Relativity or something [Split from "Pressures"]

Things that don't belong anywhere else. (Check first).

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

JudeMorrigan
Posts: 1266
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:26 pm UTC

Re: 1067: "Pressures"

Postby JudeMorrigan » Wed Oct 24, 2012 7:38 pm UTC

KrytenKoro wrote:
ucim wrote:
Schrollini wrote:The general problem you're [J Thomas] going to have is that relativity has passed every test it's been given. So you're system is going to have to produce that same results as relativity in all of those cases. Which means, by conservation of weirdness, your system has to be as weird as relativity.

But isn't there a weirdness asymmetry in the universe, similar to C-P violation? Epicycles are definitely weirder than ellipses, and in terms of total weirdness, QM has a lock on the market.

Jose

As long as we're talking epicycles...

Spoiler:
Oddly enough, my orbital mechanics degree didn't focus too much on the math of epicycles, them being outdated and it being irrelevant and all. Engineers want math that works, etc., we don't want to spend time on history lessons of how people did it incorrectly beforehand.

Anyway, my question: given relativity, no privileged frame, etc., is epicycle theory actually false, or just hideously impractical and inconvenient compared to theories of gravitation?

(Made as invisible as possible so it doesn't get sprung on).

Spoiler:
Well, recall that Newtonian mechanics doesn't predict the orbit of Mercury correctly. The fact that general relatity DOES expalin the anomaly was one of the early big pieces of evidence in its favor. I imagine that replicating that sort of thing would require ... wait for it ... wait for it ...

MOAR EPICYCLES!


Edited to add:
I have zip to say about the observed statistics and measurements that disagree with the UNIQUE transmission sequence.

I am making a mathematical observation wrt a Cartesian coordinate system.

But ... but ... but ... we don't appear to live in a universe that can be described by such a system. Those observed statistics and measurements are important.

User avatar
Schrollini
Posts: 515
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2012 5:20 pm UTC

Re: 1067: "Pressures"

Postby Schrollini » Wed Oct 24, 2012 7:44 pm UTC

steve waterman wrote:
If you're not talking about relativity, how are you supposed to make any statements for OR against its accuracy?


Fair question.

From the beginning I have been looking for the evidence to challenge "relativity". I felt the Galilean was at the core and that hit a dead end.

Max and Schrollini stated that I could not manifest a unique transmission site and time sequence*, because there was not one.

... in relativity.

... in relativity.

... in relativity.

To understand that statement, you have to work ...

... IN RELATIVITY.
For your convenience: a LaTeX to BBCode converter

Radical_Initiator
Just Cool Enough for School
Posts: 1374
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 10:39 pm UTC

Re: 1067: "Pressures"

Postby Radical_Initiator » Wed Oct 24, 2012 7:48 pm UTC

steve waterman wrote: I have zip to say about the observed statistics and measurements that disagree with the UNIQUE transmission sequence.


And I have zip to say about any universe that doesn't. Because that's what the weather's like in Ohio - I'm not sure how it is today in CloudCuckooLand.
I looked out across the river today …

User avatar
steve waterman
Posts: 1610
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2011 4:39 pm UTC

Re: 1067: "Pressures"

Postby steve waterman » Wed Oct 24, 2012 8:14 pm UTC

Max and Schrollini stated that I could not manifest a unique transmission site and time sequence*, because there was not one.

Schrollini wrote:... in relativity.

... in relativity.

... in relativity.

To understand that statement, you have to work ...

... IN RELATIVITY.


With only two receivers, in Relativity one transmission sequence cannot be agreed upon.

Do you agree that the ONE UNIQUE transmission sequence DOES exist under a
math only, one Cartesian system, more than two receiver setting?
"While statistics and measurements can be misleading, mathematics itself, is not subjective."
"Be careful of what you believe, you are likely to make it the truth."
steve

speising
Posts: 2367
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: 1067: "Pressures"

Postby speising » Wed Oct 24, 2012 8:17 pm UTC

I think no one ever doubted that in a classical system the ordering of events was unique.

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: 1067: "Pressures"

Postby KrytenKoro » Wed Oct 24, 2012 8:21 pm UTC

steve waterman wrote:Fair question.

From the beginning I have been looking for the evidence to challenge "relativity". I felt the Galilean was at the core and that hit a dead end.

Max and Schrollini stated that I could not manifest a unique transmission site and time sequence*, because there was not one. That seemed like the little tiny hole that I was looking for.

So, I thought, hmmm, no one will believe my words, we need an applet. i asked and was delightfully rewarded with not one but a whole series of dedicated to the thread, pertinent applets.

Consequently, I switched tactics and set out to prove that such a thing* existed and that I have an interval and an intersection mathematical method to determine it* to boot.

I wanted the good old "what if" mindset allowed/tried out. Let's try an applet that does not use relativity at all, what happens?

I figured, that if I COULD prove that the unique transmission sequence existed, then I would let the relativity chips fall were they may.

I do not want any part of any "therefore" scenario, be the outcome right or wrong.

I have zip to say about the observed statistics and measurements that disagree with the UNIQUE transmission sequence.

I am making a mathematical observation wrt a Cartesian coordinate system.
Look! Let's see what happens if we extended the observer count to more than two for a single transmission.
Apparently we can figure out the UNIQUE transmission site and transmission time just by knowing their (x,y,z,t) at their moment of receipt.

Do you at least recognize that you are explicitly stating that your whole method is to trick people into agreeing with you by muddying the waters around the more complex parts of the theories;

and that you are admitting you have absolutely no intention to learn or find out what is right/realistic/factual, but only to disprove relativity because of its political implications?

This screed you have above is the textbook definition of someone being intellectually dishonest, and you are gleefully embracing it. Can you understand why the rest of us, who wheel and deal with math, physics, or engineering find it so utterly abhorrent and repulsive?

I wanted the good old "what if" mindset allowed/tried out. Let's try an applet that does not use relativity at all, what happens?

It requires a varying speed of light, and all the rest of observed physics falls apart. All atoms everywhere explode instantaneously apart at infinite speed, ichor rains from the sky, cats and dogs rent apartments together and go shopping for clothes, and fast food becomes good for you.

I figured, that if I COULD prove that the unique transmission sequence existed, then I would let the relativity chips fall were they may.

I do not want any part of any "therefore" scenario, be the outcome right or wrong.

I have zip to say about the observed statistics and measurements that disagree with the UNIQUE transmission sequence.

If you are attempting to argue "in a universe that in no way resembles this one, a theory of relativity designed for this universe might no longer work", then yes, you might have a plausible claim. (It's still a totally ignorant and useless claim, since you explicitly state you have no intention of determining the implications or practical use of the theory, but hey? Why stop lazing about now?)

It does fuck all to disprove relativity in this universe. It is as astronomically irrelevant to the factuality of relativity as you could conceivably be. Posting pictures of your cats would be a more relevant and effective "tactic", because that would at least be dealing with topics in this universe.

With only two receivers, in Relativity one transmission sequence cannot be agreed upon.

False, falsity false false.

If one receiver detects a timelike seperation between two events, he can accurately state that all observers will detect the same sequence.

For fuck's sake.

Do you agree that the ONE UNIQUE transmission sequence DOES exist under a
math only, one Cartesian system, more than two receiver setting?

Multiple receivers AGAIN being totally unnecessary and redundant, since they'll all be able to calculate the same results regardless of Cartesian or Dilated space.

(Notice I say results, not sequence. A single observer in a relativistic universe can accurately calculate what any other observer would detect, it's not a matter of "not enough info")

Also: dilated space is just as much "math only" as unbending space. Schrollini already posted a "math-only" derivation of relativity, you narcissistic, lying, thievery-attempting jerk.

I think no one ever doubted that in a classical system the ordering of events was unique.

It does result in varying lightspeed and thus the observed rules of physics falling apart, though.
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

jpers36
Posts: 234
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:47 pm UTC
Location: The 3-manifold described by Red and Blue

Re: 1067: "Pressures"

Postby jpers36 » Wed Oct 24, 2012 8:35 pm UTC

KrytenKoro wrote:It requires a varying speed of light, and all the rest of observed physics falls apart. All atoms everywhere explode instantaneously apart at infinite speed, ichor rains from the sky, cats and dogs rent apartments together and go shopping for clothes, and fast food becomes good for you.


All atoms explode instantaneously, but on the other hand, fast food is good for you.

Image

Maybe I do want to live in Steve's world ...

User avatar
Schrollini
Posts: 515
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2012 5:20 pm UTC

Re: 1067: "Pressures"

Postby Schrollini » Wed Oct 24, 2012 8:58 pm UTC

steve waterman wrote:With only two receivers, in Relativity one transmission sequence cannot be agreed upon.

This is true, though the number of receivers has nothing to do with it.

steve waterman wrote:Do you agree that the ONE UNIQUE transmission sequence DOES exist under a
math only, one Cartesian system, more than two receiver setting?

I have no idea what a "math only, one Cartesian system" is. It's not even proper English.

I do know what Galilean relativity is. I suspect this is what you mean to ask about. And to find out what I think about that, let's take a trip back in time:
Schrollini wrote:You appear to be describing Galilean relativity. Galilean relativity had a good 200-year run, but by the end of the 1800s, the discovery of Maxwell's equations and the non-discovery of the luminiferous aether demonstrated that it does not describe our universe. I have enough problems dealing with the universe we have; I'm not going to invent another one.

Besides, no one is surprised that things have absolute times in Galilean relativity; that's how it was designed. And no one is surprised that light has varying speeds in Galielean relativity; that's how it was designed. We don't need at app to illustate this.

A bit later, I said,
Schrollini wrote:So here's your choice: We can do multilateralization in special relativity to see why it does not give a unique time-ordering. Or you can play with your make-believe relativity while the rest of us post silly .gifs. Up to you.

You never did make a clear choice. Until now, that is. You've just made it clear you don't want to talk about special relativity. So...
Image
Everyone ready? There's a school of gifs up ahead!
For your convenience: a LaTeX to BBCode converter

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6896
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 1067: "Pressures"

Postby ucim » Wed Oct 24, 2012 9:09 pm UTC

KrytenKoro wrote:[top secret]

Epicycle theory is probably false. I also don't like to use "true" or "false" in regards to theories, but it does a poor job of explaining where Mars actually is, compared to spacecraft we've actually sent there. I haven't studied epicycle theory, but my understanding is that it worked only to a first approximation, and to explain the discrepancies, (as JudeMorrigan points out) moar epicycles were added (planets moved in a circle that itself moved in a circle, that itself moved in a circle.... it's turtles all the way down.) I don't know whether this would actually converge on the earthbound observations. However, we now have the advantage of actual spaceships that flew to Jupiter and Mars, and they did not crash into the celestial sphere. So, I feel quite confident in rejecting epicycle theory as an explanation of the motion of the planets.

Schrollini wrote:The important quality of a theory is its usefulness: Does it give correct predictions with the minimum of fuss. By this measure, gravitation is obviously more useful than epicycles; it gives better answers and needs fewer constants. Does that make it "truer"? Frankly, I don't care.

Clearly, Schrollini is a member of the "shut up and calculate" interpretation of QM. :) I think I side a bit more with Dirac - leaning towards the elegance of the theory. A theory can be useful in making predictions, but be inelegant (not so useful in generating understanding). A theory which, while making all those useful predictions, also embodies a way of thinking about reality in which these predictions are simple... a new "reference frame", if you will, is an elegant theory. It manages to say something fundamental about the universe, in addition to giving us navigational guidance in it.

Special relativity is such a theory. Sadly, for me, quantum mechanics comes up short in this regard.

As for "truer"... if we were in reality just inhabiting the cyber-world of a giant computer simulation, would it really matter if it were a giant Mac, a giant PC, or a pile of rocks and a stick figure? In the sense that only one of these could be true, yes. But in the sense that our reality would be the same in either case, no.

Steve Waterman wrote:I have zip to say about the observed statistics and measurements that disagree with the UNIQUE transmission sequence.

In that case, you are talking religion, not science.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

User avatar
Monika
Welcoming Aarvark
Posts: 3673
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 8:03 am UTC
Location: Germany, near Heidelberg
Contact:

Re: 1067: "Pressures"

Postby Monika » Thu Oct 25, 2012 12:06 am UTC

steve waterman wrote:Schrollini,

What would really be superb!

Let the applet have three rogue receivers, that can be (x,y,z) user inputted.
Have the rogues transmit green circles as if they all part of a detector C.

We do not need to show a detector C, nor any numerical values at all for it. The visuals alone will be quite fine.

"Any random set of three observers will also work!'

Implementation of the rogues would hopefully facilitate the verbal discussion.

And what the hell would this be good for? What would the rogue receivers show?
And why are _receivers_ _emitting_ something anyway?

will a second observer of the same design, moving relative to the first, come up with the same set of coordinates. The applets show they will not

which same design? Relativity's or the intersecting circles?

Two observers that are all alike - each consisting of three sensors that record the time of receipt of the signal.

I COMPARE the red circles and blue circles that ALWAYS runback to THE same POINT, even when V >0.

Well of course, they are looking at the same event. They only have different coordinates for it. Remember how a point could have the coordinates (2,0,0) in system A and the coordinates (-1,0,0) in system B? An event likewise can have different space-time coordinates in one system and in another system. The transformation between them is not Galilean (simply add/substract a constant to/from x), it's the Lorentz transformation - factors are involved. And one of the coordinates is time, and the time coordinate also changes during the Lorentz transformation, not just the other three coordinates that are for the three directions in space.

steve waterman wrote:The applets of my desire has zero percent to do with what Relativity does.

MY applet
1 has one origin
2 has one clock
3 has fixed points wrt the origin
4 has fuck all to do with anything related to Relativity.
5 determines the transmission site and transmission time

Oh, that's easy! Just use the existing applet and only look at the red observer, ignore the blue observer. That way you have just one origin, one clock, not sure what you mean with fixed points, it has fuck all to do with Relativity and obviously it still determines the transmission site and transmission time, just like when you look at both the red and the blue observer. Does this make you happy? :D

read everything twice, with my poor eyesight.

Yes, please, read everything twice, with your poor eyesight. This will save you from
- misunderstanding
- replying nonsense
- getting lots of replies that tell you it's nonsense
- having to read those replies.
So it helps your eyes to read everything twice.

Then compose a post to 7 posters in one post with 7 different mind-sets, and be damn sure to get the tags right and try not to lose your post or add to the end.

I tend to say that when you reply to different posts, especially if they are from different people, it's okay to make separate posts, even two in a row. It increases readability. The mods may disagree. The mods don't seem to care about this thread, luckily. I have already posted twice in a row in this thread.

Does the applet work to determine the transmission site and time of a transmission;
as the common intersection point for both the circle method and the hyperbola method,
even when v = > 0 ?

Why do you need two methods? If one method shows that the order depends on the reference frame (in some cases), then the other method will show the same. Both methods will determine the exact same (space-time) coordinates for the event.

steve waterman wrote:I wanted the good old "what if" mindset allowed/tried out. Let's try an applet that does not use relativity at all, what happens?

I figured, that if I COULD prove that the unique transmission sequence existed, then I would let the relativity chips fall were they may.

That's circular logic. You are doing:
If there is no Relativity => then we have a unique transmission sequence => then there is no Relativity
We totally agree with you on the first part!
"If there is no Relativity => then we have a unique transmission sequence" - this is obviously right.
If there is no Relativity, meaning that c is not the same in all reference frames, i.e. light on a plane moving at speed v actually moves at c+v relative to the ground, and therefore Galilean transformation is sufficient to calculate coordinates in different reference frames from each other, then we would in fact have a universal time and a unique transmission sequence.
What would this prove about Relativity? Absolutely nothing, or "zip" as you like saying. You assumed that there is no Relativity. So you can't use this to prove that there is no Relativity.

I am making a mathematical observation wrt a Cartesian coordinate system.

We agree with your observation with respect to a Cartesian coordinate system (I know by this you mean what I write above, c is not the same in all reference frames, light on trains moves at c+v, coordinate transformation between events happens via simple Galilean, not via Lorentz). In that case there would be a universal time and a unique transmission sequence. None of this has anything to do with reality.
At low speeds (you know the kind of speeds we generally experience of not more than a couple of hundred kilometers or miles an hour) this is a good approximation of reality, though. We will excuse poor Newton for not having noticed that it cannot work at higher speeds. We will not excuse you, though.

Look! Let's see what happens if we extended the observer count to more than two for a single transmission.

Nothing. We are not suffering from a lack of information. If a certain number of sensors determine the coordinates of an event to be (2.38, 1, 2, 0), how could a higher number of sensors possibly determine different coordinates? Tell me! Inquiring minds want to know.

steve waterman wrote:Do you agree that the ONE UNIQUE transmission sequence DOES exist under a math only, one Cartesian system, more than two receiver setting?

Sure, in what you call a Cartesian math only system, and others call the classical system, Newtonian physics or Galilean Relativity, everybody and their brother and their dog agree that there is one unique transmission system. Nobody has ever doubted that. Stop pretending we doubt it. Stop asking for applets that prove that statement, because they are a waste of time, because everyone has always agreed with it.

In the real world, you know the one with Relativity and Lorentz transformation and time dilation and length contraction and c being the same in all reference frames we unfortunately do not have a universal time and we do not always have a unique transmission sequence. More precisely spacelike separated events do not have a unique transmission sequence.
#xkcd-q on irc.foonetic.net - the LGBTIQQA support channel
Please donate to help these people

User avatar
Monika
Welcoming Aarvark
Posts: 3673
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 8:03 am UTC
Location: Germany, near Heidelberg
Contact:

Re: 1067: "Pressures"

Postby Monika » Thu Oct 25, 2012 12:07 am UTC

KrytenKoro wrote:It requires a varying speed of light, and all the rest of observed physics falls apart. All atoms everywhere explode instantaneously apart at infinite speed, ichor rains from the sky, cats and dogs rent apartments together and go shopping for clothes, and fast food becomes good for you.

:D

Posting pictures of your cats would be a more relevant and effective "tactic", because that would at least be dealing with topics in this universe.

We definitely need moar cat pictures in this universe :D

Schrollini already posted a "math-only" derivation of relativity

Oh, I must have missed that, or I didn't understand it. Which post was that in?

jpers36 wrote:All atoms explode instantaneously, but on the other hand, fast food is good for you.

Image

Maybe I do want to live in Steve's world ...

:D
#xkcd-q on irc.foonetic.net - the LGBTIQQA support channel
Please donate to help these people

User avatar
Max™
Posts: 1792
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 4:21 am UTC
Location: mu

Re: 1067: "Pressures"

Postby Max™ » Thu Oct 25, 2012 12:55 am UTC

steve waterman wrote:Max and Schrollini stated that I could not manifest a unique transmission site and time sequence*, because there was not one.

Schrollini wrote:... in relativity.

... in relativity.

... in relativity.

To understand that statement, you have to work ...

... IN RELATIVITY.


With only two receivers, in Relativity one transmission sequence cannot be agreed upon.

Do you agree that the ONE UNIQUE transmission sequence DOES exist under a
math only, one Cartesian system, more than two receiver setting?

The problem here, is that we are working in a universe where relativity is known to work, so YOU are assuming we mean things don't necessarily include relativity if we don't specify it, and we assume things always include relativity unless otherwise specified.
mu

User avatar
Schrollini
Posts: 515
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2012 5:20 pm UTC

Re: 1067: "Pressures"

Postby Schrollini » Thu Oct 25, 2012 1:03 am UTC

Monika wrote:
Schrollini already posted a "math-only" derivation of relativity

Oh, I must have missed that, or I didn't understand it. Which post was that in?

Here's the post. I only show that requiring preservation of the spacetime interval leads to the Lorentz transform; I don't show that any transform that preserves the speed of light also must preserve the space-time interval. For a more rigorous proof, I cited this Wikipedia article, which shows that the only reasonable coordinate transforms (meaning that they form a group) are the Galilean and the Lorentz transformations. From there, it's obvious what to choose if you want a constant speed of light.

To be honest, I didn't really write that post with the expectation that Steve (or anyone else) would understand what I was saying. I was just annoyed that he kept saying he was doing math, so I thought I should give him a taste of what math actually looks like. That said, I'm happy to answer questions about it, if anyone feels like fighting through my (somewhat intentionally) obtuse language.

ucim wrote:Clearly, Schrollini is a member of the "shut up and calculate" interpretation of QM.

Yes, I suppose it's pretty obvious.
For your convenience: a LaTeX to BBCode converter

User avatar
Max™
Posts: 1792
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 4:21 am UTC
Location: mu

Re: 1067: "Pressures"

Postby Max™ » Thu Oct 25, 2012 1:14 am UTC

"All we do is draw little arrows on a piece of paper - that's all!" ~Richard Feynman
mu

User avatar
steve waterman
Posts: 1610
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2011 4:39 pm UTC

Re: 1067: "Pressures"

Postby steve waterman » Thu Oct 25, 2012 12:21 pm UTC

Max wrote:The problem here, is that we are working in a universe where relativity is known to work, so YOU are assuming we mean things don't necessarily include relativity if we don't specify it, and we assume things always include relativity unless otherwise specified.


Max wrote:WE assume things always include relativity unless otherwise specified.


Well stated. Yes, that does seem to be exactly what has always been happening, post for post, on both sides.
This is certainly a very good point to be aware of.

With that in mind,

Since we are talking signal transmissions in the universe, then you ALWAYS have Relativity.

So, that means, its your given, and hence,
referencing a Cartesian system to measure with, in the universe MUST have your given.

Hence, it is most logical for you to conclude that I must be wrong, because Relativity has been proven to be right.

When we use the stationary three red receivers, we discovered that the intersection point WAS the transmission site.

When the 3 blue receivers/3 observers in detector B move at v> 0, we discovered that the intersection point WAS the transmission site.

We seem to agree upon those two statements. Correct me if that is wrong, please.

Schrollini - Checking to verify how some applet stuff got made...

I wish to know if the manifesting of the red circles intersection point is bereft of any Relativity equation(s) or other Relativistic conceptual influence.

Same too, for the red hyperbolas.
"While statistics and measurements can be misleading, mathematics itself, is not subjective."
"Be careful of what you believe, you are likely to make it the truth."
steve

User avatar
Schrollini
Posts: 515
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2012 5:20 pm UTC

Re: 1067: "Pressures"

Postby Schrollini » Thu Oct 25, 2012 12:49 pm UTC

steve waterman wrote:Schrollini - Checking to verify how some applet stuff got made...

I wish to know if the manifesting of the red circles intersection point is bereft of any Relativity equation(s) or other Relativistic conceptual influence.

Same too, for the red hyperbolas.

They all rely on the fact that the speed of light is constant, which is the very heart of relativity.
For your convenience: a LaTeX to BBCode converter

User avatar
steve waterman
Posts: 1610
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2011 4:39 pm UTC

Re: 1067: "Pressures"

Postby steve waterman » Thu Oct 25, 2012 1:14 pm UTC

Schrollini wrote:
steve waterman wrote:Schrollini - Checking to verify how some applet stuff got made...

I wish to know if the manifesting of the red circles intersection point is bereft of any Relativity equation(s) or other Relativistic conceptual influence.

Same too, for the red hyperbolas.

They all rely on the fact that the speed of light is constant, which is the very heart of relativity.


So you mean that the transmission speed is constant for the propagation of all the enlarging circles.

Do you ALSO mean that the observed rates of those transmitted signals is constant to all observers?
[ like a rocket moving directly towards the transmission source that sends out pulses a second apart ]

added RE - Light transmitted from opposite sides of the Sun and constant transmission speed.
( c + v ) versus ( c - v )
Because the transmission site is a POINT, and a point has no velocity, then c = c since v = 0.
Last edited by steve waterman on Thu Oct 25, 2012 1:32 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
"While statistics and measurements can be misleading, mathematics itself, is not subjective."
"Be careful of what you believe, you are likely to make it the truth."
steve

speising
Posts: 2367
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: 1067: "Pressures"

Postby speising » Thu Oct 25, 2012 1:19 pm UTC

it looks to me like you confuse doppler effect with speed again.

User avatar
Schrollini
Posts: 515
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2012 5:20 pm UTC

Re: 1067: "Pressures"

Postby Schrollini » Thu Oct 25, 2012 1:29 pm UTC

steve waterman wrote:So you mean that the transmission speed is constant for the propagation of all the enlarging circles.

Yes. More precisely, dr/dt = 1 for the yellow and black circles, and -1 for the red and blue ones. (Incidentally, dr'/dt' is also 1 and -1, respectively, for these.)
steve waterman wrote:Do you ALSO mean that the observed rates of those transmitted signals is constant to all observers?
[ like a rocket moving directly towards the transmission source that sends out pulses a second apart ]

No. And I don't know why you'd think I said anything about this.
For your convenience: a LaTeX to BBCode converter

User avatar
steve waterman
Posts: 1610
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2011 4:39 pm UTC

Re: 1067: "Pressures"

Postby steve waterman » Thu Oct 25, 2012 2:17 pm UTC

So you mean that the transmission speed is constant for the propagation of all the enlarging circles.

Schrollini wrote:Yes. More precisely, dr/dt = 1 for the yellow and black circles, and -1 for the red and blue ones. (Incidentally, dr'/dt' is also 1 and -1, respectively, for these.)


Good. So the circles all expand at the same mathematical rate over time.

That is, PURELY as mathematical circles, and not imagining/equating the mathematical circles to be any physical phenomena such as light or sound, but ONLY as mathematical circles,

the red circles intersect the blue circles at the transmission point of the yellow circle. Agreed?
"While statistics and measurements can be misleading, mathematics itself, is not subjective."
"Be careful of what you believe, you are likely to make it the truth."
steve

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6896
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 1067: "Pressures"

Postby ucim » Thu Oct 25, 2012 2:35 pm UTC

This Steve Waterman post is mostly pretty on the nose... except:

steve waterman wrote:So, that means, its your [Schrollini's] given, and hence,
referencing a Cartesian system to measure with, in the universe MUST have your given.

I don't know why you keep using "Cartesian". The universe is not Cartesian. If you depict it as if it were, the depiction will be distorted.

steve waterman wrote:added RE - Light transmitted from opposite sides of the Sun and constant transmission speed.
( c + v ) versus ( c - v )
Because the transmission site is a POINT, and a point has no velocity, then c = c since v = 0.


Not because the transmission site is a point (though that is true), and not because a point has no velocity (the problem with this is that "velocity" is measured relative to some reference frame), but rather, because of the strange geometry of spacetime.

When one thinks of Cartesian geometry, one thinks of the origin and the x & y axes as the "blank slate", as it were. In Lorenz geometry (relativity), it is better to think of the origin and the 45 degree line x=t as the "blank slate".

If you do a (mathematical) rotation in Cartesian geometry, the (new) x and y axes remain at 90 degrees to each other, but the (new) axes and the (new) line x=y all point in a new direction. It is like rotating a (real) sheet of paper.

If you do the equivalent in Lorenz (relativity) geometry, the (new) line x=t does not point in a new direction! It is immutable. Although, like a Cartesian rotation, the (new) x and t axes also point in new directions, unlike a Cartesian rotation, the new directions are more closely aligned with the line x=t (which is the same in the new (rotated) system as it is in the (original) unrotated system. This, of course, introduces what we look like distortions if we draw it on paper, but they are really the effect of the different "metric" (method of measuring distance between points) used in Lorenz (relativity) geometry. It is not at all like rotating a (real) sheet of paper.

Simply having a (nonzero) velocity (relative to the original system) causes this (Lorenz) rotation. This is because having velocity means having a world line which, while vertical in your own system (you aren't moving with respect to yourself), is not vertical with respect to the system you are moving relative to. It makes your "x axis" tilt with respect to the original system, and that is what a rotation is. You are "leaning into time", or rotating into time, as it were.

Image
This (animated) graphic from Wikipedia (posted by J Thomas here) illustrates what I am saying, though since it is (by necessity) depicted on a Cartesian computer screen, distortions do remain.

His commentary:
J Thomas wrote:Here we have a picture of the result of velocity. We have three items with three absolute positions. But due to relativity, when you are moving at different velocities your coordinate system is distorted. And when your coordinates get distorted, the absolute positions do not get distorted with your coordinates. As a result you assign them to different places, and you calculate that light reaches them at different times compared to how you would figure it at a different velocity.


The immutable line x=t (illustrated above as x=ct, but c is just a scale factor) in Lorenz geometry is the mathematical form of the constant speed of light. It defines a line of constant speed (delta x / delta t) that is an intrinsic property of this geometry. This speed is also a maximum speed, because it is the line towards which x and t move under (Lorenz) rotation.

It turns out that light happens to move at this speed.

Otherwise, the rest of your post sounds much closer to reality than what you have said before.

added:
steve waterman in a subsequent post wrote:Good. So the circles all expand at the same mathematical rate over time.

That is, PURELY as mathematical circles, and not imagining/equating the mathematical circles to be any physical phenomena such as light or sound, but ONLY as mathematical circles,

Since the reason for a maximum speed is rooted in the geometry of the system, physical phenomena in that system are also bound by it. This includes light. Yes, it's weird. Yes, it's what happens.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

J Thomas
Everyone's a jerk. You. Me. This Jerk.^
Posts: 1190
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 3:18 pm UTC

Re: 1067: "Pressures"

Postby J Thomas » Thu Oct 25, 2012 2:44 pm UTC

steve waterman wrote:
Schrollini wrote:
steve waterman wrote:Schrollini - Checking to verify how some applet stuff got made...

I wish to know if the manifesting of the red circles intersection point is bereft of any Relativity equation(s) or other Relativistic conceptual influence.

Same too, for the red hyperbolas.

They all rely on the fact that the speed of light is constant, which is the very heart of relativity.


So you mean that the transmission speed is constant for the propagation of all the enlarging circles.

Do you ALSO mean that the observed rates of those transmitted signals is constant to all observers?
[ like a rocket moving directly towards the transmission source that sends out pulses a second apart ]


The transmission speed is constant, though the light itself might be redshifted or blueshifted. If you send pulses of light, the time between the pulses should be consistent after you account for the changing distances and the distortion in time and space.

It's like, imagine you're traveling down the road at 65 mph. A policeman standing by the road with a radar detector clocks you at 65 mph. A policeman in a police car going 35 mph also clocks you with his radar, and he clocks you at 65 mph, not 30 mph. (The car radar ought to measure the difference between your speeds and add in his car's speed, but I'm talking about him measuring the difference between the speeds as 65.) Wouldn't it be weird if every radar measured you going the same speed relative to them, no matter how fast they were going?

That's how they think it is with light. Everybody measures the light going the same speed no matter how fast they're going.

That doesn't make sense, right? All the weird things about special relativity come from trying to make that work.

Maxwell started out assuming that electric and magnetic fields act instantaneously across space. And for magnetism he assumed that magnetic fields happen because of absolute movement, he assumed magnetism could tell when you're really standing still or when you're really moving.

Starting from his assumptions he predicted that light should have one definite constant speed compared to the guy who isn't moving. Later he worked on what to expect when electric and magnetic fields affect things at lightspeed, but he didn't get very far. And he never considered magnetism apart from absolute speed.

Maxwell's equations worked well, so everybody assumed they were true. So they tried to measure the absolute speed of the earth by looking at how lightspeed changed when the earth changed direction. And it didn't change. They assumed that if lightspeed doesn't change when the earth changes direction, it probably doesn't change anywhere.

All of what they have worked out is logically consistent. If you accept Maxwell's equations, then light has a constant speed in the absolute frame. But if you also accept the Michaelson-Morley experiment then the same light has a constant speed in every frame that isn't accelerating. And special relativity or something similar must inevitably follow, like mathematical theorems. It fixes Maxwell's equations, which without relativity are observably experimentally wrong.

If you just don't like that, tough. To find a workable alternative you would need to find a better fix for Maxwell's equations. Preferably, find a version of Maxwell's equations that does not depend on an absolute frame for magnetism. If you accept relativity, magnetism is only a sort of side effect of electricity. People who move relative to a charge detect a magnetic field, people who don't move can't see any magnetic field but see only the electric field. Magnetism is like some sort of artifact of the way you measure electricity, and not something fundamental. Your improved version of Maxwell's equations should probably have that too.

If you can find something that gives results similar to Maxwell's equations but it doesn't require constant lightspeed, then it would be possible to test whether it actually fits reality. I would be pleased if you do that, because I find Maxwell's equations esthetically displeasing and I might like the alternative better. Of course, reality doesn't care what I like, but still I'd like it if something more palatable turned out to be true. I myself care what I like, and if it turns out that reality cooperates with me that would be pleasant. For me.
The Law of Fives is true. I see it everywhere I look for it.

User avatar
Schrollini
Posts: 515
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2012 5:20 pm UTC

Re: 1067: "Pressures"

Postby Schrollini » Thu Oct 25, 2012 3:06 pm UTC

steve waterman wrote:Good. So the circles all expand at the same mathematical rate over time.

That is, PURELY as mathematical circles, and not imagining/equating the mathematical circles to be any physical phenomena such as light or sound, but ONLY as mathematical circles,

Don't really understand the distinction you're trying to make here. The circles are slices of light cones. Light cones are abstract objects; they exist whether or not there's any light traveling along their surfaces. If that makes them "purely mathematical" in your mind, fine.
steve waterman wrote:the red circles intersect the blue circles at the transmission point of the yellow circle. Agreed?

I'd prefer to say that they intersect at the transmission event, to make it clear that we're talking about a point in spacetime.
For your convenience: a LaTeX to BBCode converter

User avatar
steve waterman
Posts: 1610
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2011 4:39 pm UTC

Re: 1067: "Pressures"

Postby steve waterman » Thu Oct 25, 2012 3:34 pm UTC

Schrollini wrote:
steve waterman wrote:Good. So the circles all expand at the same mathematical rate over time.

That is, PURELY as mathematical circles, and not imagining/equating the mathematical circles to be any physical phenomena such as light or sound, but ONLY as mathematical circles,

Don't really understand the distinction you're trying to make here. The circles are slices of light cones. Light cones are abstract objects; they exist whether or not there's any light traveling along their surfaces. If that makes them "purely mathematical" in your mind, fine.
steve waterman wrote:the red circles intersect the blue circles at the transmission point of the yellow circle. Agreed?

I'd prefer to say that they intersect at the transmission event, to make it clear that we're talking about a point in spacetime.


That sounds almost agreeable. Just one last needed wording distinction, please, regarding spacetime...

the circles all intersect at the transmission event: a physical location/site in spacetime?
the circles all intersect at the transmission event: a mathematical point in spacetime?

added
2d to 3d
circles to spheres
hyperbolas to hyperboloids
also one transmission point
"While statistics and measurements can be misleading, mathematics itself, is not subjective."
"Be careful of what you believe, you are likely to make it the truth."
steve

User avatar
Schrollini
Posts: 515
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2012 5:20 pm UTC

Re: 1067: "Pressures"

Postby Schrollini » Thu Oct 25, 2012 4:37 pm UTC

steve waterman wrote:the circles all intersect at the transmission event: a physical location/site in spacetime?
the circles all intersect at the transmission event: a mathematical point in spacetime?

Again, I don't understand the distinction you're trying to go for. Events are the component parts of spacetime in the same way that points are the component parts of a plane. Just as a point has no extent in x or y, an event has no extent in space or time. Something can happen at an event, but that's not what makes it an event, just like something can happen at a point in the plane, but nothing has to for the point to be a point.
For your convenience: a LaTeX to BBCode converter

User avatar
Max™
Posts: 1792
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 4:21 am UTC
Location: mu

Re: 1067: "Pressures"

Postby Max™ » Thu Oct 25, 2012 4:52 pm UTC

Image

You guys starting to feel anything yet?
Image
I feel kinda... fuzzy.
mu

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6896
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 1067: "Pressures"

Postby ucim » Thu Oct 25, 2012 5:04 pm UTC

steve waterman wrote:the circles all intersect at the transmission event: a physical location/site in spacetime?
the circles all intersect at the transmission event: a mathematical point in spacetime?


I would read it as "the circles all intersect at the transmission event: a spot in spacetime where, in this case, an occurrence happened".

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

User avatar
steve waterman
Posts: 1610
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2011 4:39 pm UTC

Re: 1067: "Pressures"

Postby steve waterman » Thu Oct 25, 2012 5:27 pm UTC

Schrollini wrote:an event* has no extent in space or time


IN RELATIVITY, however, not in reality.

been around for years wrote: time is nature's way of keeping things from all happening at once

just an attempt at a little light humor, likely most have already heard this quote a while ago.

IN REALITY, every transmission signal has its time and place.

Both a transmission event and a receipt event have no extent in space...means a point, so fine.

"It is this portion that is a problem. "a [RECEIPT?] event has no extent in time"

YOUR transmission "EVENT" therefore lasts FOREVER given time of sufficient duration. That is correct.

EACH receipt event is different, the incoming signal only intersects at one location and lasts but a moment.
Therefore a receiver event has only a moment in time unlike the eternal transmission event.

*Just saying "event" is ambiguous, we need to say transmission event or receiver event as the two are not the same.
"While statistics and measurements can be misleading, mathematics itself, is not subjective."
"Be careful of what you believe, you are likely to make it the truth."
steve

User avatar
Max™
Posts: 1792
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 4:21 am UTC
Location: mu

Re: 1067: "Pressures"

Postby Max™ » Thu Oct 25, 2012 5:35 pm UTC

Thanks to you steve, my mind is full of fuck forever.
Spoiler:
Image
mu

speising
Posts: 2367
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: 1067: "Pressures"

Postby speising » Thu Oct 25, 2012 5:36 pm UTC

Ok, maybe it's because i'm not a native english speaker, but to me, "no extent in time" means the opposite of "lasts forever".

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6896
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 1067: "Pressures"

Postby ucim » Thu Oct 25, 2012 5:49 pm UTC

steve waterman wrote:YOUR transmission "EVENT" therefore lasts FOREVER given time of sufficient duration.

Don't confuse the transmission event (a spot in spacetime where the transmission occurrence happened) with the ever-expanding occurrence sphere (depicted by the expanding circles) defined by the event. That is what "goes on forever", not the transmission event itself.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

User avatar
steve waterman
Posts: 1610
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2011 4:39 pm UTC

Re: 1067: "Pressures"

Postby steve waterman » Thu Oct 25, 2012 5:52 pm UTC

Max™ wrote:Thanks to you steve, my mind is full of fuck forever.


More in the graphics vein, as your spoiler thingie...

http://www.software3d.com/Stella.php
New 5.0 version came out a few weeks ago, Rob Webb has added 4-d waterman polyhedra to its capabilities with this version.

Just like the example near the top of the page, it can make thousands of different waterman polyhedra just with inputting an integer only. IT does amazing stuff; like print out the the exact shapes scaled to whatever, needed to make stuff. There is a free mini-version, but quite limited.

Nice visuals Max, now my eyes is full of fuck forever.
"While statistics and measurements can be misleading, mathematics itself, is not subjective."
"Be careful of what you believe, you are likely to make it the truth."
steve

User avatar
Max™
Posts: 1792
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 4:21 am UTC
Location: mu

Re: 1067: "Pressures"

Postby Max™ » Thu Oct 25, 2012 5:55 pm UTC

Oh how I rofled at "my eyes is full of fuck forever", well played.
mu

Radical_Initiator
Just Cool Enough for School
Posts: 1374
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 10:39 pm UTC

Re: 1067: "Pressures"

Postby Radical_Initiator » Thu Oct 25, 2012 6:01 pm UTC

steve waterman wrote:
been around for years wrote: time is nature's way of keeping things from all happening at once

Perhaps a very appropriate quote for this thread:

? wrote:"Time is just a concept," says Einstein's kid, the dunce.
"People's way of keeping everything from happening at once.
Overtake the light, and time is in your sight,
And black holes bend the beams, so nothing's where it seems,
And finding out the truth could take you months."


10 internets to anyone who knows the reference without searching.
I looked out across the river today …

JudeMorrigan
Posts: 1266
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:26 pm UTC

Re: 1067: "Pressures"

Postby JudeMorrigan » Thu Oct 25, 2012 6:07 pm UTC

Max™ wrote:Thanks to you steve, my mind is full of fuck forever.

That's pretty much true of every guy who's gone through puberty though, isn't it?

User avatar
Schrollini
Posts: 515
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2012 5:20 pm UTC

Re: 1067: "Pressures"

Postby Schrollini » Thu Oct 25, 2012 6:07 pm UTC

steve waterman wrote:
Schrollini wrote:an event* has no extent in space or time


IN RELATIVITY, however, not in reality.

And we're discussing relativity. It happens that relativity is a pretty good model of reality. So we see something, a gunshot, say, and we call that an event. Sure, it has some extent in space (the size of the bullet) and time (the travel of the bullet down the barrel), but not much, so it's a fair approximation. The sound wave that comes off, however, has significant exent in both space and time, so we don't call it an event. We call it a sound wave.

steve waterman wrote:Both a transmission event and a receipt event have no extent in space...means a point, so fine.

"It is this portion that is a problem. "a [RECEIPT?] event has no extent in time"

YOUR transmission "EVENT" therefore lasts FOREVER given time of sufficient duration. That is correct.

Don't know how you got from no extent in time to infinite extent in time. Also don't know where a transmission came from. I'll repeat: An event has no extent in space and no extent in time.

steve waterman wrote:*Just saying "event" is ambiguous, we need to say transmission event or receiver event as the two are not the same.

No it isn't.

An event is a location in spacetime. It has no extent in space and no extent in time. The transmission of a signal occurs at an event. Not all events are associated with the transmission of a signal. The reception of a signal occurs at an event. Not all events are associated with the reception of a signal. The eating of pie occurs at an event. Not all events are associated with the eating of pie. (Though the better ones are.)
For your convenience: a LaTeX to BBCode converter

User avatar
steve waterman
Posts: 1610
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2011 4:39 pm UTC

Re: 1067: "Pressures"

Postby steve waterman » Thu Oct 25, 2012 6:13 pm UTC

speising wrote:Ok, maybe it's because i'm not a native english speaker, but to me, "no extent in time" means the opposite of "lasts forever".


OOOPs...I mistook what he was saying. Just a silly mistake of going too quickly/long. I might be better than to re-write boo-boo, to just jump to the point being made. Mea culpa.

My concern was I would like us to say transmission event or receipt event. I will have to go back and see what i have just screwed up.

I should stop for today, as I have posted quite a bit already and many hours of visual work has transpired.
"While statistics and measurements can be misleading, mathematics itself, is not subjective."
"Be careful of what you believe, you are likely to make it the truth."
steve

User avatar
Max™
Posts: 1792
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 4:21 am UTC
Location: mu

Re: 1067: "Pressures"

Postby Max™ » Thu Oct 25, 2012 6:56 pm UTC

Radical_Initiator wrote:
steve waterman wrote:
been around for years wrote: time is nature's way of keeping things from all happening at once

Perhaps a very appropriate quote for this thread:

? wrote:"Time is just a concept," says Einstein's kid, the dunce.
"People's way of keeping everything from happening at once.
Overtake the light, and time is in your sight,
And black holes bend the beams, so nothing's where it seems,
And finding out the truth could take you months."


10 internets to anyone who knows the reference without searching.

I was thinking Counting Crows, but that's Einstein on the Beach, had to google it to find out what it was.
mu

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: 1067: "Pressures"

Postby KrytenKoro » Thu Oct 25, 2012 7:05 pm UTC

steve waterman wrote:IN REALITY, every transmission signal has its time and place.
sure. It's called "relative to me, Here and Now."

And that can be converted into an infinite array of other, equally accurate values with a nonlinear mapping, with the same principles as converting a curved 2D surface into a flat 2D map.

It really is exactly the same idea, Steve. If you can accept that a 2D surface can be curved, but still 100% measurable and mappable to an infinite array of projections, then you should be able to accept that a 3D space can be curved, but still 100# measurable and mappable to an infinite array of projections.
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

User avatar
Max™
Posts: 1792
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 4:21 am UTC
Location: mu

Re: 1067: "Pressures"

Postby Max™ » Thu Oct 25, 2012 7:17 pm UTC

steve waterman wrote:
Schrollini wrote:an event* has no extent in space or time


IN RELATIVITY, however, not in reality.

IN REALITY, every transmission signal has its time and place.

No steve, REALITY IS IN RELATIVITY.

The only way your statement is true is if you replace "in reality" with "in one reference frame". What you call reality is just YOUR view of events, there is no unique perspective from which to view events.

What I call reality includes all possible perspectives to view events from, it is a phase space in which causality is just a result of tracing your finger across nows in a certain manner, it is an maddeningly complex thing, where all possible permutations of moments exist, and the only sense of direction you can make out is from the singularity towards the endless depths of maximal entropy.

STAY OUT OF THE WATER!

Anyways...

It's not like relativity is something you can actually question, if you prove it wrong you still need to produce a theory that reproduces the known effects from relativity which have been experimentally confirmed.

We will never go back to a simple newtonian universe, ever.
mu


Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 33 guests