Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Summit Clock Experiment 2.0: Time is Absolute

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • gcthomas
    replied
    Originally posted by Nihilo View Post
    Quantum by itself can explain why solid purified elemental metals can be polished to a mirror finish, but only relativistic quantum, can explain why the mirror finish on solid gold, is yellow. Quantum only approximates what relativistic quantum actually predicts, so again, that to me seems like relativity is the boss. It's like a sandcastle at the beach, and if it's carefully treated on a calm day, it is fine, but when the tide comes in, or a kid falls into it, it will crumble, like how quantum must be relativistic, in order for it to predict that solid gold polished to a mirror finish is golden/yellowish, and that all the other metals in the periodic table are like polished chrome.
    It is true the the quantum mechanics of the 1920s doesn't predict the colour of gold without the addition of elements of Special Relativity, but that isn't the whole story. (Incidentally, silver has similar effects to gold, afaik, hence its colour that is more yellow than aluminium. Also, relativity accounts for the first 10 volts of 12 volt lead-acid car batteries. )

    Chemists cannot use the full Schrödinger Equations to solve their atom behaviours, becaues they involve the interactions of more than a few particles. To derive anything useful quantum chemistry is a semi-empirical field. This means that they use the depricated, very early and semi-classical quantum mechanics of de Broglie and bolt on discrete parts of other theories (in this case, Special Relativity) as they see fit and as far as it gives results consistent with observations.

    Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) is the distant successor to early quantum mechanics (along with the other quantum field theories) and it isn't quantum mechanics with a relativity bolt-on correction, but is relativistic in its nature. It fully incorporates the earlier theories from a century ago, and is bigger and better than both. QED is the most tested and most precisely accurate theortical model that humanity has ever produced *it really doesn't stand in second place to any other theoretical construction. (Special Relativity is an incomplete theory that was developed a decade later with the more general General Relativity).

    Chemists are restricted in their use of QED due to complexity, in the same way that aerodynamicists are restricted in their use of the full Navier-Stokes fluid mechanics equations: they are fiendishly complex to handle mathematically for any other than the most simple problems.

    Cheers Nihilo!

    Leave a comment:


  • Nihilo
    replied
    Originally posted by gcthomas View Post
    Not quite, I think. Special Relativity has only limited application, but the various quantum theories are fundamentally relativistic. That is, they are entirely consistent with relativity. Both theories say something fundamental about the universe, and it doesn't make sense to build some sort of hierarchy out of them. Relativity was built with Newtonian theories as a given for certain behaviours, but Relativity is certainly superior. 'Foundations' is not a good word, maybe 'core' would be more appropriate, since the mathematics of Relativity reduces to Newtonian Physics when slow speeds and low gravity are assumed.
    Quantum by itself can explain why solid purified elemental metals can be polished to a mirror finish, but only relativistic quantum, can explain why the mirror finish on solid gold, is yellow. Quantum only approximates what relativistic quantum actually predicts, so again, that to me seems like relativity is the boss. It's like a sandcastle at the beach, and if it's carefully treated on a calm day, it is fine, but when the tide comes in, or a kid falls into it, it will crumble, like how quantum must be relativistic, in order for it to predict that solid gold polished to a mirror finish is golden/yellowish, and that all the other metals in the periodic table are like polished chrome.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stripe
    replied
    Originally posted by CabinetMaker View Post
    As our ability to observe and measure improves we will gather more data. As that data comes in the theory will be revised accordingly.
    How?

    You refuse to contemplate the possibility of the non-constancy of the speed of light.

    Every measurement indicates that it is.
    Name one.

    What is your experiment that you will use to prove the c is not a constant?
    None.

    As has been pointed out (but you just leaped into the conversation, pretending to be an expert), experiments do not provide proofs.

    The claim is made by your side that this proof has been provided, although GC denies it. Show us that you are willing to join the discussion and name the maths construct that Einstein claimed to be a proof that light speed is a constant in any reference frame.

    To date, there has not been one experiment that shows that c is not constant.
    There has not been one experiment performed that might fulfill your claim that has not assumed the constancy of c.

    I am referring to c in a vacuum. We know that c changes, slows down, when traveling through different mediums.
    If you wanted to expose how little you understand this discussion, you couldn't have done a better job.

    Here are a couple of links you might find informative:Brief history of c measurements
    Is the speed of light constant This one is long but very interesting
    Neither shows how the constancy of c is proved. The first assumes it as true and points to the second, which glosses over the experiments and maths behind the idea.

    c is a universal constant like an electron volt, Planck constant and the gravitational constant to name a few. I agree that we do not use math to establish light is a constant. That notion is established by Einstein's theory of relativity.
    News flash. Einstein's theory is a mathematical model.

    Imagine what would happen to physics if somebody were to actually experimentally demonstrate that c is not a constant.


    Imagine what would happen if someone demonstrated that the Earth orbits the sun.

    Arguments from consequence are logical fallacies.

    We know how much you love those.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nihilo
    replied
    Originally posted by gcthomas View Post
    Not quite, I think. Special Relativity has only limited application, but the various quantum theories are fundamentally relativistic. That is, they are entirely consistent with relativity. Both theories say something fundamental about the universe, and it doesn't make sense to build some sort of hierarchy out of them. Relativity was built with Newtonian theories as a given for certain behaviours, but Relativity is certainly superior. 'Foundations' is not a good word, maybe 'core' would be more appropriate, since the mathematics of Relativity reduces to Newtonian Physics when slow speeds and low gravity are assumed.
    I took a swipe at the right word there; if "core" is a better word that's fine with me.

    Leave a comment:


  • gcthomas
    replied
    Originally posted by Nihilo View Post
    So relativity must be the foundation, upon which Quantum is built.
    Not quite, I think. Special Relativity has only limited application, but the various quantum theories are fundamentally relativistic. That is, they are entirely consistent with relativity. Both theories say something fundamental about the universe, and it doesn't make sense to build some sort of hierarchy out of them. Relativity was built with Newtonian theories as a given for certain behaviours, but Relativity is certainly superior. 'Foundations' is not a good word, maybe 'core' would be more appropriate, since the mathematics of Relativity reduces to Newtonian Physics when slow speeds and low gravity are assumed.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nihilo
    replied
    Originally posted by Nihilo View Post
    I'm still pretty impressed that when relativistic effects of the mass of electrons is taken into consideration, that the color of gold, and melt point of mercury is accurately predicted.
    Newtonism doesn't predict these.
    Quantum doesn't predict these, even though Bell's Theorem confirms quantum.
    Quantum with relativity predicts these.
    So relativity must be the foundation, upon which Quantum is built.

    Leave a comment:


  • CabinetMaker
    replied
    Originally posted by Stripe View Post
    How?
    As our ability to observe and measure improves we will gather more data. As that data comes in the theory will be revised accordingly.

    You're sold out on light speed as a constant.
    Every measurement indicates that it is. What is your experiment that you will use to prove the c is not a constant? To date, there has not been one experiment that shows that c is not constant. (I am referring to c in a vacuum. We know that c changes, slows down, when traveling through different mediums.)

    No, you haven't.
    You have a short or highly selective memory. Here are a couple of links you might find informative:

    Brief history of c measurements

    Is the speed of light constant This one is long but very interesting


    Heck, GC at least knows what he's talking about. He says there is no maths to establish the notion that light is a constant.
    c is a universal constant like an electron volt, Planck constant and the gravitational constant to name a few. I agree that we do not use math to establish light is a constant. That notion is established by Einstein's theory of relativity. Imagine what would happen to physics if somebody were to actually experimentally demonstrate that c is not a constant.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stripe
    replied
    Originally posted by CabinetMaker View Post
    Then we'll find it in due time.
    How?

    You're sold out on light speed as a constant.

    I have.
    No, you haven't.

    Heck, GC at least knows what he's talking about. He says there is no maths to establish the notion that light is a constant.

    Leave a comment:


  • CabinetMaker
    replied
    Originally posted by Stripe View Post
    And if there was a more accurate model?
    Then we'll find it in due time. That is how real science is done.


    You're the one making the claim, you provide the proof.
    I have. Several times in past discussions. You have given me no reason to believe that you will find it any more convincing now.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stripe
    replied
    Originally posted by CabinetMaker View Post
    It is an accurate mathematical model of a real phenomenon.
    And if there was a more accurate model?

    Stripe refuses ithat it is real because [he] rejects that the speed of light is constant.
    You're the one making the claim, you provide the proof.

    Originally posted by CabinetMaker View Post
    I'm sorry you failed to understand.

    Leave a comment:


  • CabinetMaker
    replied
    Originally posted by Clete View Post
    Thank you for wasting my time.

    Good bye.
    I'm sorry you failed to understand.

    Leave a comment:


  • CabinetMaker
    replied
    Originally posted by Stripe View Post
    Circular?

    You're making this up as you go, right?

    Simple comprehension would benefit you a great deal.

    Nobody has said anything of the sort. However, for a mathematical model to exist, it must have been written down.

    If relativity exists, it must have been established.

    Go back, read the thread and post something when you understand what is being said.

    For example:


    I have said nothing remotely connected to this.



    GCmoron.

    Cabinethead agrees with me: Relativity is a mathematical model. He's just too stupid to understand what the conversation is about.
    It is an accurate mathematical model of a real phenomenon. Stripe refuses ithat it is real because Strip rejects that the speed of light is constant.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stripe
    replied
    Originally posted by CabinetMaker View Post
    You speak in such a circular fashion that you frequently make no sense at all.
    Circular?

    You're making this up as you go, right?

    A mathematical model does not mean something does not exist.
    Simple comprehension would benefit you a great deal.

    Nobody has said anything of the sort. However, for a mathematical model to exist, it must have been written down.

    If relativity exists, it must have been established.

    Go back, read the thread and post something when you understand what is being said.

    For example:

    Just because we have not been able to test something does not mean that the model is wrong.
    I have said nothing remotely connected to this.

    Originally posted by gcthomas View Post
    He's been banging this drum for a week now, so I assume he thinks he has found a cunning wheeze to disprove relativity if he can get someone to say that relativity was established mathematically rather than empirically. He'd love to ignore the wealth of physical evidence out there, but he does love to play these games. Shame he is so fixated on one issue at a time, it makes it very hard to have a productive conversation. But he can never hold up his end of the debate for long before he fails and resorts to emoticons.
    GCmoron.

    Cabinethead agrees with me: Relativity is a mathematical model. He's just too stupid to understand what the conversation is about.

    Leave a comment:


  • Clete
    replied
    Originally posted by CabinetMaker View Post
    I'll continue to deny your position because I think your understanding is wrong. Physicists don't deny it because there is no reason to, math is the language of physics.


    That is how science is done. Propose a hypothesis, make predictions (that's where the super computer comes in), test the results (that is when they compare the data to the model) and draw conclusions. If the predictions don't match the data then the hypothesis was wrong so they revise it and start over. We learn more from our failures than our successes.


    See above.


    Math is the language of physics which means we can use math to model the physical world. Starting with a mathematical model derived from the results of earlier work and/or new observations is a reasonable approach to understanding either the very small or the very distant.

    This is the pot calling the kettle black. I have seen the work of many creation scientists doing EXACTLY what you accuse more traditional scientists of doing.

    Relativity was derived by asking a very simple question. It was a thought experiment and the results were very interesting. It gave us the concept of time dilatation and that has actually been observed.


    This actually matches up very will with Genesis for and observer on Earth. We had a biology professor for CU come and do about 3 weeks of teaching on this at our church. It was very interesting.
    How would you prove or disprove the existence of a black hole? At present, it is the best model for what is happening at the center of many galaxies.
    The existence of pulsars are evidence that neutron stars do exist.
    These two are still at the center of active research. The concept of dark mater is losing support as some of the recent data does not support the theory.
    We have observed lensing in observations of the skys around us. Your link attributes it to plasma near a start. Einstein attributes it to the deep gravity well near a star. Which is looking for evidence to support their hypothesis?
    There as a story in the news recently reporting the gravitational waves were observed.
    One of our probes on the way out of the solar system might be able to provide us some more data.
    How would you propose we test these theories?
    This has been observed. Why would you doubt it? You can hear it when you are at a rail road crossing.



    It may take quite sometime for some theories to be revised but when enough data is available, theories get changed. That is why they are theories and not laws. Theories can be changed as new data is uncovered and that is what science does, ask a question, make a prediction, test the prediction, evaluate the results, repeat.


    I'm sorry, your links are agenda based science. I can only accept them with a grain of salt.
    Thank you for wasting my time.

    Good bye.

    Leave a comment:


  • CabinetMaker
    replied
    Originally posted by Clete View Post
    No, it doesn't. They (physicists) don't even deny it.
    I'll continue to deny your position because I think your understanding is wrong. Physicists don't deny it because there is no reason to, math is the language of physics.


    That was true in Newton's day. Now its far more than just the language. The vast majority of cosmological physics is done inside a super computer. Everything they think they know comes primarily from computer models and as a result they are continually "surprised" by the actual data when it comes in. Then what do they do? They go back to their computer models and turns the dials to make their model fit the data and then see what the computer tells them about everything else and that becomes the new accepted understanding of how the universe works.
    That is how science is done. Propose a hypothesis, make predictions (that's where the super computer comes in), test the results (that is when they compare the data to the model) and draw conclusions. If the predictions don't match the data then the hypothesis was wrong so they revise it and start over. We learn more from our failures than our successes.


    When the use Newton's laws, they are using mathematics that were derived from physics. When they use Einstein's they do the opposite, they derive physics from math and then go hunting evidence to suit their theory.
    See above.


    Like I said, for the last century or more, physics has been co-opted by mathematicians and everything they think they know and everything you've been taught about time, especially in relation to space, gravity and time dilation, is all 100% derived from mathematics, not physics.
    Math is the language of physics which means we can use math to model the physical world. Starting with a mathematical model derived from the results of earlier work and/or new observations is a reasonable approach to understanding either the very small or the very distant.

    Newton was around more like three centuries ago, when physics was still about physical things and not 99.99% pure math.


    Of course, that isn't the point.

    The point is that it isn't science, at least not in the classical sense. It's backward. Relativity was and is a theory in search of evidence. Maybe that evidence exists and maybe it doesn't but it's backward from the way science should work because when you look for evidence to suit theories rather than theories to suit the established facts, confirmation bias will prevent you from seeing contrary or falsifying evidence. I mean that is the specific reason why the scientific method is supposed to go from observation to theory and not the other way around.
    This is the pot calling the kettle black. I have seen the work of many creation scientists doing EXACTLY what you accuse more traditional scientists of doing.

    Relativity was derived by asking a very simple question. It was a thought experiment and the results were very interesting. It gave us the concept of time dilatation and that has actually been observed.


    The problem is that they (i.e. modern physicists) do not wait. Here's a list of things that physicists accept as basically established science that have not been proven...

    The Big Bang
    This actually matches up very will with Genesis for and observer on Earth. We had a biology professor for CU come and do about 3 weeks of teaching on this at our church. It was very interesting.
    Black holes
    How would you prove or disprove the existence of a black hole? At present, it is the best model for what is happening at the center of many galaxies.
    Neutron Stars
    The existence of pulsars are evidence that neutron stars do exist.
    Dark Matter
    Dark Energy
    These two are still at the center of active research. The concept of dark mater is losing support as some of the recent data does not support the theory.
    Gravitational Lenses
    We have observed lensing in observations of the skys around us. Your link attributes it to plasma near a start. Einstein attributes it to the deep gravity well near a star. Which is looking for evidence to support their hypothesis?
    Space-Time (including gravity waves and practically all of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity)
    There as a story in the news recently reporting the gravitational waves were observed.
    The Ort Cloud
    One of our probes on the way out of the solar system might be able to provide us some more data.
    Comet Theory (i.e. they aren't dirty snow balls)
    Planet Formation Theory
    Sun Formation Theory
    Galaxy Formation Theory
    How would you propose we test these theories?
    Red Shift Theory
    This has been observed. Why would you doubt it? You can hear it when you are at a rail road crossing.



    There is a seemingly constant steam of "surprising" data that forces physicists to revamp their "theories" which means to go fiddle with the settings in their computer models. The good thing is that at least they are willing to admit that the fiddling needs to happen and they are willing to go do it. The bad thing is that they are fully entrenched into thinking that certain premises upon which those models are based are unquestionable facts of nature when they just aren't. And some less than foundational concepts are inexplicably clung to like a favorite pet. I wonder how many comets they have to spend billions of dollars sending space craft to before they toss the sublimating dirty snow ball idea and how many high energy cosmic rays that exceed Einstein's upper limits will they have to detect before they figure out that there's something wrong with the theory and not the data?
    It may take quite sometime for some theories to be revised but when enough data is available, theories get changed. That is why they are theories and not laws. Theories can be changed as new data is uncovered and that is what science does, ask a question, make a prediction, test the prediction, evaluate the results, repeat.

    Seriously, you really ought to check out the information at the site linked to below. It's about how stars don't bend light the way they should if it was gravity doing the bending. It's not conjecture, its real actual, albeit ignored, science. I'm not endorsing the validity of his work or his conclusions, by the way. All I'm telling you is that these theories have NOT been proven the way you think they have and there are serious people doing serious work in the other directions.

    http://www.extinctionshift.com/Signi...Findings01.htm

    And the home page with links to even more data...

    http://www.extinctionshift.com/SignificantFindings.htm

    Clete
    I'm sorry, your links are agenda based science. I can only accept them with a grain of salt.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X