above. Same for y'all and all mainstream sources of the Absolute Truth of Length Contraction According to Special Relativity.
It is truly a belief system which allows no heresy.
It would be helpful to seriously interested readers here if Ethan would disambiguate the difference between apparent contraction and physical contraction.
Obviously we know via atmospheric science that the thickness of our atmosphere does not physically change as (supposedly) affected by incoming muons.
None of you commented on the content of the article I linked,… just more bashing of the credibility of anyone with argument and evidence against SR, as I predicted.
You did not supply the items you said existed: peer reviewed work by mainstream scientists contradicting basic tenets of relativity. You dodged, dodged again, then posted more crankery.
You don't get to try (as you do) to get people to find the stuff you claim supports you: you are the one saying the stuff exists, it's on you to point it out. Perhaps that lack of realization on your part comes from your psychology training, where evidence is never important.
absolutely no criticisms of relativity are allowed.
Hell will freeze over before WIki ..
If your standard for reliable information is Wikipedia there is no real hope for you.
I agree that different frames of reference (observers in the broad theoretical sense) moving at very high velocity relative to objects will measure them differently. I do not agree that these differences reflect physical differences in the dimensions of or distance between those objects.
Forget dimensions and distance for a moment. Let's just talk about what "a relative property" is. You should like that, it's ontology. We can use velocity, that's much easier. You're driving 60 mph. The car moving toward you is going 5 mph. The cop standing on the side of the road measures you going 60 mph and the other car going 5 (in different directions). Yet if that other car hits you and the cop at the same time, the physics of impact, the actual real-world impact on you will be based on a velocity of 65 mph, while the impact on the cop will be based on a velocity of 5 mph. The two of you will feel and respond to actual, real, different kinetic energies. Different momenta. A life and death difference, possibly. And yet, you pushing the brake or accelenator causes no change at all in the other car.
So when we talk about relative properties - velocity being an uncontroversial example but what I'm going to say applies to the whole category - it is not true that that they can only have one absolute value. It is true that they can "be both at the same time" - e.g. have separate property values s depending on frame of reference. It is not true that any observed difference based on frame of reference is merely "apparent" or "measured" or any other handwavy dismissing term you want to use to make it sound illusory. It's not the case for relative properties that one measure is real and the others are less so - they are all equally and truly real, even while being different.
Those are characteristics of relative properties. Like velocity. Do you agree?
"You did not supply the items you said existed: peer reviewed work by mainstream scientists contradicting basic tenets of relativity. You dodged, dodged again, then posted more crankery."
"Peer reviewed" in your context means reviewed by those with academic credentials as experts in relativity... those who bought it all to get their doctorates. The panel of peer judges allows no critics of the 'proven' doctrine.' Any critic sympathizer... as a professional physicist, will lose his job. Just an academic reality check. As a a lifetime amateur critic, I have nothing to lose. No security anxiety about exposing obvious nonsense about stuff physically shrinking.
Contemplate what is wrong with this picture as unbiased scientists. (Joke.)
"... , it’s on you to point it out."
It is on you and your fellow SR theorists to point out any evidence at all that the atmosphere varies as an effect of incoming muons. The "subjective experience"of the muon's frame of reference does not make our atmosphere thinner.
Many have "pointed out" the flaws and unfounded assumptions in experimental designs in labs studying muons. But all of that is rejected by SR fanatics (now mainstream "science")... because Frame of Reference dictates physical reality. This is the fundamental misconception of Einstein's philosophy, upon which SR is founded.
"Frame of Reference dictates physical reality."
Of course, what else?
If I see you from close you look bigger than from far away, that are differences in my 'realistic' observations/measurements.
Maybe you are 'in reality' six feet tall, but we can only know this by measuring you in the same reference frame as you are.
So how tall you are in my 'real' observations depends on the frame of reference. You have your 'real' frame of reference and I have mine, but we can also be in the same frame of reference.
Thanks again mm, for demonstrating that not only don't you have any real support among scientists for your asinine views on relativity but also that you're willing to lie about the existence of that support and dodge and weave when called on your falsehoods.
Is there no chance at all that you will set aside your personal attack mode long enough to seriously address even two sentences which debunk the muon argument? (A sure bet is... No.)
It is on you and your fellow SR theorists to point out any evidence at all that the atmosphere varies as an effect of incoming muons. The “subjective experience”of the muon’s frame of reference does not make our atmosphere thinner.
Ps, dean #97:
"... where evidence is never important."
Is there any evidence that the physical atmosphere shrinks "as seen by" incoming muons? (No.) Evidence is the basis of empirical science. Answer the question.
Regarding Wikipedia's policy on criticism of relativity, I said and you quoted, ..." absolutely no criticisms of relativity are allowed."
"Blatantly false," you said.
Show me one criticism that the article does not reject. The whole article is a testament to the policy that no criticisms of relativity are valid.
Me: Hell will freeze over before WIki ..
"If your standard for reliable information is Wikipedia there is no real hope for you."
I can't believe you are serious! My argument, stated clearly more than once is that Wiki is the opposite of reliable information on criticism of relativity.
"Is there no chance at all that you will set aside your personal attack mode long enough to seriously address even two sentences which debunk the muon argument? "
-- you stated that there were numerous scientific publications, peer reviewed, that supported you
-- when asked to reference them you dodged and told people to find them on their own
-- when pressed again you referenced being banned from Wiki -- which, as was pointed, out, no small feat given how lax their standards are
-- when pressed again you supplied a link to a site with statements equalling yours for lack of support and relevance
-- then you claim to be "harassed" and "hammered down"
In short: you haven't supplied anything to support yourself, and your "arguments" are simply whines. If you want to refute something, show your math, or your experiments, or the math/experiments of someone else, that contradict the results of relativity and explain the reason(s) for those contradictions, showing the validity of your work.
You haven't done that, nor have you tried. Playing the martyr, as you try to do, is pathetic (but par for the course for the low standards of proof in the world of psychology).
Clever attempt at deflection on the Wiki comment (or, perhaps, you truly didn't understand it: given your other comments that is a strong possibility). Relativity isn't validated by the articles on it, and relativity would not be invalidated by articles on it: both of those things are what the world of published (and repeatable) research is for.
You are correct on one thing: there is an incredibly fake source of information on relativity. That's where being correct ends for you, as you are that source.
I stated that "peer reviewed" in your usage means by mainstream relativity advocates... the only way you get to join the club. By definition they reject all criticism of it. Can you at least understand this total exclusivity built into your system of "peer review" and quit bashing me with it. Not that it hurts, considering the source, but it is just more personal attack strategy, not debate of relativity issues.
"By definition they reject all criticism of it."
Another lie. It is no more true in physics than it is in my area, statistics. The reasons cranks like you can't get published is simple: you are incapable (and, probably, unwilling) to do the hard work needed to get things published.
dean: ". The reasons cranks like you can’t get published is simple: you are incapable (and, probably, unwilling) to do the hard work needed to get things published."
I have never tried to "get published." Your assumption betrays your personal ambition.
The phrase "Cranks like you" eliminates you from the community of unbiased scientists. You belong to the "mainstream" of Established Scientific Truths, like relativity.
The panel of peer judges allows no critics of the ‘proven’ doctrine.’
Here is a somewhat famous, relatively recent (2011) publication that was inconsistent with relativity. Rather than seeking to shut down debate or prevent them from publishing, the entire scientific world was interested in looking at the data.
Science allows contra-relativity research and results to be published.Instead, as Dean says, what's going on here is simply that you haven't produced any such research.
I have never tried to “get published.”
So your complaints of being hammered down were as empty as the real support of your criticisms of relativity.
The phrase “Cranks like you” eliminates you from the community of unbiased scientists.
No, the phrase perfectly describes you, as your claims of being hammered down despite never trying to do any hard work in the first place shows.
dean: "So your complaints of being hammered down were as empty as the real support of your criticisms of relativity."
... he said as he swings the hammer yet again. That gave me a chuckle. Thanks.
The real support for criticisms of relativity come from the fields of science I mentioned. Trains, Earth, its atmosphere, interstellar distances, etc., etc. don't shrink as a result of observational differences.
And "peer reviewed criticism of relativity" is a joke in that one must accept relativity to be credentialed in it. "Catch 22."
As I said, the net is full of such criticism and it's all labeled crankery *because* it is critical (again, not allowed.)
Eric: "Here is a somewhat famous, relatively recent (2011) publication that was inconsistent with relativity. "
You forgot the link.
I've seen dozens of them over the years. Here's another recent one:
You forgot the link.
No, it's embedded in the word "here." Just click on that word and it'll send you to the article.
I’ve seen dozens of them over the years
Well the fact that you've seen dozens + I showed one from the mainstream that everyone took seriously kinda kicks the legs out from under your whole "they won't allow it to be published" assertion, doesn't it?
eric: ' I showed one from the mainstream that everyone took seriously..."
How exactly is neutrino velocity related to the relativity argument, or its criticism?
How many people does it take ("everyone?') to show by consensus that relativity is correct? Examine your assumptions.
Science is not a popularity contest, like most contests on TV. "Popular scientists" shape science historically, from Einstein to Hawking. It's still a popularity contest, not unbiased, objective science.
Even the "flat Earth" nonsense has come back, thanks to "all frames of reference being equal."
Thanks, Albert.. How stupid can science get? No limit to that if its all in our minds, as he consistently claims. No empirical evidence needed anymore to support the creative imagination of well credentialed physicists who like the media limelight. The public will believe it by appeal to "authority."
Time travel is not just fiction anymore. Sign me up!
"How exactly is neutrino velocity related to the relativity argument, or its criticism?"
well, if you don't understand that then you don't understand basic premise of SR, no information faster then "c". But it's frankly not surprising that you don't understand.
Since we all know you to be a charlatan and a liar, here's something for you. In #102 and you say: "The “subjective experience”of the muon’s frame of reference does not make our atmosphere thinner."
Please show any scientific paper on SR that claims that muons (or anything else for that matter) make the atmosphere thinner in our rest-frame. Since all you do all day is make the claims that SR makes those claims (brain washed, dogma driven PhD mainstream scientists), it shouldn't be hard for you to give an example. Just be careful of the distinction you made yourself... muons and us. You said our atmosphere. We are at rest in respect to earth. Please show a single SR paper that says what you claim it says.
Length contraction is based the SR postulates that "length is not invariant" and "all frames of reference are equally valid." All absurdities (errors) of SR's claims of shrinking physical objects and distances, depending on disagreeing observers (including muons) follow from those erroneous assumptions, given that the "real world" exists independent of all observation. (It's at least 13+ billion years old.)
Science does its best to take accurate measurements, and we (all but those deluded by SR) *know* that "proper length" (measured from at rest with the object) is the true length of things, including our atmosphere's depth. The subjective philosophy of relativity ("It all depends on whom you ask") has not changed that.
Not only do muons not "make the atmosphere thinner in our rest-frame," they don't affect it's depth at all. ("For a muon" is not an "equally valid measurement.)
But you are too brainwashed to even consider the above.
Edit: I meant to say, in #113:
“How exactly is neutrino velocity IN ERIC'S LINK related to the relativity argument, or its criticism?”... Just to clarify SL's cheap shot in #114.
re: #115, #116
I very well know what SR predicts, so no need for you to copy paste your erroneous interpretation of it . You specifically wrote that SR claims that muon's reference frame and velocity affects our atmosphere thickness. So I ask you again. Where does SR claim that a moving reference frame affects something in other rest frame? Example, not what YOU THINK it claims.
As far as eric's post, it's just one of many examples that shows you are a liar, because scientific community doesn't follow any dogmas (unlike you), it only cares about evidence, if it happened that the neutrinos did move FTL, then SR would have to be substituted with something new that would explain it, and indeed, there were many scientific papers on the possible cause, and nothing was censored because "we only believe in SR"...
ow exactly is neutrino velocity related to the relativity argument, or its criticism?
They published data purporting to show neutrinos going faster than light. Which relativity says isn't possible. It was a publication and observation in direct conflict with the theory of relativity.
So yes, the mainstream does allow publication of results contesting relativity. The reason you personally aren't taken seriously is not because you challenge SR per se, but because you have no credible experimental results or even well-developed theory contesting relativity. You have not done either the empirical or theoretical work needed to be taken seriously by the community, and you have nothing to show for your decades of study except for an assertion resting on an argument from incredulity. You don't think time and space are relative properties. I get it. We all get it. You can't imagine how they could be. I sympathize, it's a hard thing to imagine. But (i) repeating over and over and over again that you don't believe they are relative properties is not an argument. (ii) Your own qualitative, philosophical cogitations on the subject are not evidence. And (iii) a vague idea that acceleration might be the cause instead is not even an hypothesis.
SL #17: " Where does SR claim that a moving reference frame affects something in other rest frame? Example, not what YOU THINK it claims. "
SR claims that different reference frames describing the same object or distance differently are all equally valid. Therefore the thinner atmosphere "for a muon" is claimed to be just as valid as atmospheric measurements taken from from at rest with Earth... the proper length measurement.
EARTH HAS AN ACTUAL PHYSICAL ATMOSPHERE THAT DOESN'T FLUCTUATE WITH MEASUREMENTS FROM VARIOUS FRAMES OF REFERENCE. The same applies to all other claims of contracted length, none of which are dependent on "the observer," even though measurements will vary with frames of reference.
Also Earth's shape (the proper length of its diameter) doesn't vary because of the dogmas of "all frames equal" and "length is not invariant." If it did vary with the observer, then the observer would affect its shape.
I know this will "fall on deaf ears," but there it is, yet again.
@eric, #118: " And (iii) a vague idea that acceleration might be the cause instead is not even an hypothesis."
If SR's time dilation believers were to quit ignoring the history of each clock, they would take into account how each was propelled to a different velocity by application of force. That is not a "vague idea."
"...not even a hypothesis." ??
If I were rich enough (or had a good grant) to execute my proposed "clock in a centrifuge" experiment, I would first write up a formal experimental design including the formal hypothesis that acceleration will affect the internal dynamics of the clock and make it slow down.
Ps: You still have no clue that the ontology of space, time, and "spacetime" is basic to understanding what exactly we are talking about about as we theorize and design experiments to investigate those concepts. "Not interested," as Ethan often says dismissively. Physicists/ mathematicians speak with great presumed authority about those three concepts without a thought to what it IS (in the real world) they are talking about.
you'll love this
If SR’s time dilation believers were to quit ignoring the history of each clock, they would take into account how each was propelled to a different velocity by application of force. That is not a “vague idea.”
It *is* a vague idea. What is the mathematical relationship between acceleration rate, time spent accelerating, and time dilation in your hyopthesis? How can we calculate how long the time dilation will last? In what property of a proton is this information stored? Can you answer those questions in a way that is testable?
Secondly, it's not ignored. As I've told you before, muons aren't accelerated. They are produced at relativistic speeds and show time dilation that can be predicted based on their velocity alone. Other particles are accelerated and show effects of time dilation which can also be predicted based on their velocity alone. These observations are consistent with (a) SR dilation being a function of velocity, and (b) SR dilation not being a function of acceleration.
Ps: You still have no clue that the ontology of space, time, and “spacetime” is basic to understanding what exactly we are talking about about
Ontology is not needed to run an experiment, or to check which theory the results are consistent with. I can figure out how the world works mechanically without knowing, philosophically, how or why it works that way.
Now if philosophers want to work out an ontology based on observed data, more power to them. But when someone like you works out an ontology that ignores data, yes you are correct physicists will generally continue to accept physics theories "without a thought" given to those empiricism-ignoring ontologies.
eric: "It *is* a vague idea. What is the mathematical relationship between acceleration rate, time spent accelerating, and time dilation in your hyopthesis? How can we calculate how long the time dilation will last? In what property of a proton is this information stored? Can you answer those questions in a way that is testable?"
You are demanding answers to questions the experiment is designed to answer... if it can determine the mechanism/ physics of what makes the clock slow down under extreme G-force (simulated gravity.)
I'm called away. Do you see the absurdity of your demand?
You are demanding answers to questions the experiment is designed to answer…
No ,I'm demanding you form a testable hypothesis, the step that has to be taken before anyone would bother doing an experiment on your idea.
That's because we can't test every possible acceleration, and we can't test accelerations for every length of time. We have limited resources. So the hypothesis-former (that's you) needs to be able to say "if I am right, you will see dilation X at acceleration Y. Test accelerations around Y." We need to know, in other words, at what accelerations your idea predicts our instruments will be capable of observing the effect you predict.
To give us that knowledge, you have to come up with a quantitative hypothesis.
There is also a middle step, between coming up with that quantitative hypothesis and anyone bothering to experimentally test it. That step is taking your quantitative hypothesis and working it over to see if it predicts anything we already know to be blatantly wrong. If it does, you have to go back to the drawing board and revise it before anyone will test it. Your ideas can be a little wrong (as the saying goes: "all models are wrong - some are useful"), but the worse your hypothesis does at postdiction, the less interesting it is.
So, you have a lot of work to do before anyone would take your idea seriously enough to test. And that's pretty standard - doing science is not just being an idea man. You and chelle both seem to have that wrong impression. Science is hard work. People spend months and years developing ideas, making small, incremental contributions to existing theories. Experimentalists spend person-years of their lives setting up experiments. They aren't going to bother doing that if you aren't going to bother working out the details of your theory. You want their resources? Then you have to do your hard work first.
eric: "No ,I’m demanding you form a testable hypothesis."
Demand all you want. I already proposed the hypothesis (you didn't like it) and outlined the purpose/ intent to examine the spinning clock in all possible ways for changes in it's internal dynamics which might account for its slowing down as a timekeeper.
No, I don't "have to come up with a quantitative hypothesis."
Quantitative analysis follows from the empirical evidence revealed in the investigation, not as a math framework which I (the experimenter) intend to impose on the results.
You have no concept of theoretical experimental design. To start with the math and see if the results fit is totally ass-backwards.
I'm done, again, with you.
" No, I don’t 'have to come up with a quantitative hypothesis.' ”
Sure you do! In order for a theory to be a Scientific theory, it must be testable, or more formally, falsifiable. That's one of the problems with String Theory. I believe Ethan's written about that.
"I’m done, again, with you"
Everyone is done with you, MM, go away with your nonsense, it's long past time.
My response to your comment that I repeat the same line over and over again is: Yes, I do. Bigotry, racism (sorting and selecting based on racial stereotypes), and sexism (sorting and selecting based on sex) are unethical, and the people who accept and perpetuate those unethical practices are behaving unethically. I can only fight against these evils with words here, so I do. I hope everyone chooses to do the same. Those who seem to accept the unethical position of “the end justifies the means” should think about what they’re saying, and turn away from practices that have lead time and time again to mistreatment of persons just like you and me,
Sorry. Wrong thread. If you're interested in reading it in context, follow the link. http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/08/06/comments-of-the-week…
Me: ” No, I don’t ‘have to come up with a quantitative hypothesis.’ ”
"Sure you do! In order for a theory to be a Scientific theory, it must be testable, or more formally, falsifiable."
I simply outlined the basic concept and intent of an experiment to investigate the internal dynamics of a clock being exposed to extreme acceleration/ gravity. Them I am attacked for lack of specificity like having the math all worked out before the experiment. ( Any excuse for another personal attack... Nonsense!)
" That’s one of the problems with String Theory. "
Yes it is, and it's one of the problems with SR theory of "time dilation,"... failure to investigate or account for changes in internal dynamics of clocks having been subjected to different forces to reach different velocities. Simply asserting that "time dilates" and "clocks measure that dilation" is WAY too much assumption without empirical investigation.
Also the ubiquitous physics definition of time as "that which clocks measure" is the epitome of stupidity, not an intelligent ontology of what time is. (Event duration... not an entity. Movement "takes time.")
You have no concept of theoretical experimental design.
I've designed experiments, convinced grant agencies to fund them, carried them out, and published the results. How about you?
In your decades of SR research, oh Guru Of Experimental Design, have you ever actually successfully designed and carried out an experiment? Or are you just an armchair quarterback yelling at the TV?