What exists outside the universe?

[viper232]

Kaz-Balan

viper232

And yet just because they were wrong does not mean we are nearly as wrong with our description today.

And yet just because they were right ( in their intellectual and cultural context ) ...
  ...does not mean we are nearly as right with our description today.
IF you had READ my post and answered WHY they were "wrong", exactly...
  ...I wouldn't have been ill-mannered enough to mockingly mirror your answer.

Yet you've still failed to provide anything that isn't completely vague meaningless babble.

And you're still pandering to the notion that we must be wrong simply because cultures in the past we wrong. You're not very good at this logic thing are you?

Quote:

viper232

This analogy is, like both you and creationists often do, making a mockery of the relativity of wrong.

Unlike creationists and you, I, for one, do not let "right" or "wrong" notions...
  ...interfere with scientific knowledge or with the methods to get it.

No, instead you let your own preconceived notions of "relativity MUST be flawed because I dislike time dilation" interfere with scientific knowledge or with the methods to get it.

... And actually you also somehow believe that meaningless babble that you can't describe precisely somehow should be translated to scientific knowledge. That's really not how science functions, you can't spout nonsense based on ignorance and pretend it means something. That is what creationists do.

Quote:

viper232

If you can't explain what you're even saying in precise terminology, how are "scientists and curious minds" supposed to take it seriously?

I do not even TRY having the occasional scientists and curious minds coming in Gagaia...
  ...taking my ATTEMPT at some HYPOTHESIS seriously.
I just try and wake some neurons up.

Then wake them up by providing something substantial, something meaningful, some valid criticisms of relativity and some viable alternative. Not the physics equivalent of "goo goo ga ga".

You don't "wake neurons up" by spouting idiocy, you wake them up by giving us something to think about. You fail to do so consistently, and quite miserably.

Quote:

viper232

It's meaningless babble, nothing more.

You don't know me or why I expose my point of view on the matter...
  ...and yet it's "meaningless babble" ?
How certain you are!...

It's meaningless babble because it doesn't mean anything. I mean, if you had said "lastea blaque muvama see luqa bo ma" it might have meaning to you, but to anyone else without magical all knowing powers, it's meaningless babble.

Likewise, your "ideas", void of any physical model that can be constructed, is meaningless babble. Until you translate the "ideas" into precise statements that indeed mean something, into a precise model, it's vague meaningless babble.

It doesn't matter if it holds meaning to you, when communicating things to others, you have to provide something that others can understand... you've... provided just meaningless babble.

Come up with a substantial model, this isn't an extreme request, this really is the very least I can ask of you. Not even "come up with a substantial model that accounts for current evidence", but "come up with a substantial model", just translate what you've been saying to something that others can work with. I'm not even asking you to provide evidence for it... no... I'm asking the very least possible, to say something that isn't vague meaningless babble.

Quote:

viper232

Einstein came about his ideas because of very glaring flaws with the current interpretation of physics.

Hmmmmm... More like he loooong studied the aether hypothesis...
  ...and, later on, wondered if some extremely anti-conventional hypothesis
  ( space and time getting linked into some "spacetime" getting deformed by gravity )
  could do the trick.
Then, he put it into very formal formulas.

-_-; I dislike this misrepresentation of Einstein. He constructed space time FROM the postulate of relativity, the laws of physics being consistent in all inertial reference frames is all you need to construct this idea of "spacetime". He didn't "wonder if some extremely anti-conventional hypothesis" could do the trick, his first 1905 paper was a non-issue really at the time, because it was constructed from a simple postulate. That simple postulate allowed him to rederive physics known at the time... fix some problems, and account for all the current observations.

The notion of spacetime was a consequence, not his initial idea. Oh, and the "spacetime getting deformed by gravity" was a direct consequence of the idea "one cannot tell the difference between acceleration and a gravity well", general relativity was constructed after he already constructed the notion of spacetime.

I know you like showing off your ignorance but it's rather annoying.

Quote:

viper232

All he did was say "hey, lets try to re-derive this from a simpler postulate, that the laws of physics remain consistent in different reference frames as no reference frame seems to be special", and lo and behold, he succeeded in re-deriving the transformations that we already had from a simpler set of postulates.

For now, his theories SEEM to be checked by observations.
Just like the ancient Aegyptian theory about the sun god was.

Except the Egyptian theory on the sun god has rather limited predictive powers, and faces quite a number of glaring contradictions with the evidence. Relativity... eh, not so much. If you want to compare the two, you need to show some rather glaring contradictions with the evidence, which you're clearly not capable of doing.

Quote:

Do you even realize that a FAR simpler basic postulate could be that energy is the only existing physical reality, in the form of :
. clouds of condensed energy ( aka particles )
. rays of energy ( aka light and relativistic particles )
. hidden bath of some low energy density ( what I would call an UN-material aether )
Everything else being mere consequences.

... This is your idea of a precise statement? Take those "basic postulates" and construct a model for me. Please, do.

"The laws of physics are valid in all inertial reference frames" for example means "maxwell's equations are valid in all inertial reference frames" which directly lets you derive c in any inertial reference frame. From this, you compare moving frames and it's trivial to derive (with the help of Pythagorean therom) to derive all of the Lorentz transformations. The "basic postulate" yields a very strong model and a very real set of transformations as a direct consequence.

Build a model from your "simpler basic postulates". No, please, do.

Quote:

viper232

There's a very big difference between proposing a very real set of postulates that would fix flaws with the current interpretation (such as the apparent constant measurements of the speed of light marking a fairly big nail in the coffin for ether theory), and proposing nonsense that is poorly worded based on complete misinterpretations of the physics from someone who doesn't understand the physics, has never derived the physics, has no concept on any of the flaws of the current model and has proposed nothing that would fix any of the flaws and still be consistent with current measurements.

There's a very big difference between parrotting what official science books tell...
  ...and using one's curiosity, imagination, and previous theories and observations
  to obtain some new hypothesis and possibly new approaches and knowledge.

You make plenty of ironic statements but they're all equally annoying. "parroting what official science books tell"... yeah because who needs studying the subject when you can disregard all of those damn "official science books" and spout meaningless babble in place of it?

It's kinda funny because I've actually derived c from maxwell's equations... I've derived the Lorentz transformations from the postulate of relativity... you... probably don't even know what the transformations are yet you consistently seem to pretend they're all wrong.

Quote:

viper232

Einstein knew the physics, and his ideas both fixed problems AND explained current data... and were very real very precise statements... his papers were not idle babble, they were substantial.

Of course. HE was a scientist, with all the rigor of his time and place.
I'm not.

Clearly. But that doesn't excuse you from shouting nonsense from the rooftops.

Quote:

viper232

You... don't know the physics.

I know enough of it all to laugh at GR, at the "Big Bang" theory, at the "c is constant" law,
  at Heisenberg's joke, and at some more lil' things...
I know enoug of Gagaia to NOT explain farther, here, WHY I laugh.

"I know enough of it to laugh at GR".

"I know enough of evolution to laugh at it".

I'm sure. You've never researched the subject, never studied it, never took any courses on it, never picked up a book to study it from the beginning... you've taken just some of the consequences and pretended those were what they originally assumed and because you consider them absurd you "laugh at" them.

"I know enough" is never a good thing to say when arguing against fairly well established science, especially if you openly admit you've never studied the subject.

Quote:

viper232

Your ideas do not seem to fix current problems, but rather they fix what you perceive as problems despite what the evidence indicates.

Hmmmm... What evidence, again, exactly?

Muons are a fairly good example of time dilation, particles surviving longer in accelerators according to the lorentz factor is another pretty good example, or hell, just the relativistic corrections in gps satellites that keep them working properly. Or since you just mentioned "the Heisenberg joke", how about the fact that quantum tunneling is not only observed, but how alpha decay works (and how you can independently derive the exponential decay of alpha decay), or how flash memory works.

There's evidence for all of the things you consider absurd, it's just you don't bother studying the subject.

Quote:

viper232

They do not explain the current data.

What if light, crossing some milieu filled with a low but existing energy density...
  ...progressively lost its energy in it ?
Personally, I find this to be a far more valid reason for the global stellar "red shift"...
  ...than the Doppler effect, implying some global expansion.

... The ********?

This seems to be tired light... tired light is a long abandoned hypothesis because it fails to account for the data. http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm
http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.3595

Tired light fails to account for the data, it just doesn't work.

If this isn't you advocating tired light... then it's just you once again being rather open and vague.

Quote:

viper232

They are not precise, they are open, vague, and I can't even remotely figure out how to build a substantial model from them.

Well, you can't.

You're right, but I'm not the one proposing the open vague statements... I'm not the one who should be building a substantial model, you're the one who should PROVIDE one.

Quote:

viper232

You are no einstein...

I NEVER pretended to be one.
I'm just a curious mind who TRIES and point some possibilities.

You might as well be saying "magical unicorns s**t sea shells on the sea shores".

It's a possibility, but it should be taken seriously... why?

Quote:

viper232

you don't understand what it means to be a "curious mind" in science.

Do you mean that "being a curious mind in science" means...
  ...following blindly whatever absurdities the official scientists published ?
I doubt that, so feel free to explain your point.

Follow blindly? Yes because "follow blindly"="study the subject and learn the derivations to figure out why scientists say the things they do".

Because someone who wants to understand why what physicists say what they do is clearly less curious than someone who out of a wave of her hand rejects it, considering it absurd, without bothering to study the subject.

Yep, I'm the one lacking curiosity here.

Quote:

viper232

You really are the physics equivalent of a creationist, and you're too blind to see that.

You probably do not value doubt and uncertainty enough, in scientific approaches.

No, I value doubt and uncertainty quite a bit, I make sure to include them in any measurement I make. Oh, I'm sorry, you meant "uncertainty in everything physicists say, it could all be wrong".

I bother learning why they say what they say, so no, I don't really value complete utter "it could all be wrong" skepticism much unless it's justified. If it's justified, if contradictions appear, then I begin to value doubt far more.

Quote:

Matter was produced by sending energy into material void.
Energy is produced by decaying particles and organisational ruptures.
E=mc²

What need is there to consider anything else than energy anymore ?

How many times do I have to tell you? It's E=γmc^2. That γ is the lorentz factor, Einstein derived that FROM his postulates of special relativity, you don't get to go using his equation if you're rejecting the entire derivation of it. "Yeah, X Y and Z all gives you A, but X Y and Z are all wrong but I like A so I'm keeping it".

And please stop dropping that γ, it makes it abundantly clear that it's a direct consequence of special relativity, any derivations you provide for E=γmc^2 need to also provide the γ. γ is rather easy to derive in special relativity, it only requires simple geometry... but please, provide an alternate derivation for the lorentz factor and E=γmc^2.

[VorpalNeko]

Kaz-Balan

What if light, crossing some milieu filled with a low but existing energy density...
...progressively lost its energy in it ?

You keep harping on this idea, as if it's not something trivial that's easily tested. Personally, I found it interesting enough to write a "relativity as optics" entry in my journal here back in 2008, in which I've tried to model the gravitational bending of light as if it was not due to gravity proper, but rather a locally variable index of refraction of some medium. (I ignored the redshift there, but obviously if it doesn't match one of the empirically observed phenomena, it fails.)

But the problem isn't really that this approach cannot reproduce fails to reproduce all light bending effects. That can be remedied by not having the medium be locally isotropic--which complicates the theory, but may be acceptable (i.e., index of refracting will not be a scalar field in that case). It's not even that the medium would have light propagation properties quite unlike any other medium ever observed (e.g., there must be a big fat zero wavelength dependence). It's that it would require another mechanism on top of that to reproduce the empirically observed results for things other than light, leaving you with an incredibly ad-hoc theory that.

But I've discussed all of those problems with you in the past. I suspect you'll continue to ignore reality and after a while just come back with the same proposals over and over again.

Variations on the above for light, as well as for non-optical other relativistic results (e.g., 'attribute Mercury's precession to solar oblateness and test this hypothesis for other planets') are somewhat common exercises in GTR textbooks. Your revolutionary new insight is but an illusion. Or delusion, as the case may be. It's not new. It's been done. It failed.

[viper232]

Kaz-Balan

VorpalNeko

You keep harping on this idea, as if it's not something trivial that's easily tested.

"Trivial" and "easily tested", hmmmm?
Well, let's see.

Suppose you live in some atmosphere that's quite invisible to your observational means,
and yet you try and understand physical mechanisms.
You discover the gas state, along with the liquid and solid ones,
yet you can't even imagine such gases may mix into some breathable air...
...and thus provide the dioxygen needed by your lungs, yet you bathe in it all.
Why?
Simply because your culture tells you the only existing physical reality...
...is something you may touch and see.
Yet building some REAL science, as an abstract system allowing you and other people
to get knowledge from previous knowledge and observations IS possible...
...and you DO participate in it.
Do you see the parallel with ancient Aegyptians, now ?

You keep coming back to vague meaningless statements to try to avoid presenting anything robust and indeed falsifiable whenever questioned about it.

You haven't provided anything to test. It has nothing to do with the culture, it has to do with your complete failure to provide something that makes sense. It has to do with you thinking whatever you came up with on some major acid trip deserves to be treated seriously. It has to do with the fact that your acid trip like ideas show complete ignorance of what the science does say.

Since you seem so fond of the ancient egyptians, it's not that you're proposing something scientific when they're saying "sun god". No, it's that you're proposing "the Nile periodically shoots up giant jets of magical mojo into the sky that projects the image of a big ball on the sky to make it light outside". In other words, you're not proposing something with insight, you're proposing something more absurd than what's out there, that provides less of an understanding than what people already know.

At least the idea of gods makes it clear the sun exists beyond earth, is a tangible object. You, however, are proposing the equivalent of "the sun doesn't exist, it's a projection of something the earth is spitting out". You aren't progressing science, you aren't providing anything substantial at all, you're providing nonsense, little else.

Quote:

Is current science based only on TESTS, on observations ?
I'm very much afraid, along with someone like The Great Explainer, that it IS so.

Tests, observations, and robust models. You know, build a model based on observations, use the model to make predictions, test those predictions, and see if they confirm the model. That's what current science is, it's a fairly rigorous procedure, sorry if you don't like the whole "building a model based on observations thing". Or the "use the model to make predictions" bit. Or the "test those predictions bit". Or the "confirm the model" bit. I'm sure you'd vastly prefer science operates on a "make a random unspecific guess and pretend it makes sense", but sorry, no, not how science works.

Actually... that's not how science worked even in the time of Newton.

Quote:

Now figure this MIND experiment, going with my attempt at some hypothesis :

"MIND experiment". You know, thought experiments are done with a substantial model in place, such as the Schrodinger's cat thought experiment that specifically addresses the nature of superposition and challenges the very real very workable model. I do hope you have the common courtesy of providing us a model that we can apply this "thought experiment" to. Though I sincerely doubt it.

Quote:

. A global bath of low to extremely low energy density fills every volume of space
. Rays of energy and particles ( condensed clouds of energy ) cross those volumes
and get both slowed and EXCHANGE energy with the milieu
. Time is but the abstract dimension drawn from measurement of DYNAMIC elements
. GLOBAL balance intervenes in the global bath and, when energy exchanges occur,
creates far away EFFECTS, commonly called "forces"...
...because of a mere tendancy towards global equilibrium.

I like how you say "time is but", sure the "thought experiment" is nothing "but" a collection of random words strung together with little physical meaning that once again really doesn't seem to provide a coherent physical model... but the "time is but" is such an interesting phrasing.

It's not "time is an abstract dimension", no, it's not concrete, you took the literary approach, "time is but", as though you were making a poem... "time is but a transient dream". You don't care about making definite statements, you don't care about robust models, precise terminology, no, you care about making it "sound good".

"If it sounds good, it must be scientific!" right? And "if it sounds like it requires a lot of work to learn, it must be wrong!"

"The laws of physics are valid in all inertial reference frames".=precise statement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_equations#General_formulation
Maxwell's equations. Velocity independent. Use them and via some vector calc you find the speed of prorogation of any electromagnetic wave is c.

Using the statement above, we then say that Maxwell's equations are valid in any inertial reference frame. Meaning from ANY inertial reference frame, you measure the speed of light to be c.

Well, from this simple geometry gives you the lorentz transformations.

That is how you turn a statement into a model. That is why precise statements are so important, because they are useful. You... have given us nothing useful.

Give us something useful with this. No, really, tell me what "Time is but the abstract dimension drawn from measurement of DYNAMIC elements" means. Tell me what "Rays of energy and particles ( condensed clouds of energy ) cross those volumes and get both slowed and EXCHANGE energy with the milieu" means.

Quote:

Now, maybe ALL elements in the world of physics may derive from this postulate.

Or not?
Please point what this makes you think of.
As for me, I just cannot prevent figuring people on a boat, on the sea...
...and figuring only how its surface and everything visible or known around behave.

We're not responsible for translating meaningless babble into coherent statements and derive the physics for you. "Gahta mo lasta ref act buan so larnca", "maybe I just told you the secret of the life, universe, and everything, or not, tell me what you think".

Until you translate the statements into something substantial, how are we supposed to do anything with them? Translate, or you've given us nothing but meaningless babble.

Quote:

VorpalNeko

Personally, I found it interesting enough to write a "relativity as optics" entry in my journal here back in 2008, in which I've tried to model the gravitational bending of light as if it was not due to gravity proper, but rather a locally variable index of refraction of some medium. (I ignored the redshift there, but obviously if it doesn't match one of the empirically observed phenomena, it fails.)

Interesting.
But what if MATTER is influenced by the energetic milieu, as well ?
If you like the "forces" approach, doesn't it shock you that ONE force ( gravity )
may affect such historically BASIC physical dimensions as space and time ?!

Why though should we be shocked that large masses can bend space-time? And why should we be shocked that gravity can cause time dilation?

Here, lets do a derivation of GR that even you can comprehend, no math involved.

Picture you're in a box. A totally isolated box, you can't see or hear anything from the outside world. But you can feel an acceleration from inside the box, if I were to start pushing it faster and faster, you would feel a net force. You also can feel gravity in the box, after all, you'd be sitting on the floor in this isolated box.

Then comes Einstein's principle of equivalence for GR, "there is no way to distinguish between gravity and acceleration". Simple, no?

Why's this true? Well, consider that your isolated box is out in space, and it's accelerating up with an acceleration a=g. You can't see outside, you can't communicate with the outside, so how can you tell the difference between an acceleration a=g, and a gravity well of g?

Further, if you're freefalling in a gravitational well you experience weightlessness, no forces seem to be acting on you, how can you tell the difference between freefalling to a planet and being out in space?

That's the principle of equivalence for GR.

Now, picture for a second a pulse of light emitted at the top of a box. The box is accelerating upwards. The light travels in a straight line, but the box is going up.

At time t=0 the light is at the top. At a time t=T1, the light then would be at maybe 3/4 from the top. At t=T2, 1/2, and t=T3, it's only 1/4 the way up. What path then does the light take in a box accelerating upwards?

Well, clearly it'd take a curve, by the time the light pulse reaches the end of the box, the box has traveled so high as to make the light hit the bottom of the box. Light then travels through a curved path in an accelerating body.

But go back to the principle of equivalence, one cannot tell the difference between an accelerating body and a gravitational field, hence a gravitational field ALSO bends light. *gasp* this is where we get the idea of gravitational lensing, from nothing more than the principle of equivalence, which I'd really like you to tell me how it's absurd.

But wait, there's more! Picture a clock sending out light pulses at regular intervals in a box. There is a detector at the top of the box that measures the pulses. Make the box then start moving up with some acceleration. Suddenly, the light takes longer to arrive, and the period and wavelength will be observed to be longer. The detector on the top would see the clock running slow then. But the principle of equivalence then means this is the same in a gravitational well, and hence, ready for it? The detector in a gravitational well would measure the clock to run slow as well! The time measured by the detector between each pulse would be longer than the pulses are being emitted, from this we get gravitational time dilation.

All we need to arrive at gravitational time dilation is the principle of equivalence... it's a very simple postulate. A lot simpler than

Quote:

. A global bath of low to extremely low energy density fills every volume of space
. Rays of energy and particles ( condensed clouds of energy ) cross those volumes
and get both slowed and EXCHANGE energy with the milieu
. Time is but the abstract dimension drawn from measurement of DYNAMIC elements
. GLOBAL balance intervenes in the global bath and, when energy exchanges occur,
creates far away EFFECTS, commonly called "forces"...
...because of a mere tendancy towards global equilibrium.

And considering gravitational lensing and gravitational time dilation have been observed, it seems like a very strong statement.

In fact, you yourself can measure gravitational time dilation. Take laser that emits light at a very specific frequency with a very specific wavelength. Make sure you know the wavelength very accurately, you'll need quite accurate measurements for this. Shine it up to the top of a skyscraper, (You'd probably need two people for this, one to adjust the pointing of the laser at the bottom, the other to position the detector at the top) and measure the wavelength of the laser. You'll find that the frequency is smaller at the top than the light being emitted, it's taking longer for the light to reach the top, it's being emitted with a specific frequency, but it has a smaller frequency at the top just because of the gravitational field.

Really, the principle of equivalence is all I need to derive that gravitational time dilation, fun no?

But you said "gravity" affects spacetime, I'm going to argue that gravity is "but" a consequence of large masses, and doesn't even really exist. After all, if the principle of equivalence is to be valid, we can't have gravity be really special compared to acceleration.

Picture a ship orbiting the earth at a constant velocity. Classically, there are two forces acting on the ship, centrifugal and gravity. But Einstein claims that in a free fall no forces are acting on you, and if you're weightless in a ship orbiting the earth at a constant velocity, then it should be exactly the same as being out totally in the nothingness of space.

But this presents a problem. If there's no forces acting on the ship, why is it orbiting? Newton's first law is, if you recall, "in the absence of forces, objects move in a straight line at a constant velocity". But orbiting planets aren't moving in a straight line, they're orbiting. This would threaten to make a gravitational well different from an acceleration. The fix?

Rewrite newton's first law... "in the absence of forces, objects move to maximize their proper time", or rather, minimize the distance traveled through spacetime. This is possible if space is curved. It's not gravity that does the curving then, gravity is no different from acceleration, it's massive bodies that do the curving, and gravity is simply the consequence of the distortion of space-time.

Matter/energy bend space-time, not gravity. This is derived from two things.

1) The principle of equivalence, that one cannot tell the difference between a gravitational field, and an acceleration.

2) Newton's first law must be amended to "objects move to maximize their proper time".

Since special relativity already gives us the notion of proper time, we only need the postulates of special relativity to completely derive all of this "absurdity" from classical physics. So...

3) The laws of physics are the same in all inertial reference frames.

That's it. That's all I needed to say to give you things you consider absurd. They're simple postulates, and they are PRECISE. It's easy to translate them into models, easy to translate them into actual physics. I just did it for you.

When I ask for you to give something precise rather than vague open statements, I ask for you to provide things like those three postulates. I ask for you to give us something substantial, something that a true model can be constructed out of, rather than... well... nonsense.

Quote:

VorpalNeko

But the problem isn't really that this approach cannot reproduce fails to reproduce all light bending effects. That can be remedied by not having the medium be locally isotropic--which complicates the theory, but may be acceptable (i.e., index of refracting will not be a scalar field in that case). It's not even that the medium would have light propagation properties quite unlike any other medium ever observed (e.g., there must be a big fat zero wavelength dependence). It's that it would require another mechanism on top of that to reproduce the empirically observed results for things other than light, leaving you with an incredibly ad-hoc theory that.

The real trouble is ( as for the Michelson-Morley experiment and variations )
too many scientists suppose there CANNOT be any kind of aether...
...just because proving its MATERIALITY seems impossible.
What if matter and rays are but energy crossing some milieu filled with energy ?
Mercury's orbit, the incredible lifespan os some particles enterring our atmosphere,
light's deviation and strange trajectories, etc. ...
...could very well find a BASIC explanation by following the approach I propose.
Doesn't it shock you that so many physicists seem to only chase after particles,
no matter how absurd their PREDICTED behaviour...
...and so few consider what has been discovered already tells us about matter's organization ?!

Since when did Michelson Morley feel there CANNOT be any kind of aether? Their experiment was done in 1887, that's a full 18 years before special relativity came about, in other words, the ONLY model at the time was the aether. They didn't seek to disprove it, they wanted to be the first to confirm the expected results from the model. No one at the time had been able to measure a variable speed of light, many had tried, but light seemed, consistently, well, constant. Michelson-Morley was famous because the experiment was accurate enough that if there was ANY change in the consistency of light, it should have detected it. It didn't.

The scientists didn't suppose there cannot be any kind of aether, Lorentz himself provided the last incarnate of the ether theory. He worked rather hard to explain the non-results of Michelson-Morley, to save the theory. Scientists, the most brilliant minds of the time, worked tirelessly to save the model. They failed, even Lorentz failed, and when Einstein got all the same transformations from a much much simpler set of postulates, the LET was dead.

By the way, mercury's orbit, longer half-lifes, etc, have BASIC explanations. Are you really pretending that your "postulates" are in any way as simple, elegant, and predictive as the ones I listed above? And you know, longer particle life spans isn't just important because it's longer, it's important because they're longer by a factor, specifically, the lorentz factor.

Which is a simple, basic, natural consequence of relativity... you keep saying your "ideas" can explain it, but really, you really might as well be saying "seebi uba mo fuc" is the key to quantum gravity.

Until you tell us the details, it's nonsense.

Quote:

VorpalNeko

I suspect you'll continue to ignore reality ...

Reality?
As in vipr232's "she doesn't know science, so why doesn't she stfu ?!" approach ?
Sure...

No, my approach is "you don't understand science, and can you either provide a coherent model or shut up".

If you provide something substantial, I'd be more than happy to read it and discuss it and ponder it... but that's contingent on you, you know, providing something substantial. I only want you to shut up because you simply refuse to provide anything coherent, you just keep shouting meaningless babble from the rooftops and expect people to listen, then when asked for specifics, you retire to absurd analogies to egyptians, and dodge the request, pretending like it isn't your responsibility.

You not knowing science just means it's unlikely your ideas have anything substantial hidden in them, doesn't mean they don't, but I keep asking for it and am constantly met with a whole lot of nothing.

You accuse me of parroting the subject, but it's fairly clear that I've invested the time to learn it, and you just casually wave away it without ever investing ANY time in the subject. That is not often how "curious minds" operate.

Quote:

VorpalNeko

... and after a while just come back with the same proposals over and over again.

And rightly so.
'Til some curiosity gets aroused and 'til some imagination gets displayed.

This happens when you provide something substantial, not when you constantly shout nonsense.

Quote:

You live with air all around you...
...but can you see it ? Can you touch it ?

Yes I can, and yes I can. In fact, I can see it with my naked eye just by turning my electric stove on maximum and shine a bit of light over it. I can feel it quite well by waving my hand around, I don't even need to go outside.

[MiaTheOrigin]

Deta

I suggest picking up a book by Michio Kaku. He is good at explaining this stuff to normal people. Once I thought I almost grasped it, and then I had a headache and forgot.

I'm no expert but my interpretation is that the universe that we exist in was one of an infinite (or as other theories state, one of a set) amount of probabilities. So its just random chance that this universe is an expanding universe which will end with a big rip. The "dark energy" which has been accelerating galaxies away from one another will eventually rip atoms apart. The tv said, that in another universe they'd be a different scenario and perhaps end in a big crunch only to have another big bang and re-expand continuously. It seems we are not so lucky. Unfortunately, the universe or the multiverse, is schrodinger's cat, and all we can see is the box. Without observing it, we cannot say what its true nature is no matter how hard we try with mathematics and physics.

There is a humorous short story which deals with this argument. Death and What comes Next . Take from it what you will.

On the account of the big rip. Interesting take and I enjoyed that short story n_n. What if the rip is not caused by 'dark energy' but the continual loss of energy through radiation? The suns shines light, that light is a form of energy created by the conversion of mass and thus the amount of mass in any given star is decreasing. The universe is obviously a ball of light. The light it radiates is depriving it's contents of mass. Eventually there will be no mass only light that travels infinitely into the void. This is assuming that everything will become a 'star'. I have a resistance to the idea that particles will spontaneously decay at a greater and greater rate. Due to the proposed stretching of space and time.

[viper232]

Kaz-Balan

I'll try and clarify my point.

1. Why do I reject many current approaches ?

General relativity means space and time, two dimensions extremely basic, historically,
in physics, once completely separate and linear...
...are now linked into some "spacetime", that gets deformed by gravity,
with extreme speeds ( past ~7% of c ) creating noticeable effects on dynamic events,
called "relativistic" effects.

... You... didn't read a word I said did you? And my god you're betraying your ignorance profoundly here.

First things first, what I said.

me... in the post above... describing general relativity in fairly simple english that you ignored

Matter/energy bend space-time, not gravity. This is derived from two things.

1) The principle of equivalence, that one cannot tell the difference between a gravitational field, and an acceleration.

2) Newton's first law must be amended to "objects move to maximize their proper time".

I gave you the simple derivation from those two postulates to get how matter/energy bends space-time. You need to now address how either the postulates are flawed, or how the derivation is flawed. Neither of which is an easy task.

However, spacetime was not formulated in general relativity, it was formulated in special relativity, and the "extreme speeds ( past ~7% of c ) creating noticeable effects on dynamic events, called "relativistic" effects."" was also formulated in special, not general relativity. Special relativity deals with relative velocities, with "speeds", and it was there that Einstein derived his notion of spacetime, without needing to describe gravity at all. Even a little bit.

And there was only one thing he needed to do this.

"The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the other of two systems in uniform translatory motion relative to each other."

Or, put simply, "the laws of physics remain the same in inertial reference frames". That's it, from this it's possible to derive the second postulate, Invariant Light Speed, and from that you get all of the lorentz transformations.

1 postulate, rather simple too, to get all of spacetime. Then tack on two more and you get matter/energy bending spacetime.

Address why either the derivations are flawed, or the postulates are flawed. If you can attack the postulates, the conclusions will fall apart, but the conclusions are rather direct consequences of the postulates.

Quote:

I go against this approach because such effects are at the margin of classical physics,
escape most of our observational means, and relativity, in order to explain them,
causes two basic dimensions, a very practical one ( distances, I'd say volumes )
and a very abstract one ( time, as derived from observation of dynamic events )
to be turned into one vague concept ( spacetime ) that one force ( gravity ) even deforms !

"Vague concept"? Oh the irony.

Spacetime isn't a vague concept, it's rather easy to define and work with. Look up "minkowski space". We've told you this before. Spacetime is only vague if you never research the topic.

And gravity doesn't deform spacetime, once again, energy/matter does, large masses will distort spacetime, gravity is a consequence of the bending, not doing the bending itself.

I said that in the post above, very clearly, you just (as usual) ignored it.

Quote:

it might turn out that the cause for relativistic effects was some mechanism
NOT involving such a revolution ( because THAT's the term, here ) on dimensions
and allowing physicists to KEEP classical physics, why cling to Einstein's GR ?

Why cling to it? Because it's well supported, arrived at from remarkably simple postulates, explains the data very well, and gives us a very powerful tool for making predictions. In other words, because it is good science. Your love of classical physics seems odd, especially when by preserving all of classical physics you remove E=γmc^2, or if you accept the principle of special relativity, you directly from Maxwell's equations arrive at everything you hate about relativity.

Classical physics does not have the lorentz factor, and given the principle of special relativity, classical physics directly provides all of special relativity. You can continue to pretend it doesn't, you seem to like flaunting your ignorance of the subject.

Quote:

Worse: if physics adopts relativity, it means RE-ESTABLISHING the whole physics
in following the transformation:
( separate and linear space and time ) -> ( spacetime getting deformed by gravity )
BECAUSE SPACE AND TIME, AS DIMENSIONS, ARE AT THE CORE OF PHYSICS.
And then, when encountering again the force known as "gravity", along the analysis...
...you should expect a deadly retroactive loop !

I don't even know what this means.
Physics was reestablished independently of gravity, from the principle of relativity Einstein directly derived the transformations that had already been arrived at from a simpler set of postulates that fixed the contradictions in the data at the time. It's no different from Newton reestablishing the laws of physics known at the time by fixing the glaring flaws with Aristotelian physics.

But it didn't go ( separate and linear space and time ) -> ( spacetime getting deformed by gravity )

No, it went separate and linear space and time -> constant speed of light in a vacuum -> lorentz transformations -> spacetime.

Then, after spacetime had been established for quite a while in special relativity, you get

principle of equivalence -> matter/energy distorting spacetime, gravity the consequence of the bending.

Have you ever spent more than 10 minutes reading about relativity? I mean... even 20 minutes worth of reading the wiki article I'd expect fewer glaring inaccuracies.

Quote:

2. What, exactly, is my point ?

Einstein pointed not only that a loss of mass releases energy...
...but that there's an EQUIVALENCE between matter and energy.

He did this using the principle of relativity, it's a direct consequence of special relativity, the clue is that γ you keep leaving out.

Quote:

Particles decay into energy, with time or some events.
Matter may be created by providing energy into material void.

... "into material void".
Definition of "material void" please. Provide a robust one, none of your typical vagueness.

Quote:

So why care anymore about matter and particles as such ?

WHAT IF the ONLY physical reality was energy ?

Perhaps true in the singularity, but you're making this assumption based on Einstein's equation that you fail to grasp is derived at via special relativity.

You're saying the derivation is invalid but the conclusion is ok?

Quote:

My hypothesis is that ONLY energy exists, in three forms :
. A global bath of low to extremely low ( but never null ) energy density, inside any volume of space
. Rays of energy ( light and particles or objects crossing the global bath at relativistic speed )
. Matter ( particles, seen as clouds of organised and condensed energy )

... I am asking you, once again, to build a model from this. As it stands it is, once again, nonsense. Until you translate it into something meaningful for others to work with, you might as well be talking in martian.

Quote:

This is not a revolution, by far, for it is only a PARADIGM SHIFT,
asking for RE-ANALYSING physics ( theories, laws and observations ) ...
...from this postulate on, envisioning expressing even forces and the behaviour
of particles and rays as CONSEQUENCES of this.

Postulates that don't seem to build any robust model, from an equation whose derivation you reject, to explain something we have an accurate powerful predictive model for anyway.

... How are we supposed to "reanalyze" this? How are we supposed to treat this as though it is a coherent thought when you've failed to provide a model, failed to show how it explains phenomenon, failed to even point out contradictions that need fixing, failed to provide the justification for your "postulates", and blatantly rejected the derivation for the only equation you consider valid.

Are you seriously saying people should give your idea any thought? Why should this be treated any differently from "magical unicorns s**t sea shells on the sea shore!" as an alternate explanation to dead mollusks?

Wait let me bold that and make it clear you see it since you failed to read my description of general relativity because god forbid you learn something.

Why should this be treated any differently from "magical unicorns s**t sea shells on the sea shore!" as an alternate explanation to dead mollusks?

Quote:

From what I estimate ( but I'm no scientist ), it could allow the CLASSICAL physics
to answer most cases in other ways and approaches, it would show other causes
for the global red shift of far away celestial objects ( like the "tired light" hypothesis
- exposed to scientists already sure of the spacetime continuum getting deformed, unfortunately - ),
energy-energy interactions would explain most ( if not all ) observed relativistic effects,
it would allow particle physicists to get free of the consequences of Heisenberg's joke
( past some scale down, you cannot get exact measures for position and quantity of movement ),
because it would be clear that past some scale down...
...you don't really face MATERIAL particles anymore,
but "only" +/- organized condensed clouds of energy.

"Meaningless babble", hmmm?

Yes. Meaningless babble. "Zed the calkoid explains the life, universe, and everything".

Sorry, unless you explain the nuts and bolts, you're spouting random nonsense, meaningless babble, vague open ended claims to provide an ad hoc fix to something we don't need a fix for in the first place.

Provide something substantial, simple as that.

And I truly wonder what your problem is with the HUP. Tell me, is there a minimum amount of information you need to determine the period of a wave? If so, what is it? If not, why not?


Oh, and pleasant Feynman quote, however there's a difference between proposing some new hypothesis, and proposing nonsense to fix non-existent problems in a science that the person knows nothing about... then, when others take the time to probe the ideas, are met with nothing. At all. There's a difference between proposing some new hypothesis, and saying "magical unicorn s**t is a much better explanation for sea shells on the sea shore than dead mollusks!"

You are very clearly doing the latter, and when asked "ok, so exactly how does it explain the sea shells better, and why is the dead mollusks a bad model" your answer is "magical unicorn s**t just is a better explanation, I'm not a scientist, you figure it out... and the dead mollusks idea is simply absurd, we all know when things die they decompose, I can't accept a science where the sea shells are dead mollusks, curious minds will consider the unicorn model as opposed to the absurd dead mollusks idea!"

[MiaTheOrigin]

viper232

"..."

That was a good read n_n!

[man who cant be moved]

Oh that's easy.

The Universe is inside of a lamp.
(2k if you know where i got that from..)

[MiaTheOrigin]

man who cant be moved

Oh that's easy.

The Universe is inside of a lamp.
(2k if you know where i got that from..)

Your memory of whatever you experienced. Technically correct now gimme!

[viper232]

Kaz-Balan

viper232

Definition of "material void" please.

No massic particle within the considered volume of space.
Which is already extremely difficult ( if not impossible ) to get.
Please notice I didn't say : no energy.
Which won't ever happen, if my hypothesis is valid.

... massic? You mean massive? As in containing mass? If not, what's "massic"? And what would be the difference between this and a "vacuum"? And do virtual particles count, as you'll never get an area where quantum flucuations don't exist. Oh wait, you don't believe in the HUP, you don't believe quantum flucuations are real. >.>

Quote:

viper232

You're saying the derivation is invalid but the conclusion is ok?

A paradigm shift means most theories and their conclusions ARE STILL valid...
  ...WITHIN their set of derivations and linked observations.
However, the ACTUAL CAUSES for observed events and deduced mechanisms...
  ...are possibly unexpected and different from what previous theories indicated.

Sorry, that's not what it means. Consider Einstein. He had the Lorentz transformations back before he derived relativity. He assumed these were right, because they worked with the data. But he felt they were arrived at with an ad-hoc manner. So he doesn't assume "Lorentz transformations are valid, and so I'll use the Lorentz transformations to derive the Lorentz transformations", he said "I'll use the postulate of special relativity to derive the Lorentz transformations so that I may then use them".

The logic you are using is circular, paradigm shifts don't employ circular logic. You are assuming E=γmc^2 is valid, then from this assumption, are building the rest of your "postulates", saying that the "postulates" somehow can create a model that can allow you to re-derive E=γmc^2 that you've already assumed.

You have to derive E=γmc^2 before you can use it. You cannot assume it's true, then use it to create your postulates, when you're rejecting the derivation, assuming that you can re-derive what you've already assumed.

Quote:

viper232

Quote:

My hypothesis is that ONLY energy exists, in three forms :
. A global bath of low to extremely low ( but never null ) energy density, inside any volume of space
. Rays of energy ( light and particles or objects crossing the global bath at relativistic speed )
. Matter ( particles, seen as clouds of organised and condensed energy )

... I am asking you, once again, to build a model from this.

What, exactly, do you call a "model", PLEASE ?
I only propose a new approach to analyse physical elements.
Considering energy no more as a final result, but as a BASIS for ALL ( or MOST ) phenomenons.

Postulate: "Laws of physics work the same in all inertial reference frames".

By "model", I mean translate the postulate into something robust that is testable, creates predictions, and explains data.

The postulate I just gave creates the model of special relativity with these transformations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation#Lorentz_transformation_for_frames_in_standard_configuration
Those transformations provide a testable model of relativity, as one can test the validity of time dilation by seeing if it adheres to the loretnz transform with respect to time. Hence, it is a testable robust model.

Further, it explains why we have only observed c to be constant, as one can apply the postulate to maxwell's equations to derive a constant c in a vacuum. The "model" of special relativity tells us precisely why we observe what we do, because a constant c is a direct consequence of maxwell's equations being valid in all inertial reference frames.

By the word "model" I mean "translate these statements into something workable". Those lorentz transformations are very robust, they contain a lot of information, at first glace it becomes very clear to anyone who has studied the subject even a little bit to know how to test them. You need to provide a model. Something that isn't vague statements of "yeah it can explain it! It's your job to figure out how though".

Tell me, if it CAN'T explain all of the data, if you are, indeed, wrong, then how is it possible to "figure out how your postulates explain the data"? Your statements, clearly, are non-falsifiable, we could think about it as much as we want but there's not enough here to come up with a single working, testable model. Nothing to build something like those lorentz transforms, nothing really to provide at all.

Quote:

viper232

Are you seriously saying people should give your idea any thought? ...

Yes.
What shocks you so much with such a PROPOSAL ?!
Why so much hostility to a possibly new and interesting way of figuring physical phenomenons ?

Because it SEEMS, to many unimaginative and conventional minds,
  to ignore or to even go against many previous theories and approaches ?

Just reconsider, while keeping Feynman's words in mind...

The fact that you keep saying the exact same thing, ignoring what the previous theories say, while providing nothing substantial to test in the first place.... based on assumptions you've made assuming the previous physics is valid that you're rejecting!

It surprises me that you think others should give a proposal thought when it makes no sense. At all. It's not that "it's an interesting possibly new way of looking at things", it's "an incoherent mess of statements that fail to yield anything".

It's the physics equivalent of, once again, "magical unicorns s**t sea shells on the sea shore". Or "goab mal sera uba fuc la ti", it's meaningless.

If you translated your idea into something coherent, then it might be insane, like magueijo's variable speed of light, but at least then it truly would be something new and a totally different way of approaching the physics.

If you did what he does, you'd be following Feynman's words, you'd be proposing SOMETHING, instead of shouting meaningless words from the top of the rooftop and expecting people to listen.

Quote:

What prevents curious and imaginative minds from exploring this approach ?
Please notice scientists ( without the afore-mentioned adjectives ) ...
  ...DO have very good and practical motives to NOT give my hypothesis any second thought
  ( researches on recognized paths already asking much time, efforts and money ).

And... the fact that your "hypothesis" does not qualify as a hypothesis. It doesn't have any qualification in science. It is meaningless nonsense. It's incoherent. It's useless, and I mean that quite literally, it provides no use as it provides no model, no tests, and is built on an assumption you made by rejecting the derivation. That's pretty damn incoherent.

The largest thing preventing "curious and imaginative minds from exploring this approach" is that you've still failed to provide "an approach". You've given words and no meaning to them.

Quote:

viper232

Why should this be treated any differently from "magical unicorns s**t sea shells on the sea shore!" as an alternate explanation to dead mollusks?

Ill-mannered question, but I'll answer it, anyway...
Because the mass - energy equivalence is enough to consider that
  IF energy is the only existing physical reality...
  ...it could eventually considerably SIMPLIFY the field of study called physics.

How? Ok, allow me to correct myself... this is more similarly paralleling

"George Clooney magically shits sea shells on the sea shore, which is an alternate explanation for dead mollusks, and this conveniently fixes the problem of ASSUMING that people are born from their mother when it's really true that people aren't born at all!"

You are taking something you've heard, "mass-energy equivalence" (parallel, George Clooney) and saying it provides an explanation to something that already exists a very good model, when the parallel to how your explanation, well, explains the data is impossible to see (His s**t explains sea shells better than dead mollusks). And then rejecting the very way to produce your initial postulate in the first place, (his birth), indicating that somehow the new model fixes the problem. Somehow.

And yet you expect your circular logic and mess of an "idea" to be taken seriously. I don't understand how.

Quote:

What shocks me, when looking at the history of physics,
  is the way new theories have been built, mainly since GR and 1947...
  ...ONLY because of PROBLEMS met and having to be solved,
  which has continually led to more and more and even more complexity.

You then clearly haven't looked at the history. SR and GR were built by solving problems in SIMPLER ways. By simpler, easier to justify postulates.

1) Laws of physics remain the same in inertial reference frames.
2) The principle of equivalence.
3) Rewrite Newton's first law in a simple way to fit with what was directly derived from the first postulate.

And there you have it, those are "complex" to you?

Before SR, problems in ether theory were "fixed" in the most ad-hoc ways, a sort of "try to justify them however you can". It was Einstein who simplified things, you really need to re-read your history of physics.

Quote:

viper232

Provide something substantial, simple as that.

Like equations, maybe ?
( Sorry, but I'm desperately trying to get what you mean with "substantial" )
WHY and HOW could I provide such abstract constructs...
  ...while I merely first propose some basic paradigm shift about physics,
  in the form of an attempt at some new hypothesis for new approaches and ideas ?!

Equations would help. Though I'm asking for anything that you can say "This postulate will directly lead to us expecting to observe Y, which is not predicted by the current theory".

It doesn't need to be an equation, any observation would work. By "substantial" I mean give us details, what we expect this "idea" to yield, what can this "idea" DO. Not what you claim it can do, what can it do? Until you give us that, you're giving us nothing but random statements.

Usually when proposing "postulates" in physics by the way, the method of translating them into substantial predictions should be fairly straightforward, with you, clearly it isn't. Especially because you're rejecting relativity while assuming the conclusions are valid then using those conclusions to arrive at your postulates which you then say can re-derive the conclusions that you've already assumed in the first place.

... Yeah. Actually, you know what, lets start with "substantial" being, you justify your first assumption, E=γmc^2 is true, by deriving it without relativity. Let me make this clear, you are not allowed to use the conclusions of physics you're rejecting without first re-deriving them in a new way, that's circular logic if you do.

Quote:

viper232

... proposing nonsense to fix non-existent problems ...

Oh. Okay. I see.
What still evades me is why you think what I proposed is some "nonsense".
I DID read your previous and repeated attempts at objections...
  ...I just consider them irrelevant ( you MIGHT guess why ).

Because clearly still spouting blatant falsehoods about relativity serves your purpose more than becoming informed.

And it's evading you why I consider that "nonsense"? Really? Truly? You actually think you've provided something testable here? Something coherent? Something that makes predictions? Something that has close ties to physics where one could see "oh, this explains Y, which explains Z"? ... Really??

[whateverfloats]

Common guys. This stuff is by definition unknowable. There's no point in discussing it since anything you say will be meaningless.

[viper232]

Kaz-Balan

viper232

...
And it's evading you why I consider that "nonsense"? Really? Truly?

Yep, yep, yep...

How? No, really, how can you possibly not see why I consider it nonsense? What am I supposed to think about it? What possible knowledge can be gained from anything you've said? I mean, what SENSE is there to be had? It fails to describe anything even remotely coherent. It fails to serve anything in physics, it provides no explanation, it has no grounding, and no predictions.

How is that not nonsense as far as new ideas in physics is concerned?

Quote:

viper232

You actually think you've provided something testable here?

Testable? No, of course!
I've provided a basic proposal for re-examining the whole field of study called physics.
From the start on.
We'll talk about tests after some exploration.

How can you falsify these ideas? That's not something you can just "make up after some exploration", you really do need a way to falsify proposed ideas from the beginning.

No physics gets proposed without making it clear how it can theoretically be falsified. That's not a trivial detail that can be ignored on a whim. Then again, you seem to be able to ignore many non-trivial details on a whim. Like what gravity is in general relativity. Or how you come about spacetime. Or even what the basic postulates are versus the conclusions.

Your ability to ignore details and continue to repeat false claims is astounding.

Quote:

viper232

Something coherent?

Yes.
I suppose energy is the only existing physical reality,
  and that if it exists in the three forms I mentioned, all other physical phenomenons could be explained,
  and even by considering space ( as derived from volumes ) and time ( as derived from dynamism )
  as separate and absolute dimensions.
What is not coherent about it ?

Umm... everything. "I suppose energy is the only existing physical reality" is incoherent, as "energy" is ill defined in context, "only existing physical reality" is also entirely ill-defined.

"and that if it exists in the three forms I mentioned, all other physical phenomenons could be explained,"
and that certainly isn't coherent, as it's like saying "if everything is Pizza, and pizza comes in cheese, peperoni, and Hawaiian, then it explains why e appears so often in mathematics."

There's nothing to explain how your ill defined concepts explain all other physical phenomenon... hell, I can't even figure out how it could possibly explain a single physical phenomenon, you've made the claim it can, but failed to demonstrate the how.

"and even by considering space ( as derived from volumes ) and time ( as derived from dynamism ) as separate and absolute dimensions."

... Space derived as volumes, time derived from dynamism? What?
How does one derive space from volumes? When considering physics, those words often have very important meanings in math that you seem to be butchering.

And considering them separate dimensions is giving space a lot of arbitrary constraints that are harder to justify, it means certain properties are true that require extra assumptions, it's not "even by considering them separate", it's "if they work as a space-time metric, then they will work even in a Cartesian-like space."

You'd need a non-trivial reason to consider them separate with this "idea" of yours, "they've always been considered separate in the past" is not a very good reason.

Quote:

viper232

Something that makes predictions?

Theories state situations ( set of conditions, mechanism, effects ).
Scientists make predictions.
"Scientists" make interpretations.

Theories make predictions. T'=γT is part of a theory, and a prediction, if you fail to observe time dilation by that factor, the prediction is shown to be false, and the theory contradicts evidence.

To propose an idea that can be translated into a hypothesis to possibly make it to a theory, you need to at the very least be providing something falsifiable, making predictions would help show it's a coherent statement.

Currently, it's not.

Quote:

viper232

Something that has close ties to physics where one could see "oh, this explains Y, which explains Z"? ... Really??

Why not?

For all the reasons mentioned above, and my post before.