You probably often reflect, which hairstyle will be suitable for you: long, declining on shoulders hair, cutty on the page, or just short hair cuts? We will help to you to fit hairstyle to the shape of your face and the kind of hair.
|
math table definition The “ Twins Paradox ” isn't a paradox. (1 viewing) (1) Guests
Favoured: 0
|
|
|
TOPIC: math table definition The “ Twins Paradox ” isn't a paradox.
|
|
|
|
math table definition The “ Twins Paradox ” isn't a paradox.
|
|
|
Understand? The math is testable - the ontologics aren't. Your quest to understand Nature by discovering its driving mechanisms, is pie-in-the-sky. So it is wrong (pie-in-the-sky) to conclude that the fact that the tides go in and out has something to do with the fact that a moon orbits the earth? I believe that causality is an essential part of physics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
math table definition The “ Twins Paradox ” isn't a paradox.
|
|
|
One cannot prove it is a wave only show evidence that it might be. Similarly you cannot prove it is particles. What is critical is evidence that it isn't a wave or evidence that it isn't a particle. It cannot be both. Why not? One has to either explain how a wave can give an impeccable impression of being a particle, or explain how particles can give rise to very convincing wavelike properties. To me the former is impossible the latter exceedingly difficult. You may see it differently. A US quarter exhibits the properties of a US president. It also exhibits the properties of a carnivorous bird. A US quarter is incapable of starting an unnecessary war without having even the vaguest plan as to what to do after it had been 'won' neither is it capable of eating flesh so a US quarter exhibits neither the properties of a president nor of a carnivorous bird. PD overestimated your ability to extract the point from his example. Try this. A US quarter gives an impeccable impression of being a picture of a president, so using Kennaugh logic it's impossible, or at least exceedingly difficult, for it to give an impeccable impression of being a picture of an eagle too. It has a picture of a president on one side and a picture of an eagle on the other. If it was cubic it could have six pictures one on each side. A 'picture' is not fundamentally different to another 'picture' physically they are built up using the same technique of raised bits of _meta_l. They differ only in which bits of _meta_l are raised and by how much and what is done on one side in no way puts constraints on what is done on the other and you cannot distort Kennaugh's logic to imply that it says it does. In order to learn from an analogy, Kennaugh, you need to look to the similarities, not the dissimilarities. The statement light is a wave and particles is a paradox. Definition Paradox -A statement which is seemingly absurd but may nevertheless be true. Any useful analogy must include a paradox. There is nothing even vaguely paradoxical about two sides of a coin having different images on them. There are no similarities to look for in the so called an analogy. Paradoxes are in the eye of the beholder. The light case is just as trivially non-contradictory as the coin case Don't be silly. - just not to you. (Incidentally, don't presume that logically impossible occurrences can't happen. Our logic is just another model that's _base_d on past observations of Nature - it's as subject to falsification as any other model.) A wave on the other hand is a function of continuous fields and a photon is definitely not continuous. Now if you watch a film it looks to be a continuously moving picture but you know that it is made up of a series of fixed images. It doesn't mean we have to accept that it IS a continuously moving picture and IS also a series of fixed images. It IS a series of fixed images which give an impeccable impression of being a moving picture. Light is not both waves AND photons - although it might be neither. The most promising approach is that light IS made up of photons which together give an impeccable impression of being waves. Just as we understand how a series of fixed images can give rise to an impression of continuously moving pictures it might be possible to understand how photons can give the impression that they are waves. Light IS something* that exhibits *both* wave-like AND particle-like behavior, but if it makes you happier to think that light IS a particle which also gives an impeccable impression of being a wave, I do. or IS a wave which also gives an impeccable impression of being a particle, I cannot see how that would work. go right ahead, because such distinctions are entirely irrelevant to Science. * Having discussed related issues with you before, I know it's necessary to point out that light isn't something that exists in Nature with properties that Science attempts to discover I'm afraid it is. The fact that physics has redefined itself to the point where is can no longer be considered science is not my problem. The construction of predictive logical systems to compare against observation is what *defines* Science. No it doesn't. Other sciences do not restrict themselves to such a narrow remit. Every other science tries to understand nature which puts Physics on its own. _base_d on consensus of other science, physics is not a science. Your inability to understand that, is your problem. - it's something that exists in models of Nature where *what* it is, is *exactly* what it's *defined* to be. R.A.Waldron has suggested [1] a structural model of a photon with which explains the wavelike properties of light but physics doctrine has declared that a photon has no internal structure which is rather limiting. Like trying to explain how one gets the impression of detailed moving pictures from a series of blank _frame_s rather than assuming that something in the nature of the _frame_s gives rise to the impression of detailed moving pictures. Your goal for physical models, Kennaugh, is to get them to conform to your common-sense notions, but the modern view of Science is that the proper goal for physical models is the accurate prediction of experimental outcomes So provided you can mathematically generate accurate tide tables there is no need to enquire and try to understand the real physical processes in nature which makes the tides go in and out. What a truly degenerate view of science. It's not that there's no need to - there's /no way to/ - there's simply nothing about Nature that can be verified other than the outcomes of repeatable experiments (i.e. measurements). The ontological de_script_ions (i.e. models) which facilitate thinking about and talking about the logical systems (i.e. the math) that Science creates to mirror natural phenomena, simply *can't* be tested by observing Nature. Case in point: LET and SRT are two distinct ontological models that are _base_d on the same mathematics (i.e. both models predict exactly the same phenomenological behavior). However, since Nature provides no information except phenomenological behavior, it's clear that Nature *can't* tell us which is the better model. They are the same model. Einstein _object_ed to the asymmetry in the theoretical structure of LET and avoided it by producing a 'theory' without a theoretical structure. LET is maths + theoretical structure. SR is the same maths without a theoretical structure. Until someone comes up with an alternative explanation as to what the maths is describing, Lorentz's is the only one on the table. Both Lorentz and Einstein considered Maxwell electrodynamics to be impeccable. They were both trying to explain why the MMX showed that every observer is stationary w.r.t the aether. Lorentz said it was an illusion brought about by distortion of measurement due to our speed w.r.t the aether. Einstein's approach was to simply accept that experimentally every observer IS stationary w.r.t the aether and so Any ray of light moves in the observer's system of co-ordinates [in the aether the observer is stationary w.r.t] with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body. He assumed that nature must somehow provide a suitable aether - an aether without the immobility of Lorentz's (1920 lecture) - which every observer would find himself naturally stationary w.r.t. No one accepted that idea so Lorentz's explanation is still the only one on the table. Getting rid of the aether had nothing to do with Einstein it was simply an arbitrary decision taken out of expediency that physics no longer needed a physical interpretation to compliment the maths. It no longer needed to worry about what the Lorentz/Einstein maths was describing from a physical standpoint. That is why they are now one and the same theory which is why it is not possible to distinguish one from another. Understand? The math is testable - the ontologics aren't. Your quest to understand Nature by discovering its driving mechanisms, is pie-in-the-sky. So it is wrong (pie-in-the-sky) to conclude that the fact that the tides go in and out has something to do with the fact that a moon orbits the earth? I believe that causality is an essential part of physics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
math table definition The “ Twins Paradox ” isn't a paradox.
|
|
|
A laser has an ultra-tiny 4-D gravitational field, that's an empirical fact. You don't understand it, so you dismiss it, failing to replace it with anything. Your 300 year old Newtonian ideals simply won't do. Jeff: Where do you get your ideas about science? Now, light has... gravity? By this question it appears that you don't know that light can generate a gravitational field. Is that correct? If so then rest assured that Einstein's general theory of relativity predicts that light can indeed generate a gravitational field. Pete
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
math table definition The “ Twins Paradox ” isn't a paradox.
|
|
|
Weak gravitational field of the electromagnetic radiation in a ring laser The gravitational field due to the circulating flow of electromagnetic radiation of a unidirectional ring laser is found by solving the linearized Einstein field equations at any interior point of the laser ring. The general relativistic spin equations are then used to study the behavior of a massive spinning neutral particle at the center of the ring laser. It is found that the particle exhibits the phenomenon known as inertial _frame_-dragging. .
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
math table definition The “ Twins Paradox ” isn't a paradox.
|
|
|
A laser has an ultra-tiny 4-D gravitational field, that's an empirical fact. You don't understand it, so you dismiss it, failing to replace it with anything. Your 300 year old Newtonian ideals simply won't do. Jeff: Where do you get your ideas about science? Now, light has... gravity? By this question it appears that you don't know that light can generate a gravitational field. Is that correct? If so then rest assured that Einstein's general theory of relativity predicts that light can indeed generate a gravitational field. Pete OK, Pete, please find a _link_ to an article and I will read it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
math table definition The “ Twins Paradox ” isn't a paradox.
|
|
|
On Apr 22, 9:00 am, John Kennaugh <
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
wrote: One cannot prove it is a wave only show evidence that it might be. Similarly you cannot prove it is particles. What is critical is evidence that it isn't a wave or evidence that it isn't a particle. It cannot be both. Why not? One has to either explain how a wave can give an impeccable impression of being a particle, or explain how particles can give rise to very convincing wavelike properties. To me the former is impossible the latter exceedingly difficult. You may see it differently. A US quarter exhibits the properties of a US president. It also exhibits the properties of a carnivorous bird. A US quarter is incapable of starting an unnecessary war without having even the vaguest plan as to what to do after it had been 'won' neither is it capable of eating flesh so a US quarter exhibits neither the properties of a president nor of a carnivorous bird. Well, the electron is incapable of always being localizable, and so it also fails at exhibiting the properties of a particle. And an electron is incapable of delivering its momentum in continuous fashion, and so it also fails at exhibiting the properties of a wave. To Tom's point, this indicates that an electron is neither a particle or a wave in this sense, though it exhibits properties of both. The blame doesn't rest on the electron, of course. The problem is our assumption that physical entities can be exhaustively and mutually exclusively characterized as particles or as waves. That assumption now appears to be poor. The problem has been our lack of imagination. Newton's particle was a little bit too simple a model for the electron but it was OK for mathematizing gravity. Maxwell & all his followers recognized that waves are the property of something real - not an existent in their own right, as this supposition could not explain interference etc. These phenomena need the possibility of negative & positive values that can add to zero: this is not a property of existence, which can be modeled by the simple integer numbers 1 and 0; hence the rational belief in the aether in the 19th Century. So, Gentlemen, back to the drawing boards & sharpen your imagination!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
