A123 ==== You can read my paper, given at the Philosophy As conference at London University last year, which gives a sketch of the ideas introduced in The Birth of Three Sides: a Theory of Dimensionality: www.geocities.com/gulland68/confmetaphysicspaper.htm We have an internal (left-right [subjective]), an external (up-down [gravity]) and a transcendental (energy/motion [cosmological]) dimension, which together synthesize the phenomenon of extended objects, spatial relations etc.. ==== ---------------- we can do very well with 3 dimensions + time while time is nothing but - motion comparison all the best Y.Porat --------------------------------------- ==== Adding in extra variables can be used to more easily describe complicated behaviours over time. Fractals (fractional dimensions) are used to describe some very simple equations with very complex behaviours. Cellular Automata are similar. Both have been used to describe some natural behaviours like the formation of patterns on sea-shells, or the formation of snowflakes... The behaviour of planetary scale orbits doesn't seem, in general, complicated enough to warrant too many extra dimensions. All those extra \\dimensions\\ used by Tycho Brahe were discarded as being too much overhead, even though they worked pretty well. Then Einstein seemed to add back in a few extra dimensions to explain some curious behaviours, like Mercury's precession. The goal often seems to be to find a minimal number of dimensions needed to mnemonically describe whatever the scope of an observation covers. In String Theory, supposedly the strings have only one-dimension, to which is added time to make two dimensions. The other 24 \\virtual\\ dimensions were apparently added to make some equations behave nicely. The Monster Moonshine Conjecture suggested that there was some relation between mathematic's abstract Monster Group, a 196,883 dimensional quasi-abstract mathematical thingy with complicated behaviour (it has a very large number of rotational symmetries), elliptic modular functions (sometimes described as being related to a complex plane rolled up into a torus that is then folded into the higher dimensions), and string theory's 26 dimensions. http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/98legacy/08-19-1998a.html http://mathworld.wolfram.com/MonsterGroup.html Klein bottles: http://www.kleinbottle.com/ How many dimensions does a Moebius Strip really have ? ==== Neither. It's just another Spaceman brain fart. Ignore the imbecile. ==== You can read my paper, given at the Philosophy As conference at London University last year, which gives a sketch of the ideas introduced in in \ \\ my book The Birth of Three Sides: a Theory of Dimensionality: www.geocities.com/gulland68/confmetaphysicspaper.htm We have an internal (left-right [subjective]), an external (up-down [gravity]) and a transcendental (energy/motion [cosmological]) dimension, which together synthesize the phenomenon of extended objects, spatial relations etc.. Tom Milner-Gulland these are any to ==== Great riposte. ==== There is a big difference between expressing an opinion and relating what is already known,the following falls towards the latter as it is a reminder that you cannot ignore fundamental principles no matter how novel extra dimensions may sound appealing. At first glance there would appear to be nothing amiss with description of 3 physical coordinates and using a clock to describe motion and acting as a 4th coordinate or dimension but this would only constitute Newton's idea of a relative measure.Clearly clocks provide the basis for rulers and accurate ones were developed for that purpose,the principles were based not on motion but distance,the crucial factor is that distances vary and diminish towards a 'singularity' or evanescent quantity at the poles,you could not seperate physical coordinates from clocks and use rulers as one thing and clocks as another (thereby giving the appearance of a 4th dimension) because the Earth would appear as a cylinder rather than a sphere if you did not take the diminishing distances for each corresponding second,minute and hour into account. Normally there would be no problem discerning where ideas of absolute and relative time via clocks mesh and seperate but relativity only recognises the relative linear measure and completely ignores how clocks were utilised to determine distance and location,again it is not a personal opinion but an enormous historical fact that many of the recognised scientists including Newton were involved with clocks as rulers of the 3 physical coordinates rather than a seperate measure for a dummy dimension.Regardless of how confusing Newton's description of a relative quantity may appear,it is still correct when compared with the absolute quantity,in this case clocks as a linear 'time' measure (relative) and clocks that act as rulers for the 3 physical coordinates (absolute). \\Wherefore relative quantities are not the quantities themselves, whose names they bear, but those sensible measures of them (either accurate or inaccurate), which are commonly used instead of the measured quantities themselves. And if the meaning of words is to be determined by their use, then by the names time, space, place and motion, their measures are properly to be understood; and the expression will be unusual, and purely mathematical, if the measured quantities themselves are meant.\\ Principia If you reconfigure the definitions of absolute and relative time,space and motion as they were originally intended and update them with contemporary observational data,the study of natural phenomena takes an entirely different course than that which has been pursued for decades,the upshot is that the Universe becomes more recognisable and enjoyable with a return to the geometric translations from relative observations to absolute conceptions of those observations or in other words the translation from apparent motion into true motion on an intergalactic scale rather than the limited heliocentric/geocentric comparisons of Newton. ==== Would the You're talking milliseconds. ==== [Zagan] You are quite welcome, my iconoclastic friend. As a part-time writer and muscian, it is my business to entertain others. But being self-absorbed as you are, you failed to realise that my words were intended for those \\ unaware of the bullshit you emit whether replying to another or the essays you \\ post. Are you really so self-absorbed as to think I was unaware that others would not read my words? Are you so egotistical as to think I was speaking to you alone? I don't mean to be offensive, but you are not worth the bandwidth should you be the only reader. [Zagan] You must live a very lonely life, then. With whom do you discuss your \\ ideas? Is it the fact that you have no one to discuss your thinking with, that \\ your essays come off sounding like bullshit? The term \\drivel\\ comes to mind. [Zagan] I am not offended, and I doubt EL is either. Why would we be? We need only to consider the source. [Zagan] You are welcome to your opinion, of course. Just remember that the same applies to your own theories as well. [Zagan] Which explains why no one takes anything you say seriously. You are a joke. The only person who doesn't get it, is apparently you. When I read your essays, I get maybe three or four paragraphs before I realize I'm reading nonsense. I've learned to associated the name hanson with bullshit, but perhaps that was your intention. ?? [Zagan] On this point, at least, we do agree. // Jim -- || Free Science Fiction || The Keepers of Forever || Read reviews & download Novel || http://jcd.members.atlantic.net/ ==== [hanson] AHAHAHAAHAHAH..........ahahahahahahaah....... But YOU, Jim, you apparently do........for the second time now.... .........ahahahahha.........ahahahha....... Don't you recognize when you land on a sticky flypaper...... ....ahahahahahahaah.......AHAHAHAAHAHAH...... ahahahaha.......ahahahhanson and self-absorbed as unaware you post. others would to you bandwidth nonexistent your ideas? that your mind. need only same priorities heaven. a joke. your reading but beautiful ==== [EL] Thus you deny; Consequently and therefore ...* You have chosen to die, long from before. :):):) As if you had the choice! And for THAT I rejoice. :) Now throw your dice, not once but thrice, If it tops with a six, Then unity rests under. My logic is thunder. Simple yet perfect. With your luck you are stuck. Well, whatever the F***. :):):):):) Yours friendly. EL (but you could tell). :):):):):) ==== [EL] E-motions dictate the magnitude of motions. Logic decides the direction. They need each other to make the vector. As in their unity we victor. Our living structure has evolved democratic. The inferior that motivates, dominates the superior that rules and decides. Show me one king without subjects that have faith electing that king and I show you one falling kingdom. Logic rules but emotions dominate, and when the commoners aggregate, at the gate, random makes its way to the throne and a king might be thrown. While emotion has the potential of the mob pushing all gates, logic has the sharpness of the king's sword, and by a word a gate is chosen for them to be open, through which they rush and flow. Now you know. :) EL ==== [EL] **Jim my friend, I plead to defend. *A diamond could be very bored of its brilliance. Ignoring the gem ensures its coverage with dust. No use in its brilliance yet its hardness is just. Handle it to cut for you and be cut if you must. Diamonds have no emotions; in logic is their lust. *Let no fool fools you into his obedience. **A sage a fool may pretend. [EL] Loneliness is but a price that must be paid. By every gem for the role being played. [EL] Make a wild guess. :) [EL] That was only a symptom of giving up. A time filling redundant routine to hide the seek or to hide during the \\ seek. Our common \\gem\\ Jim has bumped into a number. A number that forms a wall that blocks a world under. Or even above. The druids after a mage have arbitrated the magic walls. With all my love. I came to see the abyss off the edge of which he falls. The gem is the eye of a dragon. Yet as the dragon sleeps it shuts its eyelids and puffs smoke. Bullshit is but a talk. When you are ready you may awaken the dragon. EL (The sage mage of this page) :):):) ==== [hanson] Oh yes, your poetry is beautiful & heavy duty, my friend EL. Very, very emotional.......with a Wagnerian undertone. I thank you, and Jim too again, for illustrating my point so gallantly. You are good people. You're in my heart. But most of all.......THANKS FOR THE LAUGHS...... AHAHAHAHA.....ahahahaha......hahahahanson nonexistent priorities heaven. beautiful any awakes steel. seal. ==== [EL] {N. B. Symbolic laughing deleted.} [EL] You are referring to Jim's response to take your bullshit seriously to be unserious of course. Yet you were seriously unserious and you admitted it. :) What a paradox! :*) It is not true that you were unseriously unserious, because that would have meant that you were simply serious. That is why you were seriously unserious, which is what Jim took seriously to be the fact. :) We shall tolerate your unserious serious posts and your seriously unserious ones too, hoping that you shall post some seriously serious ones. So cut the bullshit Hans. ;-) :):):) Only those who have mastered logic may juggle it jestfully. :) Come back home bad brother. :) Our \\Mother\\ have prepared dinner, so let us eat. EL. ==== [hanson] AHAHAHHA.......ahahahaha.......which one? yours or mine? Listen, what is this obsession with \\serious\\ all of the sudden? This was about \\emotions vs logic\\....... nothing serious at all. It was Jim who brought it up in an emotional moment, uttering: \\Which explains why no one takes anything you say seriously\\, to which I parroted in parody: \\Jim takes it so serious.....\\ and now you too, my friend, get onto my sticky fly paper? AHAHAHAH...........ahahahahah........ahahaha.... LOGICALLY, according to your wishes, I will cut the bullshit ......SERIOUSLY. But of course that will be EMOTIONAL for me..... AHAHAHAHHAHHAHHA.......ahahahanson to would serious ==== investigators Sometimes things we dont truely understand are not replicable. Is the case of cold fusion I suspect that such extraneous electro magnetic factors as the earth's magnetic & various electric fields due to piezo electric effects, underground streams, atmospheric conditions, standing waves from innumerable human generated sources including mains, microwaves, mobile phones, TV/Radio etc etc solar flares, cosmic radiation... all interacting with each other and none of them properly controlled or measured could have been involved. There is a UK researcher called Albert Budden who believes that all manner of \\poltergiest\\ and other ghostly phenomena are in fact cased by such things. Certainly \\ghosts\\ have been generated off the back of microwave beacons, which change shape as you change the frequency and disappear when you switch off the beacon. It certainly seems that there is much evidence that ghostly apparitions always seem to coincide with intense EM fields. [Aside: The only problem with this is that possibly they are causing them of course! Afterall a ghost that can throw stuff around the room or balance knives on their points... well I'm sure it could cause merry hell with some boffins' field meter if it wanted to. ] demonstrating Possibly your tone didnt help... ;) Fine, the maths works. And it predicts the results. But how the heck can an electron be in two places at once. Can you? Can I be in two places at once? Of course not. My point is that it makes no intuitive sense whatsoever. Secondly what IS the definition in mathematical terms for for what a consititues Observer? Answer: Physics has got one! Pathetic. Ship Shiperton Henether ==== --------------------------------------------------------------------- Doubting Tomas You know, Tom, on reflection I'm glad you are taking this super-hard line empirical stand! Someone has to. It's good for the sum of human knowledge. Here's the thing: Although I respect your stance, my gut instinct is that you are incorrect. Your evidence thus far says people like me are merely gullible. HOWEVER lets get really clear on this. We are humans and as such are brains are extremely limited. And the fact is that neither you nor I really *knows* who's correct in these matters. I'd like to get back to you with more evidence over time. However, in the meantime I think both of us need to be really careful not to fall into the pitfall of blinkered/prejudiced thinking. Scientica is merely knowledge afterall. And blinkered thinking is poor quality thought that's all. Yes, I have a degree in science. I believe in science. It works. Most of the time at least. For most type of problems. But I have also personally experienced some things that can no way be explained by anything I've ever come across in physics. I feel that I am open-minded on these issues. Come on Tom. Be honest. How open minded do you think you are? e.g. If you saw a miraculous healing... or if you felt one for yourself - would you ever believe it? Just what scale of coincidence would it take to make you believe... anything?! Ship Shiperton Henethe ==== [Zagan] Do you really think you are the only one who can bullshit? :*) // Jim -- || Free Science Fiction || The Keepers of Forever || Read reviews & download Novel || http://jcd.members.atlantic.net/ ==== [Zagan] You know, they say \\laughing gas\\ (Nitrous oxide) can cause brain damage. Oh, heck, wait a minute, I forgot who I was talking to... :*) [Zagan] Beats me. You're the one applying labels. Explain it to us. [Zagan] What emotional moment? What obsession? How do you know I wasn't fucking \\ with you, insulting your essays, trying to get a rise. But you're no fun. You're hung up on the concept of serious, and applying labels. Maybe you should remove the fly paper from your nose, eh? :*) I think I shall have fun with you in the future. :*) Just kidding, of course. But seriously, I will have fun with you, but it won't be serious. \ \\ As EL would say, I'll be seriously unserious about about being serious when \\ I'm actually unserious. (If you followed that, please explain it to me! :*) ) BTW, can I use your character in one of my books? I'm thinking something alone the lines of \\The Man Who Couldn't Stop Laughing.\\ I may title it \\AHAHAHHA.......ahahahaha.\\ :*) // Jim -- || Free Science Fiction || The Keepers of Forever || Read reviews & download Novel || http://jcd.members.atlantic.net/ ==== Freedom to speak your mind does not absolve you from responsibility for your words. Nor does it guarantee the reception you'll get for expressing yourself. The world is not fair. Get used to it. ==== your courage war? starts competitor. married a are Available at any Barnes and Noble in the United States of America... Mein Kampf Paperback, January 1999 List Price: $20.00 Our Price: $18.00 You Save: $2.00 (10%) Reader's Advantage Price: $16.20 Do Virtual Photons Exist? The Aether was original conceived as a means of explaining \\forces \\ acting at a distance\\ (i.e.- electric, magnetic, gravitation, et al). When the \\ idea of the classical Aether was abandoned early in the century, there was a need \ \\ to find another means of explaining these forces because, if it were not \\ possible to explain them by some other means then it would be necessary to retain \\ the Aether and the absolute reference frame it represented. The elimination of \ \\ that reference frame was an absolute imperative of the political agenda of the academic community. Fortunately, the advent of quantum theory allowed Dr. Feynmann to generate the idea that these forces were produced by the \\ exchange and out of existence for periods of time that were so short that the rules \ \\ of quantum physics insured that their temporary existence did not violate the \ \\ Law of Conservation of Energy. travel ballistically to another where it would release that momentum. The \ \\ net result would be force acting between the points. The situation is analogous \ \\ to the effect observed when two athletes throw a medicine ball back and forth \ \\ to each other. Difficulty with the analogy is that the throwing of the \\ medicine ball can only produce a repulsive force; it cannot produce an attractive \\ force! since no explanation as to how this is possible is provided, one is left \\ with the suspicion that this is another example of a solution where an effect \\ that is allowed by the mathematics involved is being used outside of the \\ constraints imposed by the physical realities of the problem. These realities require a rather unusual exchange of momentum to be involved. In order to produce the attractive force, the \\virtual photon\\ would have to be launched with a momentum represented by a propagation direction away from its target, \\ reverse its momentum (direction of travel), go past its target and repeat the \\ process so as to acquire a momentum in the required direction as it struck the \\ target from behind. (If anyone can provide a different explanation I would like to hear it.) Of course, if the \\virtual photon\\ were propagating through a \ \\ medium, could make the necessary exchange of momentum with the medium. (A boomerang returns to the thrower because it exchanges momentum with a medium, air. \\ But then, if the Aether were present we would have no need to consider the existence of \\virtual photons\\. There is no need to resort to theoretical arguments, however. If \\ virtual photons produce electric and magnetic forces, they should be observable. Consider a large electromagnet, such as is used in an MIR machine. A recent news report described an unfortunate incident where a steel oxygen bottle \ \\ was not properly mounted to its wall bracket. The magnetic field of the MIR \\ pulled the bottle to the machine and killed a boy who was being scanned. It is \\ obvious that the room was filled with a large and extremely powerful magnetic field. \ \\ If \\virtual photons\\ were present in that room, they would have produced a \ \\ level of electromagnetic interference that would scream their presence. If \\ electric and magnetic forces were produced by \\virtual photons\\, they would have to \ \\ also effect any electromagnetic detectors in their vicinity and one would expect that both natural and man-made electric and magnetic fields would render electromagnetic communication impossible. An experiment is described in Chapter 4 of \\The Einstein Hoax\\ in \\ which a strong electric field is produced inside of an evacuated chamber and an \\ antenna is located between the electrodes. Using a radiation detector that covers \ \\ the entire spectrum would allow the detection of any spurious photons that acted \ \\ to produce the attractive force. Its a simple experiment and is one which \\ should be performed it science is to accept \\virtual photons\\ as meaningful. The source material for this posting may be found in \\Gravity\\ \\ (1987), \\The Einstein Hoax\\ (1997), and \\Corrections to Residual Errors in \\ Special Relativity (1999) located at http://www.members.aol.com/reticher/site.htm . monitored on a regular basis. Objective responses will be treated with the \ \\ same courtesy as they are presented. To prevent the wastage of time on both of \ \\ our parts, please do not raise objections that are not related to material that \ \\ you have read at the Website. This posting is merely a summary. The material at the Website has been posted continuously for over 5 \\ years. In that time THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIVE REBUTTALS OF ANY OF THE MATERIAL PRESENTED. There have only been hand waving arguments by individuals who \\ have mindlessly accepted the prevailing wisdom without questioning it. If anyone provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be objectively answered, the material at the Website will be withdrawn. ==== In the event that there are actually some people reading these reports who want to know how and why earthquakes occur, then for their benefit I will state that I believe that it is quite likely that during the next few \\ years, earthquake science will be rapidly expanding to include a considerable amount of information regarding sun and moon gravity - earthquake connections. groundbreaking publications without too much trouble. The main question at this point might pertain to how long it will take for this subject matter to become generally accepted information for the scientific community. Considering the amount of damage that earthquakes can produce and what appears to me to presently be our very limited capacity to forecast them I hope that this will knowledge gain will occur fairly soon. E.D.G. ==== really not in conflict with Plate Tectonics theories. They simply propose that \\ when a fault zone is about ready to fracture on its own one of two things may happen. Either the earthquake will occur as a random type event. Or it will be triggered by something. These theories are proposing that earthquakes \\ are often not random events. Instead, they are frequently being triggering by sun and moon gravity related phenomena or forces. ==== So what's cranky about having a bit of a helper? ==== Hey EDG, That's an interesting statement coming from you. In a world of unrest do you think it wise to send foreign governments earthquake warnings for quakes which never arrive, are unfounded on an scientific principles and make them feel uncomfortable? You see, you wish to run out and make outlandish statements, but you never want to talk about them. In the beginning of this thread you pulled one of your usual's, this is information, not necessarily for discussion. Well, hells bells, if you don't want to talk about it, then paper it and those who chose to read it can do so at their own risk. I would like to urge any individual, government or scientific body what they think about your warnings. You have never, ever written an approved prediction that I have seen in four years. Not one single time. They are always masked in some other form. Such as looking for cracks in homes or the foundations of homes, watch for strange animal behavior and my personal favorite, \\if not there, look elsewhere.\\ Where in the world would elsewhere be? You never answered that one, so let's have it, TODAY. Answer the question. But you won't, because you never do. You'll chose to make some patronizing statement like you usually do. Something to the effect of \\go sit in the corner, little girl, until I'm ready to talk about it.\\ Well, guess what, I'm not going to go sit in the corner. The more you talk, the more sites on the web seem to be accumulating statements about you that are not particularly flattering. You are becoming your own undoing. If that works for you, it's fine by me. Now go and tell your friend to come over here and tell me how horrible I am and what a nice guy you are. That's normally the finish. But maybe not this time. I've attached my subwoofer to my computer and have nailed my furniture to the floor so the Moon's gravity can't move them. I'm ready for anything now. Petra ==== A book to demonstrate Einstein's fallibility: http://einstein52.tripod.com/alberteinsteinprophetorplagiarist/ ==== There seems to be a lot of talk in this group about Einstein being wrong in his ideas. Well, probably he wasn't perfect so there are mistakes in there. But I always thought that the essence of what he said was right, and proven - not that you can prove anything. Am I right???? ==== Dear Fredie: in there. He was human. Each theory was amended more than once (like software to add features mostly), and currently is the combined output of more than just Einstein. Doesn't mean that it cannot be used to draw traffic to one's website. Everyone loves a scandal, and crackpots have apparently figured a way to make money at it. David A. Smith ==== Yes. As you say, scientific theories can only be disproven, not proven, but the special and general theories of relativity have withstood every experimental test that has been devised to date. -- Steve Gray sgray2@cfl.rr.com ==== What he doesn't ask is why are they unity in certain units of measure, nor why such values would refrain empty space from \\ having such \\properties\\. ==== If space is actually \\empty\\, the only property it can have is volume. \\ Try using your head instead of arguing. ==== Well, suzette, there's a sure fired way of finding out! Simply take your can of Freon, hold a butane lighter out in front of the nozzel and fire away! Please don't let the environmental wackos find out - they will blame you for burning a hole in the ozone layer. P.S. WARNING -Kids - don't try this at home - This type of advanced experimentation should only be done by a licensed highly trained professional physicist with several years of post-doc lab experience and an extensive life insurance policy. ; ) ==== If you're going to insult people, at least *attempt* to use correct grammar and spelling! -- The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. - John Stuart Mill To curb spam, remove pants to reply. ==== That's the advantage of deity, every time someone tries to correct me they are wrong. Every time, and I can get half a dozen google links for this, someone points out grammar to me they have a grammatical error in their *statement*. Herc ==== Gregory L. Hansen: How does a \\real mass\\ differ from a \\mass-like parameter\\? \\ Similarly, how does \\real spacetime\\ differ from \\spacetime-like parameters\\? [...] I'm not sure what you mean here, since that could take on any number didn't have a rest frame. I said there was no absolute rest frame against which to give 1 GeV any absolute meaning. A 1 GeV electron in the vacuum, the electron is at rest. It's only energy is the kinetic energy relative to the lab, which is also at rest in the vacuum. objection. When you place an electron in an accelerator, you see synchro- tron radiation. The only reason you believe the radiation originates from the accelerated charge, is because the equations in classical radiation theory say so. You most certainly have not ever made some more \\ \\objective\\ measurement that associates the radiation with the acceleration of a particular charge. So, if you grant the existence of propagating light quanta, you can certainly say that an accelerated electron produces them. Now, you have a slight problem. How exactly do you accelerate a charge? Your idea of some nebulous quantity called a \\field\\ is not an improvement over classical physics, in which there is also a nebulous quantity called a field. However, since you presumably believe that the photon is really connected with a count landing in the channel of germanium detector, the most sensible thing to do is assume the other aspects of electromagnetic phenomena are connected to the same the importance of the field being a single field. You can do most of this classically. The simple fact that we've defined things like electrons to have certain properties based upon what we define as measurements of those properties. [...] So does something like the angular momentum of the earth. Which \\exact solutions\\ would those be? The \\exact\\ classical \\ solution for hydrogen, has the electron spiralling into the proton. The masses of the proton and electron are input by hand. The \\exact\\ schroedinger solution, inserts the same things by hand plus the spin. The \\exact\\ solution for the dirac equation derives the spin, but still inputs the masses and charges by hand. To my knowledge no exact solutions to anything exist which describe the interaction at 10^-18 m. What you are calling \\exact\\ solutions are exact in the same sense that classical mechanics gives the exact solution for a charge distribution. You've made your approximations in advance. You just don't recognize the approximations you are assuming in whatever \\exact solutions\\ you think exist. Your welcome to ignore the physics in favor the formalism, but the purpose of doing physics is to find the physical relevance of the formalism. I can write the potential for a satellite orbiting the earth as: U(r) = GMm/r + L^2/2mr^2 or as GMm/r + (1/2)mv^2 things in the form that gives the quantities the physical meaning that makes the most sense in terms of we've decided makes physical sense. Feynman was a physicist. He isolated terms such that they make sense in the same picture shouldn't be just as valid with respect to virtual that you could consider \\real\\ in any sense of the word \\real\\. What's a field, then? Convention. Virtual photons differ from propagating photons by the number of polarization states. Photons which are on mass-shell satisfy the einstein condition precisely because both the time and longitudinal polarizations are identically zero in any lorentz frame. I have no idea how or even why it should comfort you. I personally don't have a problem with it, because the same idea pops up practically everywhere else in physics. You just haven't looked closely enough at the \\exact solutions\\. Look at the semi-classical model of a dielectric and the phases and wave vectors of radiation propagating in a dielectric (cf. jackson, chpt. 7, 2nd ed, where he discusses a model of a dielectric in terms of harmonic oscillator states). What do you think a \\virtual displacement\\ of the electron in the oscillator means? Is that a \\real\\ displacement or just a change of phase? How would you explain compton scattering without a virtual electron and still conserve energy and momentum? I'll remind you that the feynman diagrams are: ~ ~ / \\\\ The \\point\\ or classical diagram would be: ~ ~ ~~ Which is wrong for electrons with spin. It only works /\\\\ as a classical approximation for spinless electrons. / \\\\ In other words, they really don't tell you how the field gets from A to B. And what does the transform mean physically? (You should be able to figure this out). Why? The classical picture has no interpretation, or more precisely, it was never interpreted. Well, yes. So? I'd call it something else, but I won't. Sure, if you can find a way to interpret that so that you find it meaningful. It's certainly no less meaningful than writing sin(wt) and hiding the sum. Sure, and if it was physically meaningful to do so, you might. For example, consider an arbitrary signal g(k,w). I can design a filter which uses bessel functions or polynomials as a transfer function. Clearly, I can express a bessel function as an infinite polynomial, but the physics is much clearer if I differentiate between them, since a bessel filter gives a minimal phase shift and a slow cutoff as a function of frequency, while a butterworth (1+w^2n) filter gives a steeper cutoff with poorer phase linearity. That doesn't preclude me from torturing myself and obscuring the physics by insisting that it's only a mathematical trick, but I don't really wish to do that, either. Yes, and continuing with my example above, (which happens to be in what would be momentum space), what physical significance is readily apparent if you fourier transform those to x,t, which you seem to find somehow more physical than than w,k? Consider the function, exp(iwt). That's also, exp(iEt/hbar). The time E = mc^2. if mc^2 = hbar w, then I get, exp(imc^2t/hbar. Now replace t by it and you get: exp(-mc^2t/hbar). Since x = ct, I get: exp(-mcx/hbar), or a damped wave which has an amplitude of 1/e at its compton wavelength. That places you in neither the phsycists camp nor mathemeticians camp (which, however, seems to differ less and less). Mathematicians make an attempt to relate methods of \\solving equations\\ to particular classes of equations. Physicists try to associate particular terms in equations with physically significant quantities, so that overall, the form of the equation is of physical importance. It seems to have been recognized by both mathematicians and physicists, that there is physical significance to the underlying mathematical structure. Do you really think that the fact that the dirac matrices commute to give you the spin tensor and anti-commute to give you the metric tensor is just a coincidence or do you think there is something physically significant about that which idicates that spin is an essential part of special relativity? For example, the number of _different_ bilinear covariants you construct is 5, which restricts the possible forms of a potential to exactly combinations of those 5 (which is an excercise you should have done in the first week or so of a relativistic quantum mechanics course). That mathematical result, played a big part in determining what possible forms a parity violating potential for the week interaction could have. V-A is not unique and a somewhat abstract mathematical theorem known as fierz reordering shows this, leaving the physics to be determined by the consequences determined mathematically. Coincidentally, there is a physical meaning in how you express the potential, which is manifested by fierz interference, which singles out V-A, vs the S,P and T coupling. One could have simply written of the interference terms as mathematical artifacts (since, after all these are mere wavefunctions we are talking to be meaningful. That's bizarre. You think that a number operator is somehow less mathematical than something like a fourier transform or momentum space? In a word, yes. Well, presumably, one is supposed to think about it whether or not someone actually makes that obvious. Your first mistake is to think of a hydrogen atom as a proton with It's convenient to think of it in terms of an electron and proton, and to some extent this is ok because a hydrogen atom is fairly large as far as quantum scales go. But, a hydrogen atom is a hydrogen atom. What do picture the physical meaning of \\even parity\\ or \\odd parity\\ to mean in terms of a billiard ball? In particular, a pion is a pseudoscalar, i.e., a 0^{-}. What does this look like in terms of a billiard ball? It still violates lepton family number, which as I've mentioned above is not violated to first order at parts in at least 10^12. What do you think the process you've described would be down by, considering it can't be a first order process? (hint: one of the processes would be the same as I gave above, oredered differently). ==== momentum with respect to some reference frame. Or a spread of momenta with respect to some reference frame. If it doesn't, then it's missing truly pops into existence from out of the vacuum it will have some momentum with respect to some frame, a different momentum with respect to a different frame, and a momentum with respect to a lab-frame 1 GeV electron. Self-interaction would be a different matter. That would be interaction of the electron with its own field, which is not the same picture as And the legs of a diagram aren't the same mathematical expression as the internal lines. You can calculate radiation by methods that don't involve like an electron hitting a fixed potential. With two mutually interacting Why do you think some new measurement is even relevant? I'm not calling the theory into question, I'm saying a particular method of solving problems has been over-interpreted. connection to the classical concept of fields than I think many people realize. I can define properties of flying butt monkeys. \\virtual\\. If you could measure them they'd be legs of the diagram, not internal lines. I'm talking about solving the Dirac equation with electromagnetic interaction for bound states of a positive and negative charge. Plug them into the current term and just solve it, you don't need propagator diagrams, simply because a perturbation expansion wasn't used to solve it. See, e.g. Greiner's \\Wave Mechanics\\. I don't know what inserting masses and charges by hand has to do with whether it's exact or not. Of course you have to insert the masses and charges by hand, you have to tell the equation what the physical system is that you're trying to solve! But once you have the equations of motion, just solve it without the approximation methods of a perturbation expansion. There are similarly solutions for the square, spherical, and cylindrical wells, the harmonic oscillator, and possibly others. ... ... What I'm getting from, e.g. the portions I've quoted, is that we should try to find the physical meaning of the mathematics used, and then I can't decide if you'd say we should only use mathematics with physical meaning or if you're saying we should make up any pretty story that fits the math then then INSIST that story is really the physical reality. I would express a harmonic oscillator as Hermite polynomials if I thought it would help solve a problem, even if I can't make any physical sense out of that expansion, because once you have an equation to solve it's really the limits of the human mind rather than physics that demands one method of solution or another. There's no physical significant to Taylor-expanding the harmonic oscillator, integrating term by term, and then collecting terms to turn sin(wt) into -w*cos(wt). The physics is in creating a model that leads to an equation of motion, in making appropriate approximations, and in interpreting the result. But the steps in the middle are just math. Associating a Bessel function with an eigenfunction is physics, it tells you what a system in a certain state is like. The Dirac spinor has physical significance that should be found, that's how you represent electrons in the theory, it connects the equation to the real world. But, for instance, expanding an expression because you can't think of any other way to integrate it is just math. You could also design a bessel filter and use a Taylor expansion to describe the transfer function. It will still be a bessel filter. Actually, yes, I do think that counting things has a closer connection to physically existing things than a perturbation expansion does. -- \\Don't try to teach a pig how to sing. You'll waste your time and annoy the pig.\\ ==== Gregory L. Hansen: In other words, you think the vacuum is an ether representing an absolute reference frame? Look in bjorken & drell, vol I in the index under \\disconnected \\ diagrams\\. You have a really poor understanding of the vacuum. It's not like the ether. Oh, really? I've already explained one such diagram. Oh really? Well then try calculating the scattering of light from a fixed potetial (delbruck scattering). Why is that? Don't you think the field of a magnet is due to potential allows you to assume that one of the masses in the \\scattering\\ is infinite compared to the electron? Personally, I don't. I'm asking you how you know an electron \\really\\ produces the radiation which is observed in accordance with your \\reality\\ program. How do you know this? For that matter, how do you know electrons \\really\\ exist any more than Then exactly what do you think the \\potential\\ due to the electron \\charge\\ means. In terms of something more \\realistic\\? While I'm a big fan of pointing out the classical analogs of what people think is \\weird\\ in quantum mechanics, etc., the one thing classical mechanics fails miserably at is anything having to do with discrete objects. The divergences are entirely unrenormalizable. [...] You can define anything you want. It takes physical intuition to define things which are physically meaningful. I take it you think the idea of electrons is oversold as well? Don't be naive. You can have bremstrallung from internal lines. Where do you think the neutrino and electron come from in beta decay? A non-virtual W? [...] So am I. And precisely what does this \\exact\\ solution say about the lamb shift, and the anomalous electron magnetic moment? (These are real effects) Unfortunately, that exact solution leaves out precisely the vacuum fluctuations responsible for several rather well known effects. And you think perhaps approximating something with one of these Exactly what is a \\potential well\\, (physically speaking). [...] That seems to be precisely what you are arguing against. You're beginning to sound like one of the ether proponents who insist that \\reality\\ be molded around their preconceptions of what \\things really are\\ and how \\reality\\ has to work. Exactly why do you do physics if you really believe that the math has no physical interpretation beyond whim? So what? Just because you've picked something which is a mathematical manipulation doesn't mean anything but a failure to recognize the \\ difference in a mathematical manipulation and a something physically meaningful. Try this one: exp(iS) H exp(-iS) = H + i[S,H] - (1/2!)[S,[S,H]] + ... wouthuysen transform). Exactly how do you make an approximation if you don't interpret the mathematics in terms of physical quantities? How do you interpret a result if you don't care how the terms are organized? How do you even get a result if you don't associate the physical system with some mathematical principle? Why do you think things like a nuclear optical potential contains terms with definite physical meanings? What you are apparentkly advocating is to just throw math at a problem without considering the physics, because there is no relationship between the physics and the math. How did you ever work any physics problems if you thought all you were doing was manipulating variables? Difficultly, would be my guess. Amazingly enough, such a function has a lot more physical significance than writing out the power series expansion. Who said anything about doing that? You asked if it made sense to write sin(x) as a power series. I said, that if you had a physical reason for doing so, then sure, it makes sense. If you want to argue with something I didn't say, you might consider telling what the point is. [...] You can do anything you want, but it seems like a losing proposition to not recogize the physics and simply torture yourself for no particular reason. [...] So, in other words, you don't like a perturbation expansion, the idea using an operator that consists of two other operators that create So? The only reason for that is convention. A hole in a semi-conductor doesn't even have the same mass in in a semiconductor as a free electron). Oh, yes, that's often called an \\effective mass\\, but it's _the_ mass of what carries a negative (effective) charge in a material. ==== quantum foam, is akin to an aether. I said I have issues with the quantum existence from the vacuum then they must have a momentum with respect to absolute frame or not, because things that exist interact with other things that exist, and if they don't scatter electrons then there's no experimental basis for saying they \\really\\ pop into existence. Or at that do things like deposit energy in a detector. Basically, I think the aether, if you want to go with that word, is your picture, not mine. [...] -- \\Don't try to teach a pig how to sing. You'll waste your time and annoy the pig.\\ ==== Gregory L. Hansen: I gave you a reference to look up. Bjorken & Drell, Vol I. I already did. ==== Just because acceleration is decreasing does not necessarily mean that it is less than or equal to zero. If your acceleration decreases from say 20km/s^2 to 10km/s^2 you still have a positive acceleration and speed will continue to increase. Maybe you are thinking of deceleration where acceleration is negative. ==== Acceleration is a _rate_, not a speed. To increase speed while decreasing acceleration one only has to put less energy into moving the vehicle. Do in your auto - accelerate like crazy to 30kpm (say in 3.5 seconds) but then go half-throttle to the full ton. You are increasing your speed, decreasing your acceleration. Can't make it more clear than that! ==== Indeed, Both... A very good question. We must await the definition of the cause of gravity, and specifically, the resulting effect it has on vacuum polarization... A guess, given that c decreases with increasing gravitational potential, it is episilon(0) that is increased. It is very well known that c varies with gravitational curvature and IS NOT globally constant. The apparent constancy of c is a 'local' phenomena and can be considered valid if the curvature of the region is neglible... Think Shapiro time delay... Paul Stowe ==== Whether it's stupid or not, it is wrong by enough to matter. A meter is a little over 39.37 inches, not 39\\ exactly. ==== Oh great! I better tell all those meter stick makers they are wrong! ==== xxein: I used to say that I agree that you cannot measure the one-way speed of light because it usually involves two clocks that have to be \\set\\ based on the assumption that c=c isotropically (circular). Not anymore. The universe has rules and one of them is continuity (no shear breaks: even quantum). Whatever we measure has to do with a seting of clocks, time dilation and length contraction. None of these can cause a shear break in measurement/observation. But what does happen is that we get measurements that are skewed. Without knowing a deeper reason of the cause of the skew, many theories are born: each with a different reason. Sometimes in haste, an explanation of an experimental result is given two mutually exclusive reasons and both are accepted as the same theory. I'm thinking of Pound-Rebka where the measurement is described as a change of frequency of light (energy) because of gravity AND that the clocks measure at a different rate of time (again, gravity). In this case, EITHER account gives the full measuremental difference, but BOTH TOGETHER cannot. Yet both are accepted under the same theory. A simple one clock experiment is to take any homogeneous spherical mass. Construct an inner-reflective vacuum tube around the circumference in which to send an identifiable light pulse. Use the one clock to measure the speed of light. BUT, BUT, BUT you know the timerate of the clock depends upon its R position wrt the mass. The timerate of that clock is well defined wrt a far-away clock. It corresponds to the escape velocity value wrt R. So the clock is skewed! But you will measure c as c. IF YOUR CLOCK WASN'T SKEWED, WHAT IS THE MEASURE OF c? It will be c/gamma(escape velocity). Light did not travel the circumference at c. It moved at c multiplied by the clock timerate (1/gamma). A far-away observer could detect that difference in the around-the-mass time as c times 1/gamma(escape velocity). It turns out that light has an effective velocity of sqrt(c^2 - escape velocity^2) for this application. But the skewed clock will measure it as c. This is sinking your teeth into what relativity really is instead of theory based on what we measure. This is logically extended to R=3M for the minimal (R) at which a stable orbit can occur around a black hole. An orbit velocity is always escape velocity / sqrt(2) AND orbit velocity^2 + escape velocity^2 cannot exceed c^2. This limits to 3M for bh's. It's not a trick to use the same clock. It is simple math with a good theory. But you already have my nutshell in your basket. Give it your best try to satisfy yourself. ==== We already have a definition of gravitation. I can not help it is you personally find it unacceptable, because it works for practicing \\ physicists. Is mu(0) then constant?, or does it increase along with epsilon(0)? or does it decrease, but not as dramatically as epsilon(o) increases? This is *YOUR* theses, so *YOU* must provide the testable answers. No statement that beginst with \\it is very well known that...\\ can \\ possibly qualify as anything stronger than a rumor. It is certainly NOT published experimental data or a feasible experimental design, as requested. This is the second time I will have asked you. Please support this assertion with either published experimental data or with experimental designs by which data that can validate or refute your thesis could be obtained, or shut up and go away. If, as you imply, the value of c will depend upon the curvature of the region, what *measurable effects* could be observed on light traversing a region of high curvature as compared to light that avoids the same region? Your answer could perhaps be tested using observations of gravitational lensing. Tom Davidson Brighton, CO ==== Well, anyone who makes metre sticks who makes the measurement between the 0 and the 1 metre marks 39 inches will be wrong. Of course, I'm never heard of anyone actually DOING that, so... ==== I'm sorry I did not make this point clearer, 39 inches is a very rough estimate of the length of a meter compared to the current definition. And using a conversion factor to define it is somewhat ridiculous. Ooh, that's right, you were trying to be funny. ==== In sci.physics, Michael Moroney Just as a Pedant Point: 1 inch = 0.0254 m exactly. -- #191, ewill3@earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless. ==== Good point, xxein. See my argument towards Jim and the his theory : http://www.geocities.com/wlodekj \\ I doubt that photons would lose energy to gravitational detectors in the universe. This energy transfer would be subjected to Quantum laws, and I just do not see the mechanism. Neither have we build a detector that does just this. Also, I think you make double usage of the same effect. A photon escapes gravity and seemingly loses energy, but it gains speed. In fact, if we look down to the planet, the photon never had this energy, this energy locally looked greater, because time ran slower on Earth. But now you reason like Einstein that a redder photon should come from a region where time runs slower, while you also claim that the photon became redder because it got gravitationally detected. Either it became red by gravitational detection, or by stemming from a slow timezone. But you cannot say gravitational detection and then conclude slow timezone. \\ Hayek. -- the big stars and get noticed. :-) ==== In fact, the inch has been (re)defined to be 25.4 mm (exactly). Working backwards from this you get 1 m = 39.37007+ inches. ==== Maleki, I can't help but notice you have a large chip on your shoulder. I am curious why you bring your political views to a physics newgroup ? Do you somehow feel there is a physics formula that will remove that political \\ chip ? Just curious, -nighthawk ==== You want me to drive, while you hide in the trunk and bushwhack??? No way Jose! Tom Potter ==== I'm having HUGE problems trying to get a revolutionary physical theory recognised. The proof could be followed by a 10 year old, but noone will look at it. Do people here want to verify it for me, then I can move on......... Like most revolutionary theories you will insist it is wrong \ \\ from the start, so can I ask you not to preset your opinion on it, if you \\ continue to analyse it it will be evident. Maybe some people see that far but then they don't declare it. Herc -- _____ ___ / ___/ / __ __ __ /__ / / /__/ _ \\\\ / -_)(_- (_- _/_ / \\\\_ _/_//_/\\\\__/ /__)/__)/___/ www.chess3.com ==== from continue You know established theories have staying power because some scientist have so much of their life vested that they do not abrogate easly. A generation has to die off before the new generation can adapt a new theory. ==== Yes. _But_, when we talk about extrinsic curvature, we mean curvature in relation to some higher dimensional space. If you slice up space-time, then yes, we can study the curvature of the slice as it sits in 4-dimensional space-time (extrinsic curvature), and we can study the curvature of that slice _on its own_ (intrinsic curvature). But does GR study the extrinsic curvature of space-time _itself_ ? I believe not. Sorry if I didn't make myself entirely clear on that point. And judging from your post, I hadn't made myself clear :) ==== Stephen, that's quite a lengthy discussion, can you be more specific for us, what part do you want to reference? Your post on extrinsic/instrinsic geometry was quite clear, you showed that any surface that can be created from a plane piece of paper, (like a cylinder in your example, and this can be extended to conics) doesn't have intrinsic curvature, but a sphere does, (have positive curvature). And from this basis, a *saddle* has negative curvature. Stephen's statement, \\notion of the extrinsic curvature tensor\\, is ambiguous, since curvature is by definition intrinsic where tensors are concerned. Thus, a reference from Stephen would be enlightening. Ken S. Tucker. ==== I responded mainly to your opening and closing remarks. You started with: \\I forgot to mention that GR is only interested in intrinsic curvature\\ and ended with \\so there's no point in talking about extrinsic curvature of space-time.\\ In the previous post I gave some more mathematical references for this sort of work. Here are a few more physics oriented which deal with either extrinsic curvature and spacetimes or the initial value problem mentioned before. M. Campanelli et al., _Classical and Quantum Gravity_ 18 (8): pp. 1543-1554, Apr 21 2001. J. Baker and R. Puzio, _Physical Review D_, 59 (4): art. no. 044030, Feb 15 1999. R.B. Mann _Classical and Qunatum Gravity_, 18 (17): pp. 3427-3461, Sep 7 2001. -- Stephen sjs@speicher.com Ignorance is just a placeholder for knowledge. Printed using 100% recycled electrons. ----------------------------------------------------------- ==== curves that The into such 2D case, space there underlying missing to Maybe a little quote from James Gleick's \\Chaos,\\ illustration \\Constructing with holes,\\ will help for a picture: \\A few mathematicians \ \\ in the early twentieth century conceived monstrous-seeming objects made by the technique of adding or removing infinitely many parts. One such shape is \\ the Sierpinski carpet, constructed by cutting the center one-ninth of a square; then cutting out the centers of the eight smaller squares that remain; and so on. The three-dimensional analogue is the Menger sponge, a solid-looking lattice that has an infinite surface area, yet zero volume.\\ The other side of the same coin is the point that has infinite volume and zero surface area. \\The mind cannot visualize the whole infinite self-embedding of complexity. But to someone with a geometer's way of thinking about form, this kind of repetition of structure on finer and finer scales\\--(thus up the same scales of universe through ever less finely detailed structure as well, though still exactly the same repetition of structure)--\\can open a whole world. Exploring these shapes, pressing one's mental fingers into the rubbery edges of their possibilities, was a kind of playing, and Mandelbrot took a childlike delight in seeing variations that no one had seen or understood before. When they had no names, he named them: ropes and sheets, sponges and foams, curds and gaskets.\\--Jame Gleick, \\Chaos.\\ Brad ==== I think the issue here is that there is no \\pre-geometry\\ in GR. In other words, I think he's disagreeing with saying that you start with Minkowski space and then it changes to a curved space. I think part of the issue might be the idea of \\adding matter\\ to get a different solution. You never really add matter, it's already there somewhere in the universe, so really you never had Minkowski spacetime to begin with. Umm...so I think really the only difference here is that Speicher was being more careful in his language. ==== The first item you quote is, as you say, not quite right (although I thought it was reasonably clear from the context that the intrinsic curvature being referred to was the intrinsic curvature of spacetime, not of a hypersurface in spacetime). The second item you quote is correct, at least in the context of standard GR. One may well be interested in the extrinsic curvature of space (viewed as a hypersurface embedded in spacetime), but the extrinsic curvature of spacetime has no meaning in conventional GR. (Things are different in ``brane world'' models, in which spacetime is itself embedded in a higher dimensional manifold.) Steve Carlip ==== Martin, I was responding to your statement: \\Firstly, it is not space that is curved by matter and energy but the 4-dimensional Minkowski spacetime of special relativity.\\ Unlike your glass analogy, the \\4-dimensional Minkowski spacetime of special relativity\\ cannot be curved, which is why we need the manifold with metric of general relativity. -- Stephen sjs@speicher.com Ignorance is just a placeholder for knowledge. Printed using 100% recycled electrons. ----------------------------------------------------------- ==== Well, first of all, it's not \\in relativity\\. It's equally applicable to Newtonian Physics. Newton's law of gravity can also be described in the same way as the effect of curved space-time. Second, it's curved space-TIME, not curved space. And, in fact, most of the effect of gravity arises from the curvature of time, not of space. In ordinary 3-dimensionl language \\curved time\\ translates into \\spontaneously accelerating motion independent of an object's mass or charges or etc.\\, so the description of gravity as curvature in time is automatic and is a tautology -- no matter what you're talking about: \\ Newton, Einstein or anything else. That, of course, is why Newton's law of gravity automatically has a description in terms of curved time. Third, yes, you can always embed a curved manifold into a higher \\ dimensional Euclidean (or more generally: pseudo-Euclidean) space. But the description of curvature is purely intrinsic, making no reference to any \\outside\\ or any \\embedding\\ of any type; and the embedding result, itself, is a VERY non-trivial theorem in Riemannian geometry, certainly not a truism or definition. ==== You don't need to resort to anything so exotic to show a non-doppler redshift or an alternative to BBT. BBT may or may have some answers - it is after all only a hypothesis at \\ this point (shame it gets taught at high schools as if it were fact). However - some possibilities of an alternative interpretation: * The level of observed atomic hydrogen in space indicates high levels of [much more difficult to observe] molecular hydrogen. A fortuitous \\ side-on view of NGC 891 supports this hypothesis. * Clouds of molecular hydrogen may be the \\dark matter\\ that keeps galaxies together. * If intersteller and / or intergalactic space has sparse clouds of H2, where is the Planck blackbody-spectrum radiation from this non-luminous matter? It's there - we saw it in COBE and in more detail in WMAP recently. We call it the CMBR and it has nothing to do with a matter/light seperation in a Big Bang. light passes through sparse H2 clouds results in a redshift that is not related to Compton and/or Thompson scattering and therefore causes no blurring. The existance of ANY non-Dopper/cosmological/gravitational redshift places universal expansion in doubt. * Olbers paradox is real - just observe the night sky at the right frequency and you'll see the 2.7K blackbody radiation from the whole [infinite] universe... Anisotropies are caused by distribution variations. Visible radiation is eventually redshifted down to invisibility by braking radiation in intervening gas (this is not the same as tired light theories that relied on scattering and would produce blurring). This matches Hubble deep field observations, which incidentally show that as far as you look \\ you see more galaxies as long as you can resolve fainter and fainter images. If more powerful space telescopes show galaxies that are 20 or 30 billion \\ years old what will the BBT theorists do? What they have always done - adjust their maths of course without ever letting their basic assumptions come \\ into doubt :o) * Therefore the universe is infinite in space and time and exists in dynamic equilibrium. Any process that could \\destroy\\ the universe then impossible because if it were possible it must already have happened. Also, any possible interaction of matter/energy must have already have and be currently happening an infinite number of times. There are serious implications of this but they have already been accepted by BBT theorists who delve into \\quantum foam\\ and multiverse theory. from? The destruction of more complex matter in accretion discs - the axial away from the centre of accretion disks of various sizes from stellar formation discs to galactic jets. Apart from the alpha and beta radiation * There are some very qualified (Ph. D level) advocates of dynamic equilibrium theory: i.e. Paul Marmet, Halton Arp, Grote Reber and many \\ more. However, because these highly intelligent and qualified individuals haven't toed the mainstream line despite their evidence they have been shunned and ridiculed - like Galileo, Copernicus and Kepler before them. There is more but it's late here and I'm tired.... I'm sure many \\ respondents will bring up supernova time dilation, why red clumps don't prove anything and all sorts of other chestnuts that can be answered but the point I'm getting at is there are many ways of looking at things if you reasses your base assumptions, within the scope of accepted physical theory without resorting into more exotic ideas like those already presented in this thread. Shastry) falls, just according to shifted the shift when .google.com say 'information' of from ==== SIMPLEST COMPUTER MODEL subject : Program tape symmetry in micro turing machines I designed a model of computation based on the turing machine. It views the fsm (program) and tape in the same data structure, and one cycle of a turing machine is 2 cycles of my model, i.e. the program acts on the tape then the tape acts on the program, in effect dividing the concept of computation in 2. Program vs data is blurred, program tending to be a set of symbols followed by instructions, and data tending to be an instruction followed by a set of symbols, e.g. just as the program instructs the tape left or right, the tape instructs the program zero or one. The program to add 1 to a unary number as a turing machine is 2 states : | ^ \\\\-11R-/ b : finish The model represents the program in cells similar to a functional program node with 3 fields - symbol, and 2 pointers called target and next, though next always forms a sequence so with implementation in linear memory, next can be implied. The program to add 1 requires 7 nodes : g : finish where b is next of a. The tape is represented with 5 cells per tape value as a double linked list \ \\ : And the evaluation algorithm has 2 steps, call the pointer (register) to the fsm P and the pointer to the tape A, initially P=a and A=t : 1. repeat until symbol(P) = symbol(A) : P = next(P) 2. P=target(P) symbol(A) = symbol(P) A=target(P) and P=target(A) Try drawing circles instead of letters for cells to get a graphical understanding. Running for 2 cycles on this example gives the register values : P : abe uvx g A : t f y with t changed from a 0 to 1, so 0 + 1 = 1! -- _____ ___ / ___/ / __ __ __ /__ / / /__/ _ \\\\ / -_)(_- (_- _/_ / \\\\_ _/_//_/\\\\__/ /__)/__)/___/ www.chess3.com ==== I was just unsure about a commonly accepted definition of physics ye of little faith, thank-you for your internet search. As you can see the definitions are all slightly different, your consensus leaves something to be desired. I understand that physics originally meant natural philosophy but definitions tend to change and of course it depends on context. Isn't matter a form of energy? Also since you are into definitions I have a problem with Al's empiricism, my dictionary scientific principles, a synonym of quackery. ==== ^^^^^^^^^ Number one, mathematics is not an empirical anything. Two, \\abstract mathematics\\ is redundant. Everything involving words and symbols is as abstract as everything else that does; including all mathematics, all languages, pictures, diagrams and maps. ==== that it I thought that \\net weight\\ was the weight of the product that you purchased, i.e. total weight minus the weight of all the packaging. It doesn't imply the conversion of force (weight) into mass. On the other hand, I'm sure there must be a \\standard value of g\\, in a government statute somewhere, that does imply a correspondence between the \\net weight\\ printed on my cereal box, and the average amount (mass) of cereal that is contained in the box. ==== And, in the future, even those in commerce and law will need to make the physics distinction for the amount of *stuff* in orbit or on the surface of the moon. -- John E. Prussing University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Department of Aeronautical & Astronautical Engineering http://www.uiuc.edu/~prussing ==== Well there's a class A mistake! 15 USC 205c, in part: (4) ''metric system of measurement'' means the International System of Units as established by the General Conference of Weights and Measures in 1960 and as interpreted or modified for the United States by the Secretary of Commerce; US weights and measures are the province of an individual. Illinois statutes, for example, don't specify any particulars about weights and measures while assigning the department of agriculture enforcement responsibility. They issue lots of speeding tickets here in Illinois, but none of the parameters defining what mph means are codified, not even by referencing federal or other standards. William J. Vajk Techny, Illinois ==== Since what they compare is masses, there is no problem. Mati Meron | \\When you argue with a fool, meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same\\ ==== Well, yes, it is. But that weight is not a force. If you are interested in force, the force exerted by the packaging is going to have the same effect as the force exerted by the contents. Unless you've got some cans or jars invisible to gravity, you aren't going to be talking about \\net weight\\ if you are interested in force. There is no \\conversion.\\ The word weight has had this meaning for over 1000 years. The word mass, as often used in physics jargon, has had the same meaning for about 275 years. Don't imagine it. Show me. Bet you can't do so. Stop and think about it. The \\weight\\ on that serial box is \\14 oz (397 g)\\ or whatever (or only grams, if you are outside the United States). Those grams and those ounces are both units of mass. The ounces or pounds have been units of mass since they were first invented, and are today legally defined as an exact fraction of a kilogram. You don't need any standard value of g. A standard acceleration of gravity serves no purpose in SI. It is also unnecessary in the oldest of the several English systems of mechanical units, in fact the oldest of the coherent systems of English units, the absolute foot-pound-second system. You only need a standard acceleration of gravity if you use pounds force or kilograms force. We do not buy and sell goods in kilograms force. We do not buy and sell goods in pounds force. Gene Nygaard http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Gene_Nygaard/ ==== We make that distinction today--but it isn't in the words used. An electronic load cell scale used in commerce is only certified for use in the location where it is tested on site. It is tested for its accuracy in measuring mass--not for its accuracy in measuring force. A bar of gold with a weight of 401.23 troy ounces at Hammerfest will still have a weight of 401.23 troy ounces at Quito--even though the acceleration at the latter place is probably less by considerably more than one part in 400. Why do you think anything would need to change? Gene Nygaard http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Gene_Nygaard/ ==== There is indeed no standard acceleration of free fall defined in U.S. law. All that means is that there is no official definition of the pound force. But we don't buy and sell goods using pounds force anyway. You've got another guess coming. U.S. law defines the yard as 0.9144 m exactly and the pound as 0.45359237 kg exactly. Read the current law, and a discussion of prior law, and a discussion of the international agreement among the national standards laboratories of the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and South Africa at http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/PUBS_LIB/FedRegister/FRdoc59-5442.pdf The constitution gives this responsibility for fixing the standards of weights and measures to the Federal government. Local laws can't change the federal standards; they can supplement them. In addition to laws of the parties to that agreement, the same definitions are established in the laws of other places such as Ireland. Gene Nygaard http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Gene_Nygaard/ ==== Ref: Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia. 1947 edition: Mass: Few terms are used more in physics with greater frequency and assurance than \\mass of a body,\\ and few are more difficult to define. Mass is often confused with weight, a mistake not helped by use of the same names for units of mass and weight. (e.g., gram). {snip} The Dent Dictionary of Measurement, 1994, ISBN 0460 861379 Weight: Property of an object caused by the force of gravity acting on its mass. For a stationary object, weight equals mass multiplied by acceleration of free fall (acceleration due to gravity, 9.80665 meters per second per second, or 32,1740 feet per second per second, at the earth's surface.) {snip} In everyday usage, weight is synonymous with mass.....{snip} The term is sometimes confused with density....{snip}. (end Dent) Webster gets down to the 6th definition before invoking local gravity as a factor. Misuse of a term for convenience does not alter the nature or purpose of the term. Weight is dependent on g, and that's why there are two distinctly separate words. The heavier weight of a given truck does more damage to roads in Alaska than the same truck does in Panama. Move the problem to the moon and weight changes significantly while mass does not change at all. On the moon, even white men can jump because they weigh less. Local gravity first became a problem to weights and measures during the Alaska gold rush. The government investigated theft of small amounts of gold in transit from Alaska to Fort Knox which was resolved when they eliminated matching calibrated spring scales and replaced them with matching calibrated balance scales. Subsequently accommodation was made by ignoring local g as a befits a simple solution. At wholesale levels, foodstuffs are sold by bulk or unit in order to get around weighing difficulties. Even at retail, things like strawberries, ice cream, bootleg, and milk are sold by the volumetric pint (or multiple.) William J. Vajk Techny, Illinois ==== It means that if you weigh an object on earth (and at a particular \\ location) using a spring weight, you will get a particular reading. If you take the object and the spring weight to the, you will get a different reading. Get real yourself. The fact is that people use weight as a measure of a quantity, and weight varies with location (or more accurately the gravitational field strength at that location). The reason it doesn't make a lot of difference in practice is that the total variation over the earths surface is quite small. Small it may be, but zero it ain't. That is not actually true. What is true is that the differences in weight with location on the earths surface are small, and to most people they don't matter. No, the word \\weight\\ is not ambiguous. The interpretation that some people --- like you --- place on the word is incorrect. But the actual definition in a (good quality) dictionary is quite precise. The meaning you are attaching to \\weight\\ is actually the meaning of \\mass\\. But weight and mass are different quantities. At the moment, you're showing that you don't understand the difference. that it Weight is a force, and is measured in units such as pounds or ounces. The pound is formally a unit of force --- consider the fact that one unit of pressure (force per area) is the pound per square inch. The term \\net weight\\ is just the total weight of something *as \\ measured*. Any given object at rest (i.e. no motion) has a fixed mass. However, it's weight depends on the gravitational field at it's location. A kilogram of lead always has a mass of one kilogram. But it's weight on the moon is different from it's weight anywhere on the earth's surface. ==== It is the weight of the item itself, not including the weight of the package or wrapping. Bob Kolker ==== Yes, that would be the gross wieght. net weight is \\mass of product\\ gross weight is packaging and product. (shipping weight). gravitational weight is \\neither of the above\\ and gravitational mass is also neither. weight \\all by itself\\ is net weight and also termed mass. gravitational force is the gravitational weight, not the \\common weight\\ anymore. ==== Please check how NIST defines weight. No, it is not a \\misuse\\. \\Weight\\ has been used as \\amount of stuff\\ for thousands of years. Its appropriation by physics as \\force due to gravity\\ came much later. If anything, this appropriation was a misuse, but hey, its a done deal. If you think that when you buy an ounce of gold in Panama or in Alaska you get a different amount of gold, think again. And if you're confused, call NIST and ask. The weight, as defined in physics, changes. The weight, as defined in commerce, doesn't. I trust you're aware of the fact that same word may have different meanings in different settings. Just ask a biologist for the meaning of \\vector\\. First, I don't even recall spring scales being used at that time. Second, what is it you think a balance scale measures? Mati Meron | \\When you argue with a fool, meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same\\ ==== In sci.physics, Spaceman You are both correct. Actually, net weight is the gross weight minus the weight of an empty container, if memory serves. For what it's worth. -- #191, ewill3@earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless. ==== In all the high school physics and general science textbooks of the age when I was going through high school. I'll try to find a reference. A balance scale compares the action of local gravity on a known mass against the action of gravity on an unknown mass. The operation requires equal mass * offset on both sides of the scale to work, thereby physically and mathematically canceling gravity out of the procedure and as a result comparing masses regardless of local gravity. It is thus does not measure weight at all, but only mass. mass/weight relationship is established at a specific value of g. Given otherwise identical flour, is the volume of 100 pounds of flour measured on a balance beam scale in Alaska of larger or smaller volume than 100 pounds of flour weighed on the same balance beam scale in Equador? What happens when a spring scale is used? Using Dent's definition, which of the two yields true local weight? William J. Vajk Techny, Illinois ==== measured*. ==== No. Net weight is \\weight of product\\. Net mass would be \\mass of product\\. The two are different things. If we standard on the earth, and put the object on the ground, it's weight is the force the object would exert on the ground (or the force you would need to apply to hold it above the ground). All weight is gravitational. Weight is the force applied to a body by the local gravitational field. For example, it is the force by which the object you are trying to weigh is pulled towards the earth. Gravitational mass is the mass of an object. In Newton's law of gravitation, the gravitational force of attraction of two bodies is G *m1 *m2/r^2 where G is the gravitational constant, m1 and m2 are the masses of the objects, and r is the distance between their centres of mass. When talking about gravitation, the term \\mass\\ sometimes gets described as \\gravitational mass\\. Only by those who don't know better. If you weigh an object on earth, it's weight is equivalent to the gravitational force acting on it. ==== Wrong. Weight started out as being related to how difficult it is to lift an object. In other words the force needed to move it against gravity. People assumed at that time that the weight of an object could not vary (the variations were so small they were difficult to measure) so weight was then considered as a measure of \\how much\\ stuff there was. Physics makes the distinction explicit, that's all. That's because gold is weighed by comparing it against a fixed mass on scales. Of course, this assumes that people don't fiddle with their \\standard\\ weight set. Sure. Words means different things in different settings. However, the argument you're using to say that weight is an absolute is incorrect. There is a relationship between the definitions of weight used in commerce and that used in physics. The fact that (for example) gold merchants treat weight as an absolute works in their setting because there are a number of constraints on how they do things (eg using scales and comparing with standard weights). All a balance scale measures is whether two objects have the same weight. If the objects are very close together, relative to fluctuations in the local gravitational field, that measurement also indicates --- to a very high degree of confidence --- whether the mass of the two objects is the same or different. ==== Please do. Exactly. And keep in mind that the traditional device for weight measurement (i.e. scale) since the ancient times was a balance scale. This should tell you what the standard meaning of the term weight was before physics adopted it. Also note what are the units used for weight, in commerce. Mati Meron | \\When you argue with a fool, meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same\\ ==== Nope. The merchant who bought gold or bronze 2000 years ago couldn't care less how difficult it is to lift it (he had slaves for this). He cared how much stuff he gets. Balance scale compares masses. ... Since \\weight\\ as defined in commerce is what is defined in physics as \\mass\\, it is absolute. Sure, there is a relationship. The relationship being that \\weight\\ as defined in commerce is what is defined in physics as \\mass\\. Just check what are the units of weight in commerce. \\Standard weights\\ are standard masses. When you weight objects on balance scales you compare masses. When you get to a point where local fluctuations of gravity over a distance of 0.2-0.2 m are significant in comparison with other factors, then you'll have to worry about it. Balance scale compares masses. Weight, in commerce, is mass. It is measured by comparison to standard masses and the results of the measurement are given in mass units. Period, end of story. Mati Meron | \\When you argue with a fool, meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same\\ ==== In the metric system I see only mass units at my local supermarket. Grams, Kilograms and sometimes MilliGrams. Bob Kolker ==== Wrong. They are one and the same thing. Show me any published use of \\net weight\\ where the quantity referred to is a force of some kind, rather than mass. The weight of a 401.23 troy ounce bar of gold at the North Pole would still be 401.23 troy ounces at sea level at the Equator. However the acceleration of free fall at the equator is less by more than one part in 190. IOW, if these were units of force, it would only be about 399 troy ounces force. Fortunately, unlike their avoirdupois cousins and grams and kilograms, the troy units of weight are always unit of mass. They have never spawned units of force of the same name. The net weight of my 680 g bottle of ketchup would still be 680 g at the North Pole, and it would still be 680 g at the top of Mt. Chimborazo, the highest mountain on Earth, where the acceleration of free fall is less than that at the North Pole by more than one part in 140. That net weight is still 24 oz (1 lb 8 oz) at the top of Mt. Chimborazo as well. The grams do not change. The pounds which are, by definition, 453.59237 grams, do not change. Gene Nygaard http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Gene_Nygaard/ ==== No, they are one and the same. You best not ever get a job in the packaging department. ==== No, you are distinguishing gravitational mass and inertial mass. Don't come back about that until you can show any difference between them of any significance in commerce. B.S. How exactly do you suppose those scales are tested and certified? There is one word that explains why these have become so common in the marketplace in the past 30 years: microprocessor. That's what allows them to be calibrated for measuring the very same thing that was measured in the grocery store of my youth, a Toledo calculating balance scale with a rotating drum readout with columns for price at various prices per pound, and the company motto boldly facing the customer: HONEST WEIGHT NO SPRINGS Gene Nygaard http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Gene_Nygaard/ ==== Cut< Cut< I agree. You seem to be one of the few who understands the difference between weight-force and mass; as well as how balance scales work. I would add that the pointer and calibrated scale on the top of an equal \\ arm balance is there so that if the masses being weighed _don't_ balance it indicates the difference in the forces being exerted: The heavier one of course exerts more force and the position of the pointer on the scale indicates _how much_ more. Similarly?? With an empty platform scale the position of the built on \\ weight should give a reading of zero: Placing a load on the scale will cause the calibrated arm to rise: To bring it back down to the mid-point requires moving the built on weight to some position along the scale so that its weight-force will do this. If the load is heavy additional counterweights may be required. ==== That the type of thing that you're not supposed to mention. Think of all the fun you are depriving people of by insisting that there even MIGHT be different definitions. RJ Pease ==== The failure of political authority to comprehend the issues and address them does not alter any of the underlying facts. I don't trust politicians for anything else, so certainly I won't cite them as an authority on this. William J. Vajk Techny, Illinois ====