Knowledge vs. Dogma - "Infinitesimal"

[BaalChatzaf]

The "event horizon for the cosmos" depends upon a theory which cannot even get spiral galaxies right - not even close, much less the entire cosmos.

Dennis

Do you think we can see forever? I don't.

The theory has its glitches but it is much better than the notion that the cosmos is spatially infinite. If the cosmos were infinite and eternal the light for all those stars would have roasted us to a turn.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[dennislmay]

I don't believe we can see forever but that is not the question at hand.

What is wrong with the cosmos being spatially infinite? Every criticism of

that concept I've heard to date is entirely without merit.

The idea that an infinite and eternal cosmos would roast does not

apply except in certain models which are not being discussed here.

Dennis

[Brant Gaede]

Spatial infinity exists because there is nothing to stop it from existing as such. If there is an end of the universe the universe is butting up to nothing so it is not butting up to anything, actually, so there is no end. Finiteness is only something bounded by the speed of light. This unexceedable speed traps us and all within the finite matrix of a practical infinity.

While I may be spouting and sprouting poppycock and gibberish it doesn't matter. What matters is observable reality and the science used to make sense of what we can. The rest is "imaginary numbers" as in the above paragraph x the speed of light as such*.

--Brant

*+186,000 miles per second

[SoAMadDeathWish]

The "event horizon for the cosmos" depends upon a theory which cannot even get spiral galaxies right - not even close, much less the entire cosmos.

Dennis

The "event horizon of the cosmos" depends only on the existence of light cones which don't depend on General Relativity.

[Selene]

The "event horizon for the cosmos" depends upon a theory which cannot even get spiral galaxies right - not even close, much less the entire cosmos.

Dennis

The "event horizon of the cosmos" depends only on the existence of light cones which don't depend on General Relativity.

Which means to us here igorant folks?

[dennislmay]

The speed of light being the limit depends upon on both your buying certain models of quantum mechanics and a certain model of relativity. If however you rely upon observation you may reach different conclusions:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.0614

Experimentation demonstrates the new lower limit of speed is four orders of magnitude greater

than the speed of light. A result which agrees with modeling in deterministic quantum mechanics

where the results begin to noticeable diverge from theory and observation in the near field if the

speed is not at least 4 orders of magnitude greater than light.

The other "interpretations" mean you abandon identity and causality [and any form of logic which

does not involve hand waiving, arbitrary assertions, and fuzzy ill defined concepts without referents].

Dennis

[SoAMadDeathWish]

The speed of light being the limit depends upon on both your buying certain models of quantum mechanics and a certain model of relativity. If however you rely upon observation you may reach different conclusions:

We know that the speed of light is constant because the result is derived from Maxwell's vacuum equations. Additionally, if you believe that the laws of physics are the same for all inertial observers (I certainly hope so), then special relativity (and a constant speed of light) is an inescapable conclusion.

However, we also need to point out that, according to SR real particles only ever travel along time-like curves, while light only ever travels along null-curves. Since there are no lorentz transformations which can transform a time-like to a null curve, or a null curve to a space-like curve, this means that neither matter nor light can travel faster than light. Otherwise, you would have to accept the existence of tachyons, and then that would be a violation of causality.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.0614

Experimentation demonstrates the new lower limit of speed is four orders of magnitude greater

than the speed of light. A result which agrees with modeling in deterministic quantum mechanics

where the results begin to noticeable diverge from theory and observation in the near field if the

speed is not at least 4 orders of magnitude greater than light.

The speed of what, exactly? Let's be clear here, that paper is talking about the speed of "spooky action at a distance" or "quantum entanglement". Quantum entanglement does not transmit either light signals or matter. Since special relativity only states that no real particles or light ever travel along space-like curves, there is no contradiction.

The other "interpretations" mean you abandon identity and causality [and any form of logic which

does not involve hand waiving, arbitrary assertions, and fuzzy ill defined concepts without referents].

Dennis

I thought you were supposed to be a physics Ph.D? I honestly find that hard to believe when you continually make such elementary mistakes.

[SoAMadDeathWish]

The "event horizon for the cosmos" depends upon a theory which cannot even get spiral galaxies right - not even close, much less the entire cosmos.

Dennis

The "event horizon of the cosmos" depends only on the existence of light cones which don't depend on General Relativity.

Which means to us here igorant folks?

It means that dennislmay is confused about even the most basic claims and concepts of relativity theory.

[dennislmay]

Since most physicists have never taken both regular Special Relativity coursework and coursework in Lorentzian Ether Theory [LET] which pre-dates Einstein's version [i was taught both in parallel in the same class by a world class expert in Special Relativity]. They both produce exactly the same results mathematically but are different interpretations. If you've not been taught or been exposed to both you are unaware of the actual foundations of the work and give undo credit to Einstein.

Einstein's Special Relativity is entirely brittle in respect to the speed of light and Einstein did not say there is no aether - only that as long as no consequence of the existence of an aether can be detected Special Relativity will hold. Lorentzian Ether Theory is not brittle in that respect. It can adapt to new observation without producing the logical paradoxes Einstein's Special Relativity immediately falls into.

Any non-linearity in quantum mechanics, any effective supraluminal messaging of any kind, and any preferred reference frames of any kind cause the logic of the entirely brittle Special Relativity explode like glass.

Taychons, time travel, and causal violations are all creations of the brittle nature of Special Relativity - contradictions which do not exist in LET in its original or modified versions that can incorporate new observations.

There are many interpretations of quantum mechanics which produce the same mathematical outcome just like there are two interpretations of relativity which produce the same mathematical outcomes. The only known interpretation of quantum mechanics which maintains causality and identity without assuming parallel universes are the Bohm or Bohm-like deterministic interpretations. The only version of relativity which can be integrated with Bohm-like deterministic quantum mechanics are LET related versions of relativity.

So you can keep causality and identity or you can keep Einstein's version of Special Relativity - it is exactly that simple.

Dennis

[Ellen Stuttle]

It means that dennislmay is confused about even the most basic claims and concepts of relativity theory.

That's giving me a really good laugh, somewhat counteracting depression at the enthusiastic turn-out Gore got in Hawaii - according to a news item Adam posted on another thread.

(Lest anyone misunderstand what I'm laughing about, I'm laughing about Naomi's assessment of Dennis' knowledge of relativity theory.)

Ellen

[dennislmay]

You mean Hawaii didn't have record cold this year :-)

Dennis

[Ellen Stuttle]

Significant question asked but thus-far unanswered:

You have a peculiar idea of metaphysics. You've stipulated so limited a meaning you don't recognize metaphysics when you're writing it yourself.

I confess to Reality Lite.

1. There is an Out There out there.

2. We can figure out part of it.

3. We will never know all of it.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Can you figure out which part you can figure out? Or is the difference between what you can and what you can't figure out something you'll never know?

Ellen

The event horizon for the cosmos we can observer increases in radius by one light year a year. Anything beyond that we must do without. If the light cannot reach us it can not tell us anything.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Is the event horizon all you meant in your 2 and 3 statements?

("2. We can figure out part of it.

3. We will never know all of it.")

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

You mean Hawaii didn't have record cold this year :-)

Dennis

I don't know what Hawaii's winter was like, but I think the general mind-set in Hawaii is pretty strongly environmentalist religionist.

Ellen

[dennislmay]

Yes the "Green is the new Red" religion in Hawaii is said to be quite strong.

I've never been there but in general I don't like to go to places where

straying a few blocks the wrong way off the beaten path might lead to

my ass getting kicked. A problem said to exist in Hawaii as friends in

the Air Force stationed there told me, people who have visited or lived

there, and as my brother tells me it is a recurring plot theme on the new

Hawaii-50 show. Tribal violence against non-locals can't be good for

tourism or promoting a good future in general.

Dennis

[SoAMadDeathWish]

Since most physicists have never taken both regular Special Relativity coursework and coursework in Lorentzian Ether Theory [LET] which pre-dates Einstein's version [i was taught both in parallel in the same class by a world class expert in Special Relativity]. They both produce exactly the same results mathematically but are different interpretations. If you've not been taught or been exposed to both you are unaware of the actual foundations of the work and give undo credit to Einstein.

Einstein's Special Relativity is entirely brittle in respect to the speed of light and Einstein did not say there is no aether - only that as long as no consequence of the existence of an aether can be detected Special Relativity will hold. Lorentzian Ether Theory is not brittle in that respect. It can adapt to new observation without producing the logical paradoxes Einstein's Special Relativity immediately falls into.

Any non-linearity in quantum mechanics, any effective supraluminal messaging of any kind, and any preferred reference frames of any kind cause the logic of the entirely brittle Special Relativity explode like glass.

If they are mathematically equivalent and both make the same predictions, then any data which falsifies special relativity necessarily falsifies LET as well.

You criticize special relativity on the basis of its "brittleness", but this is not a weakness of the theory. True, if faster than light motion or such is discovered, then the theory would be falsified. However, no such effects have ever been detected, and this means that any experiment that fails to detect them is very strong evidence in favor of the theory. If a theory can explain any outcome of an experiment equally well, as you claim LET can (though I doubt that), then the theory is completely worthless. See Feynman's parable of the dragon for an illustration of this principle.

Einstein's Special Relativity is entirely brittle in respect to the speed of light and Einstein did not say there is no aether - only that as long as no consequence of the existence of an aether can be detected Special Relativity will hold. Lorentzian Ether Theory is not brittle in that respect. It can adapt to new observation without producing the logical paradoxes Einstein's Special Relativity immediately falls into.

Taychons, time travel, and causal violations are all creations of the brittle nature of Special Relativity - contradictions which do not exist in LET in its original or modified versions that can incorporate new observations.

What contradictions exactly? Can you give any concrete examples?

Tachyons, time travel to the past, and causal violations are all forbidden by special relativity, so I have no clue what you're talking about there.

All that aside, let's get to the point here. You argued in your first post that there are no event horizons, presumably because SR is wrong. But if LET and SR are mathematically equivalent, then both must predict that all inertial observers will measure the same speed of light. This means that, even in LET, there must be event horizons.

[SoAMadDeathWish]

It means that dennislmay is confused about even the most basic claims and concepts of relativity theory.

That's giving me a really good laugh, somewhat counteracting depression at the enthusiastic turn-out Gore got in Hawaii - according to a news item Adam posted on another thread.

(Lest anyone misunderstand what I'm laughing about, I'm laughing about Naomi's assessment of Dennis' knowledge of relativity theory.)

Ellen

If your doctor couldn't tell the difference between your kidney and your gull bladder, and I pointed that out to you, would you find that funny?

This dude just screwed up on what is literally the very first thing any undergraduate learns in introductory SR, and he's not even denying it. That should be a huge red flag that he's a crank.

[dennislmay]

The brittle theory [Think calculus of variations - it fails utterly under any variation] Special Relativity cannot adapt to new observations. LET can be modified keeping essentially the same framework - it can be varied in a differential manner and not entirely collapse as Special Relativity does. LET existed prior to Special Relativity, mathematically Special Relativity brought nothing new to the table so historically under the Feynman presumption Special Relativity is a worthless theory.

Special Relativity and LET have the same mathematical framework but are very different theories in their assumptions concerning the nature of reality. One can be varied in a differential manner with little consequence [LET], the other produces logical contractions and a failure of identity and causality under differential variation [special Relativity].

Dennis

[dennislmay]

If more undergraduate students in special relativity and quantum mechanics would do their own homework [read and understand the history and decision points of why only one point of view is taught in educational settings] they might eventually be able to solve actually interesting problems that have evaded solution for more than 3 generations. On a fundamental level conventionally taught relativity and conventional quantum mechanics are irreconcilable as deterministic versus indeterministic theories. So one or the other or both are fundamentally incorrect. The next question is deterministic or indeterministic. If you decide indeterministic then both versions of relativity fail and you have nothing. If you choose deterministic then you must choose which QM which will work with a version of relativity. The only candidate is LET because Special Relativity is entirely brittle - unable to adapt.

Dennis

[SoAMadDeathWish]

The brittle theory [Think calculus of variations - it fails utterly under any variation] Special Relativity cannot adapt to new observations. LET can be modified keeping essentially the same framework - it can be varied in a differential manner and not entirely collapse as Special Relativity does. LET existed prior to Special Relativity, mathematically Special Relativity brought nothing new to the table so historically under the Feynman presumption Special Relativity is a worthless theory.

Special Relativity and LET have the same mathematical framework but are very different theories in their assumptions concerning the nature of reality. One can be varied in a differential manner with little consequence [LET], the other produces logical contractions and a failure of identity and causality under differential variation [special Relativity].

Dennis

If more undergraduate students in special relativity and quantum mechanics would do their own homework [read and understand the history and decision points of why only one point of view is taught in educational settings] they might eventually be able to solve actually interesting problems that have evaded solution for more than 3 generations. On a fundamental level conventionally taught relativity and conventional quantum mechanics are irreconcilable as deterministic versus indeterministic theories. So one or the other or both are fundamentally incorrect. The next question is deterministic or indeterministic. If you decide indeterministic then both versions of relativity fail and you have nothing. If you choose deterministic then you must choose which QM which will work with a version of relativity. The only candidate is LET because Special Relativity is entirely brittle - unable to adapt.

Dennis

Ha ha ha... oh wow dude. Way to just dodge every single challenge posed to you.

Here's what I want to know:

1) If you still believe that your quantum entanglement argument disproves SR, then how do you reconcile it with the fact that SR does not forbid superluminal effects that don't involve transport of real matter or radiation?

2) If SR and LET are mathematically equivalent, then how exactly does LET escape the same challenge?

3) What contradictions are there in SR, exactly?

4) How are tachyons, time travel to the past, and violations of causality at all problematic for SR when SR forbids them?

5) Are there, or are there not event horizons in LET? And if there aren't then how do you reconcile that with a constant speed of light relative to the ether frame?

6) (Do I even wanna ask?) What the hell does it even mean for a physical theory to be "varied in a differential manner"? (I'm betting this part will be hilarious)

[BaalChatzaf]

arguments do not disprove theories. Empirically busted predictions disprove theories.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[moralist]

Quite the pissing match...

You'd think that they actually created the laws they're arguing over

when they actually created nothing!

Greg

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I look at the arguing style and I see Dennis presenting his premises and I see Naomi snarking and yukking it up.

I wonder if they give master's degrees in snark and snigger. Based on what comes out of academia these days, that seems to be the main didactic system in use.

MIchael

[Brant Gaede]

You don't need to know anything about SR to know time travel to the past is impossible. You cannot swim upstream against causality.

--Brant

pass the popcorn, please

[Brant Gaede]

Bob, all theories are arguments. All refutations of theories are arguments. It is arguments all the way down (and up).

--Brant

can I sip a little of that soda?--you gave me popcorn not having to, but now you are morally obligated to give me some soda to wash it down for my thirst, caused by you, is an assault on my body (argue, argue, argue)

(ethics of emergencies: rationalize your ass off [Rand did])

[SoAMadDeathWish]

I look at the arguing style and I see Dennis presenting his premises and I see Naomi snarking and yukking it up.

I wonder if they give master's degrees in snark and snigger. Based on what comes out of academia these days, that seems to be the main didactic system in use.

MIchael

Sometimes, a snark is worth a thousand words.