The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: How much do all of the electrons on Earth weigh?  (Read 11473 times)

Offline PhysBang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 588
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: How much do all of the electrons on Earth weigh?
« Reply #25 on: 25/08/2009 13:18:23 »
On the one hand the article says the interpretation is perfectly valid and makes good physical sense, and later on it says it does not even make sense. It not only contradicts Einstein, it contradicts itself.
Why must you provide such an obvious academic falsehood? And so poorly? You even quoted the sentence that shows that you're wrong: "Finally, we come to the conclusion that the speed of light is not only observed to be constant; in the light of well tested theories of physics, it does not even make any sense to say that it varies". Something can make good physical sense in the abstract but dramatically fail to make any sense in the context of other theories. The phlogiston theory makes great sense and even had significant amount of evidential support, but it no longer makes any sense to say that burning involves phlogiston because so many other theories make that claim nonsense.
Quote
I'm not pulling the wool over your eyes with this. People like PhysBang defend the modern interpretation by directing ad-hominems at people like me without offering any evidence or logical argument, attempting to distract you from the very simple unassailable logic supported by the evidence that's there in the history and in the observation.
It is not an ad hominem to point out that you have a documented history of using the same deceptive practices again and again. If you begin your logic with false premises, then it doesn't matter how good your logic is. If you were able to, on your own, derive a usable theory with a variable speed of light, then you might have a case. However, the best that you have is two mistakes made by Einstein. Indeed, you quote a single passage of text from Einstein but never address a single formula.
Quote
The latter is "hidden in plain view". For example, imagine that I'm in a region of high gravitational potential holding a light clock in an orientation that avoids any issues of radial length contraction. PhysBang is holding an identical light clock in free space, and you're observing us both via telescopes and a TV monitor that puts both light clocks up on a split screen. What you see, is that my light goes slower than his.
How could this be possible? This violates every test of the speed of light that we have ever performed. What one might see is that the light clock that you were holding is distorted by gravity. If we could see and measure the speed of light for your clock, we would see the light moving at c. If you can deomnstrate otherwise, let us see your calculations.
Quote
What people are generally taught about relativity, is not quite how it is.
Well, let's see how everyone has got the equations incorrect.
Quote
Please note that I'm a strong supporter of relativity and Einstein, along with empirical evidence and experiment. Some people are not. 
Some people are not supporters of people who have mistaken ideas about science with a book to sell.
 

Offline Farsight

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 396
    • View Profile
Re: How much do all of the electrons on Earth weigh?
« Reply #26 on: 26/08/2009 09:40:24 »
Why must you provide such an obvious academic falsehood? And so poorly? You even quoted the sentence that shows that you're wrong: "Finally, we come to the conclusion that the speed of light is not only observed to be constant; in the light of well tested theories of physics, it does not even make any sense to say that it varies".
What's obvious is that Einstein talked about the variable speed of light. It's there in 1911, and in 1916. And yet here you are saying it's an "obvious academic falsehood". It just won't wash, Physbang, and phlogiston just doesn't cut it.

It is not an ad hominem to point out that you have a documented history of using the same deceptive practices again and again.
But I don't. I'm pointing out the clear evidence, there's no deception on my part. You're the one with the problem concerning the examination and discussion of this evidence. 

If you begin your logic with false premises, then it doesn't matter how good your logic is. If you were able to, on your own, derive a usable theory with a variable speed of light, then you might have a case. However, the best that you have is two mistakes made by Einstein. Indeed, you quote a single passage of text from Einstein but never address a single formula.
It's Einstein's premise, and it isn't false. He started with a postulate in Special Relativity saying the speed of light is constant, and later explained that it didn't apply to General Relativity. What we read in the 1920 translation is this:

"In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity would be laid in the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity; its results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (eg of light).

But Einstein was German, he didn't speak English in 1916 when he wrote this book. The word he used wasn't velocity, it was geschwindigkeit, which means both velocity and speed. This and the context tells us that when he approved the translation, he was talking about speed, like the Baez article says. He was talking about speed because even something as simple as a mirror changes the velocity of a beam of light. This was a popular science book. The word velocity here is the common usage, as in "high velocity bullet". Claiming that he was talking about a vector-quantity velocity reduces this paragraph to a ridiculous tautology. He would have been saying light curves because it changes direction. His meaning is obvious, itís clear as a bell. Read the original and there it is in black and white from the man himself: die Ausbreitungsgeschwindigkeit des Lichtes mit dem Orte variiert. Try a Google translate from German to English using

http://translate.google.co.uk/translate_t#de|en|die%20Ausbreitungsgeschwindigkeit%20des%20Lichtes%20mit%20dem%20Orte%20variiert

Sorry the hyperlink doesn't work, this website stops at the vbar. What you get is the speed of light varies with the locality.

How could this be possible? This violates every test of the speed of light that we have ever performed. What one might see is that the light clock that you were holding is distorted by gravity. If we could see and measure the speed of light for your clock, we would see the light moving at c. If you can demonstrate otherwise, let us see your calculations.
It's possible, and it's what we see. Lightarrow will see my light moving slower than yours on his split screen. And it doesn't violate every test of the speed of light we have ever performed. What the heck do you think the Shapiro time delay is? And the GPS clocks are atomic clocks, they use microwaves. That's light. And they need an adjustment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System#Special_and_general_relativity. They need this adjustment because the rate of motion of light is reduced down here at the surface of the earth compared to up in orbit. Now set aside any notions you have about time, read Time Explained, then look at the evidence, and see what's there. 
 
Well, let's see how everyone has got the equations incorrect.
The issue is one of interpretation, and Einstein's equations were the equations of motion, not of curved spacetime. Check it out for yourself in The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity: http://www.alberteinstein.info/gallery/pdf/CP6Doc30_English_pp146-200.pdf. And read Pmb's paper "Einstein's gravitational field" on http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204044

Abstract
There exists some confusion, as evidenced in the literature, regarding the nature of the gravitational field in Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. It is argued here the this confusion is a result of a change in interpretation of the gravitational field. Einstein identified the existence of gravity with the inertial motion of accelerating bodies (i.e. bodies in free-fall) whereas contemporary physicists identify the existence of gravity with space-time curvature (i.e. tidal forces). The interpretation of gravity as a curvature in space-time is an interpretation Einstein did not agree with.


Some people are not supporters of people who have mistaken ideas about science with a book to sell.
I stand for scientific progress, nothing more. And it isn't me with mistaken ideas, or Einstein. It's you.
 

Offline PhysBang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 588
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: How much do all of the electrons on Earth weigh?
« Reply #27 on: 26/08/2009 13:42:33 »
What's obvious is that Einstein talked about the variable speed of light. It's there in 1911, and in 1916. And yet here you are saying it's an "obvious academic falsehood". It just won't wash, Physbang, and phlogiston just doesn't cut it.
The obvious falsehoods are that you refer to something that Einstein explicitly rejected in his actual science and that you deliberately misquoted the webpage you referenced.
Quote
I'm pointing out the clear evidence, there's no deception on my part. You're the one with the problem concerning the examination and discussion of this evidence. 
The problem of evidence that I and other have when you are around is that you never provide any. Gravitational physics is decided by the accuracty of measurement. Where are your measurements? What mathematics guides your interpretation that we could measure?
Quote
It's Einstein's premise, and it isn't false. He started with a postulate in Special Relativity saying the speed of light is constant, and later explained that it didn't apply to General Relativity. What we read in the 1920 translation is this:

"In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity would be laid in the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity; its results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (eg of light).

But Einstein was German, he didn't speak English in 1916 when he wrote this book. The word he used wasn't velocity, it was geschwindigkeit, which means both velocity and speed. This and the context tells us that when he approved the translation, he was talking about speed, like the Baez article says. He was talking about speed because even something as simple as a mirror changes the velocity of a beam of light. This was a popular science book. The word velocity here is the common usage, as in "high velocity bullet". Claiming that he was talking about a vector-quantity velocity reduces this paragraph to a ridiculous tautology. He would have been saying light curves because it changes direction. His meaning is obvious, itís clear as a bell.
The meaning is obvious to someone who keept reading the book and does the mathematics: one has to find a way to "disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena." This is what the entire apparatus of the mathematics of GR and the use of generally covariant equations is designed to do.
Quote
It's possible, and it's what we see.
It can't be what we "see", bacause nobody has done this test. It is what you tell us that we will see. Show us the math.
Quote
Lightarrow will see my light moving slower than yours on his split screen. And it doesn't violate every test of the speed of light we have ever performed. What the heck do you think the Shapiro time delay is? And the GPS clocks are atomic clocks, they use microwaves. That's light. And they need an adjustment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System#Special_and_general_relativity. They need this adjustment because the rate of motion of light is reduced down here at the surface of the earth compared to up in orbit. Now set aside any notions you have about time, read Time Explained, then look at the evidence, and see what's there. 
The adjustment of the clocks is there because of the relativistic differences in time, not in light. Show us the math.
Quote
The issue is one of interpretation, and Einstein's equations were the equations of motion, not of curved spacetime. Check it out for yourself in The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity: http://www.alberteinstein.info/gallery/pdf/CP6Doc30_English_pp146-200.pdf. And read Pmb's paper "Einstein's gravitational field" on http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204044
A reference to a crank paper that managed to get into arXiv is not good. Especially ones that explicitly deny something said by Einstein in the document you linked to, namely: "Thus, according to the general theory of relativity, gravitation occupies an exceptional position with regard to other forces, particularly the electromagnetic forces, since the ten functions representing the gravitational field at the same time define the metrical properties of the space measured."(pg. 156) This is what "spacetime is curved by gravity" means.
Quote
I stand for scientific progress, nothing more. And it isn't me with mistaken ideas, or Einstein. It's you.
Well, since you seem not to know what curved spacetime means, how can you possibly claim to stand for Einstein?
 

lyner

  • Guest
How much do all of the electrons on Earth weigh?
« Reply #28 on: 26/08/2009 14:05:53 »
It seems to me that this argument is not helping to improving understanding. One idea uses two variables to measure a third and the other idea chooses a different pair from the three and measures the remaining one. Aren't you both just looking at the same problem from two different directions?
Don't mislead yourselves into thinking there's only one way of looking at it.
 

Offline Farsight

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 396
    • View Profile
How much do all of the electrons on Earth weigh?
« Reply #29 on: 26/08/2009 18:23:13 »
We are looking at the same problem from two different directions, Sophie, but the difference is utterly crucial to understanding, and thence scientific progress. Both Pmb and myself have done original research that leads us to the conclusion that the "modern interpretation" of relativity is not in line with Einstein, and we offer historical and scientific evidence to support our view. PhysBang however offers denial and abuse, and only seeks to suppress discussion on the subject. Pmb and I do not agree on details, but we discuss points here with polite civility. Note that he has a PhD in physics, and is certainly not a crank.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

How much do all of the electrons on Earth weigh?
« Reply #29 on: 26/08/2009 18:23:13 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums