tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post6410113653653576143..comments2024-02-29T04:15:06.480-06:00Comments on Life, the Universe, and One Brow: Strangers on a TrainOne Browhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comBlogger109125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-51313309215421436122011-01-04T07:59:27.762-06:002011-01-04T07:59:27.762-06:00aintnuthin said...
(Carlip says it IS a problem u...aintnuthin said... <br /><i>(Carlip says it IS a problem under the field interpretation, ... </i><br /><br />I looked at <a href="http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/grav_speed.html" rel="nofollow">this explanation</a>, originally authored by Carlip.<br /><br /><b>This cancellation may seem less strange if one notes that a similar effect occurs in electromagnetism. If a charged particle is moving at a constant velocity, it exerts a force that points toward its present position, not its retarded position, even though electromagnetic interactions certainly move at the speed of light. Here, as in general relativity, subtleties in the nature of the interaction "conspire" to disguise the effect of propagation delay. It should be emphasized that in both electromagnetism and general relativity, this effect is not put in ad hoc but comes out of the equations. Also, the cancellation is nearly exact only for constant velocities. If a charged particle or a gravitating mass suddenly accelerates, the change in the electric or gravitational field propagates outward at the speed of light.</b><br /><br />So, we see the same effect in electromagnetism, and further, changes in the gravity field propogate at the speed of light.<br /><br /><b>If the calculational framework of general relativity is accepted, the damping can be used to calculate the speed, and the actual measurement confirms that the speed of gravity is equal to the speed of light to within 1%.</b><br /><br />If you accept the GR equations, as even the field interpretaton will, the spped of gravity has been measured within 1% of c. Since Van Flandern is proposing ten orders of magnitude higher, he's not using GR, or ignoring the experiments.<br /><br /><i>"Propagation delay is almost "exactly cancelled," eh? Sure the math works, because they make it work, as you were claiming moral objectivists do. They know they are seeking stable orbits, so they have gravitional objects "lead" their target. How convenient. Kinda like the epicycles with a focal point out in space(rather than on earth) the ptolemists had to resort to to "save the appearances" (and obey Aristotle). </i><br /><br />You seem to be under the impression there are added terms in the GR equations, or some similar artifact, to counter propagation delay. There are no such added terms in GR any more than there are in Maxwell's equations, even though propagation delay would seem to occur in both types of systems. There are no metaphiorical epicycles.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-44455597539759993182011-01-03T15:43:16.232-06:002011-01-03T15:43:16.232-06:00More from Carlip (I forgot to give the cite in my ...More from Carlip (I forgot to give the cite in my last post):<br /><br />"For the theory to be consistent, there must therefore be compensating terms that partially cancel the instability of the orbit caused by retardation. This is exactly what happens; a calculation shows that the force on A points not towards B's retarded position, but towards B's "linearly extrapolated" retarded position."<br /><br />http://www.phys.ncku.edu.tw/mirrors/physicsfaq/Relativity/GR/grav_speed.html<br /><br />"MUST be compensating terms to be consistent," eh? Hmmmm.aintnuthinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-211740063591554372011-01-03T15:12:02.085-06:002011-01-03T15:12:02.085-06:00A few comments from Carlip on the issue:
"To...A few comments from Carlip on the issue:<br /><br />"To begin with, the speed of gravity has not been measured directly in the laboratory... The "speed of gravity" must therefore be deduced from astronomical observations, and the answer depends on what model of gravity one uses to describe those observations.<br /><br />In general relativity, on the other hand, gravity propagates at the speed of light; that is, the motion of a massive object creates a distortion in the curvature of spacetime that moves outward at light speed. This might seem to contradict the Solar System observations described above....<br /><br />Strictly speaking, gravity is not a "force" in general relativity, and a description in terms of speed and direction can be tricky. For weak fields, though, one can describe the theory in a sort of newtonian language. In that case, one finds that the "force" in GR is not quite central--it does not point directly towards the source of the gravitational field--and that it depends on velocity as well as position. The net result is that the effect of propagation delay is almost exactly cancelled, and general relativity very nearly reproduces the newtonian result."<br /><br />It may seem quite simple to some that one object "knows" the source is moving and THEREFORE does not point directly at it, but it sounds quite implausible to others. "Propagation delay is almost "exactly cancelled," eh? Sure the math works, because they make it work, as you were claiming moral objectivists do. They know they are seeking stable orbits, so they have gravitional objects "lead" their target. How convenient. Kinda like the epicycles with a focal point out in space(rather than on earth) the ptolemists had to resort to to "save the appearances" (and obey Aristotle).aintnuthinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-69779377027209178272011-01-03T14:37:42.425-06:002011-01-03T14:37:42.425-06:00One Brow said: "Van Flandern is not using st...One Brow said: "Van Flandern is not using standard GR."<br /><br />I have no clue who this author you're quoting is, but he seems fond (like others I know) of making absolute statements. He apparently has not read Van Flandern's paper or Carlip's response (Carlip says it IS a problem under the field interpretation, and that the "math" works out in GR because they are offsetting formulaes with cancel out abberation (geometric interpretation). For this guy, GR IS the geometric interpretation (an NO OTHER). Sound familiar?aintnuthinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-16938506867434286192011-01-03T09:23:38.606-06:002011-01-03T09:23:38.606-06:00Codgitator (Cadgertator) said...
Gay marriage is ...Codgitator (Cadgertator) said... <br /><i>Gay marriage is as incoherent as marrying ketchup and mustard, </i><br /><br />Again, you shoud use an argument that can not be applied to septugenarians.<br /><br /><i>...—if it is not any more one-thing than any-thing else--, then gays are literally campaigning to win a chimera. </i><br /><br />I think they are OK with a proclaimed-by-you-chimera that has full legal equality.<br /><br /><i>Despite the myriad variations that have existed in human marriage, no society has ever recognized gays as being fitting subjects of “marriage”. That’s as natural as you can get: the unanimity of natural human existence. </i><br /><br />You mean like, until a couple of hundred years ago, every human culture recognized the ownership of humans by other humans?<br /><br /><i>... is marriage between a father and his daughter also acceptable to you? If not, why not? </i><br /><br />Fathers and daughters, even brothers and sisters, do not have an equitable standing before any putative romantic relationship.<br /><br /><i>[Weird, this posted earlier but is not here now:] </i><br /><br />It showed up in my spam box, for some reason. <br /><br />Good wishes to you and yours,One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-22237989570177726462011-01-03T09:22:39.888-06:002011-01-03T09:22:39.888-06:00Codgitator (Cadgertator) said...
Red herring. You...Codgitator (Cadgertator) said... <br /><i>Red herring. You already let the cat out of the bag that gay marriage is good because it could support the future generation as well as straight marriage, so now you’re just covering your tracks. </i><br /><br />So, when I list four or five different things, I really only mean one of them? <br /><br /><i>No, the point is that, as far as humanity works to propagate itself by procreation, homosexual marriages add no more to that natural propagation than do teachers, firefighters, nurses, and the like. </i><br /><br />Homosexuals are already teachers, firefighters, nurses, and the like. Even if the only goal is for the future of children, allowing homosexual marriages does not interfere with their duties as teachers, etc., and allows them more capabilities outside such duties.<br /><br /><i>Is marriage just a tax break, after all? </i><br /><br />Even from a strictly secular viewpoint, a marriage is a way to share resources, divide labor, and provide support for each other.<br /><br /><i>The point is not that we need homosexuals to procreate—good luck--, but that there is no coherent reason to call what they do, without any possibility of furthering the species, “marriage.” </i><br /><br />I really think you should refrain from using arguments that can equally be applied to heterosexual septugenarians.<br /><br /><i>As far as the natural sustenance of our species goes, there is no more special status to be granted gay marriage than ought to be granted college fraternities and bobsled teams, all very close and socially enriching “units” in their own ways. </i><br /><br />You really think members of fraternities share a bond like married people do?<br /><br /><i>No, but if you premise your position by denying anything at all is objectively evil, you also have no grounds for defending anything at all as objectively good, including fairness, respect, etc. </i><br /><br />A bitter pill to swallow, but good medicine nonetheless.<br /><br /><i>Do you recognize that torturing infants is always and everywhere wrong? If so, this is because you implicitly recognize that doing the opposite of torture to infants—loving, nourishing, protecting, teaching, etc.—is always and everywhere good for infants. </i><br /><br />My implicit recognition of this is still subjective, not objective. That certain responses are hard-wired into our brains does not make those responses objective, it makes them reliable and near-universal.<br /><br /><i>If you refuse to defend even those essential goods as objective goods, then your position is self-refuting in terms of its own goals and morally vicious for condoning behavior like Vlad’s as morally acceptable. </i><br /><br />I see many claims that, sans objective morality, no one has the right to say something else is immoral. What I don't see is a solid basis upon which such claims rest. Rather, they come off as rhetoric from people trying to use the fallacious reasoning from undesired consequences.<br /><br /><i>...I wonder if the recent horror movie “The Centipede” is not also morally uncontroversial in your worldview. </i><br /><br />YOu don't think the issue of consent is a factor in my moral worldview?One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-46007839092642052322011-01-03T08:47:06.722-06:002011-01-03T08:47:06.722-06:00Other than use of the word "proof," whic...<i>Other than use of the word "proof," which I simply meant in a deductive, not an empirical, sense in this context, do you have any disagreement with my comment? </i><br /><br />My point was that you were using a deductive, and not empirical sense. No other objection.<br /><br /><i>If I claim I was not in LA on new year's eve and you say that you were in Illinois, you have "confirmed" my claim, because it doesn't disprove it and is not inconsistent with my claim that I was in LA (even if I was in fact in Illinois). Big Whoop with "confimation," eh?</i><br /><br />If I find a hotel room receipt with your name on it from Illinois, that would be confirmation. Confirmation applies only to experiments/observations that have an impact on the observation. Unless we provide a connection, my whereabouts are not confirmation of yours, they are merely consistent with yours. Consistency is weaker than confirmation.<br /> <br /><i>Is this statement supposed to deny, undermine, or refute the merit of the experiments? Are you IN ANY WAY suggesting that the experiments HAVE NOT been duplicated or CAN NOT be duplicated?</i><br /><br />The BBC article explicity said the experiements it mentioned have not been duplicated.<br /><br /><i>... those who disagree with you "cranks" because they don't adhere to your interpretation.</i><br /><br />I don't know enough to have a personal interpretation.<br /><br /><i>What "differences" are "detectable?" I have no clue what you're tryin to say here.</i><br /><br />From the Onpedia article, again:<br /><b>In fact GR does predict small measurable effects that an infinite-speed gravity would not, effects which appear in several of the examples Van Flandern himself uses for evidence against GR.</b><br /><br />Even a difference of two orders of magnitude would still produce measurable effects.<br /><br /><i>Of course he did--it was GR itself, with a field, rather than geometrical, interpretation, that's all.</i><br /><br />From the same article in Onpedia:<br /><b>This effect fully explains (to everyone else at least) the problems that Van Flandern claims exist. His "experiments" all require one to ignore this, that is, the force of gravity will be directed at the source regardless of motion. Each of the sections makes a statement similar to this: This is because the retarded position of any source of gravity must lie in the same direction relative to its true position as the tangential motion of the target body—a statement which is simply false under basic general relativity. Just because a statement is false does not mean that it is not a problem. However in this case the statement directly addresses the issue. For instance, an orbital simulator programmed to simulate GR fully will indeed work perfectly, and the orbital expansion Van Flandern claims is a problem simply doesn't exist.</b><br /><br />Van Flandern is not using standard GR.<br /> <br /><i>You too have suggested that because GR supposedly "comes from" SR, it MUST incorporate a lightspeed limitation, but you have no said or demonstrated why that must be true.</i><br /><br />I haven't looked at the detailed GR equations in over twenty years, and I am far to rusty on tensors to want to re-learn all that. Even if I had/did, I don't think I could show you how they can are derived over the internet.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-87075059709442659662011-01-02T08:17:43.316-06:002011-01-02T08:17:43.316-06:00One Brow:
Thanks for your reply. I have no idea ...One Brow: <br /><br />Thanks for your reply. I have no idea what's going on with Feser's blog comments, but it's just easier to correspond at my own blog or yours until I can reliably comment there. <br /><br />First of all, I want to clarify that I only provisionally "called you on" being a sophist. I was combining two things I had seen: one, your admission of showing up to be antagonistic and, two, the recurring impression from a few others commenters that you were just being difficult for sophistry's sake. I take your profession of good faith on good faith, but I do still think you are parsimonious with your logic. <br /><br />Also, I wasn't being tongue in cheek about spending more time with you kids. I genuinely have concerns about how the Internet compromises/infests otherwise normal human existence. You'll recall I voiced my concern about sometimes coming across as brusque or snooty. With someone like JT, I really have decided not to engage him (which I thought I had told him, until the comment disappeared at Feser's!). You and I are still on good terms and I agree we have much to offer each other, as time permits. <br /><br />Second, the point of my many sub-arguments was to establish the reality of contingency in our world. You grant contingency, so, QED: we are brought back to my points about the "infectious" nature of fragility in a supposedly unbreakable piece of glass. Especially if you believe in total causal closure, contingency spreads to the whole spacetime continuum (for point related to those I made about conditions of coming-to-be). Ours is a world subject not just to instances, but to entire kinds of contingency, and this plays into the hands of the cosmological argument. <br /><br />Third, I see no intelligible way for you to distinguish between "ontological and epistemological contingency", since you believe our epistemological states are but functions of an underlying deterministic causal base. <br /><br />Fourth, it's a pretty uncontroversial notion in evolutionary biology that "rewinding the tape" would not result in exactly the same states of affairs after time t. Your reference to supposedly unvarying results from identical "initial conditions" strikes me as outdated Laplacianism. Word search this piece for "rewind": http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance.html <br /><br />If you take the quantum void as your absolute initial conditions (a common maneuver for naturalists these days), there is no non-contingent basis for things turning out the same way, since the point of the first quantum collapse is that it's entirely random, not subject to antecedent laws. You can't prescribe random events as norms (leaving aside the ramifying indeterminacy that would occur in each cosmological expansion), and therefore you can't coherently imagine the exact same initial conditions as normative parameters for subsequent runs of the "cosmos" program. <br /><br />Best,Codgitator (Cadgertator)https://www.blogger.com/profile/00872093788960965392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-18264962468401865492010-12-31T21:53:23.216-06:002010-12-31T21:53:23.216-06:00To elaborate on my last post, Van Flandern, among ...To elaborate on my last post, Van Flandern, among others, claims the speed limit Einstien arbitrarily imposed with SR is NOT the least bit essential to GR. <br /><br />To quote from the Van Flander/Viglier paper:<br /><br />"Because of the belief that GR is based on SR, which disallows the possibility of faster-than-light propagation in forward time, the most common interpretation of GR is that the speed of gravity is the speed of light...So this "lightspeed propagation" assumption is unphysical and unnecessary...<br /><br /> The statement that "the speed of gravity equals the speed of light" is manifestly false, and is heard often only because of the confusion with the propagation speed of gravitational waves...Now that we know that Lorentzian relativity is experimentally viable [18] and allows faster-than-light (ftl) propagation in forward time [19], ftl propagation is no longer forbidden in physics, and ftl force carriers are the most reasonable interpretation of the equations. I expect that no one would ever have thought otherwise if they had not mistakenly believed that ftl propagation was forbidden in physics...<br /><br />These two theories, LR and SR, both employ the relativity principle and the same math (Lorentz transformations)...the falsification of SR in favor of LR has no mathematical consequences for GR. The main physical consequence is negation of the proof that faster-than-light propagation is impossible.<br /><br />http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gravity/speed_limit.asp<br /><br />I don't know enough about the math of GR to say for sure, but it makes sense that GR formulae could dispense with any "speed of light limitation" and still be both (1) internally consistent and (2) consistent with the observable phenonmena.<br /><br />You too have suggested that because GR supposedly "comes from" SR, it MUST incorporate a lightspeed limitation, but you have no said or demonstrated why that must be true.aintnuthinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-60149008724805066702010-12-31T09:48:26.732-06:002010-12-31T09:48:26.732-06:00[Weird, this posted earlier but is not here now:] ...[Weird, this posted earlier but is not here now:] <br /><br />I will now make a few “bottom line” statements and provide links to articles, then I need to leave this thread to focus on other things.<br /><br /> <br /><br />Ever work in a restaurant? Ever “marry” bottles of ketchup? The thing about “marrying” ketchup bottles is that, when the resources of one bottle go into another, they “cooperate” successfully to propagate the existence of ketchup. The marriage bears fruit. That’s the natural function of marriage: it is a natural human institution which yields the successful propagation of the species and which must be protected, just like a restaurant’s ketchup is not simply wasted by the staff. Gay marriage is as incoherent as marrying ketchup and mustard, or as futile as trying to marry ketchup bottles by the opening of one and the bottom of another. It may add flair to the menu to have orange sauce (ketchup and mustard mixed), but that’s not marriage in any meaningful sense. As it stands, gays can mix their sauces as much as they like, but nothing they do replicates the essential “marriage” of the sexes in marriage. Call it whatever you want, but calling it marriage is just incoherent.<br /><br /> <br /><br />Further, the very effort gays make to “win” marriage presupposes marriage *really is something*, that it has a definition. Well, what is the definition of marriage? If it has an essential definition, then your social-relativist critique goes out the window. If, however, it has no coherent definition—if it is not any more one-thing than any-thing else--, then gays are literally campaigning to win a chimera.<br /><br /> <br /><br />Despite the myriad variations that have existed in human marriage, no society has ever recognized gays as being fitting subjects of “marriage”. That’s as natural as you can get: the unanimity of natural human existence. Natural law is not pulled from the sky; it is manifested in the actual functioning of our species. A final question I have is, if marriage between two gay partners is allowable because it makes them happy and is ostensibly good for social stability, is marriage between a father and his daughter also acceptable to you? If not, why not?<br /><br /> <br /><br />Here are the links:<br /><br /> <br /><br />1. http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2010/12/the-essence-of-marriage-again/<br /><br /> <br /><br />2. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1722155<br /><br /> <br /><br />3. http://www.theird.org/Page.aspx?pid=1730Codgitator (Cadgertator)https://www.blogger.com/profile/00872093788960965392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-5666988920746985762010-12-31T03:16:00.827-06:002010-12-31T03:16:00.827-06:00One Brow said: "Van Flandern had no model to...One Brow said: "Van Flandern had no model to explain all the observed effects that fit into GR."<br /><br />It seems I neglected to comment on this claim. Of course he did--it was GR itself, with a field, rather than geometrical, interpretation, that's all.aintnuthinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-76374767083872991902010-12-31T02:25:01.241-06:002010-12-31T02:25:01.241-06:00Gay marriage is....well....GAY, ya know?Gay marriage is....well....GAY, ya know?aintnuthinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-21007862172944800642010-12-30T22:31:00.087-06:002010-12-30T22:31:00.087-06:00...
I will now make a few “bottom line” statement......<br /><br />I will now make a few “bottom line” statements and provide links to articles, then I need to leave this thread to focus on other things. <br /><br />Ever work in a restaurant? Ever “marry” bottles of ketchup? The thing about “marrying” ketchup bottles is that, when the resources of one bottle go into another, they “cooperate” successfully to propagate the existence of ketchup. The marriage bears fruit. That’s the natural function of marriage: it is a natural human institution which yields the successful propagation of the species and which must be protected, just like a restaurant’s ketchup is not simply wasted by the staff. Gay marriage is as incoherent as marrying ketchup and mustard, or as futile as trying to marry ketchup bottles by the opening of one and the bottom of another. It may add flair to the menu to have orange sauce (ketchup and mustard mixed), but that’s not marriage in any meaningful sense. As it stands, gays can mix their sauces as much as they like, but nothing they do replicates the essential “marriage” of the sexes in marriage. Call it whatever you want, but calling it marriage is just incoherent. <br /><br />Further, the very effort gays make to “win” marriage presupposes marriage *really is something*, that it has a definition. Well, what is the definition of marriage? If it has an essential definition, then your social-relativist critique goes out the window. If, however, it has no coherent definition—if it is not any more one-thing than any-thing else--, then gays are literally campaigning to win a chimera. <br /><br />Despite the myriad variations that have existed in human marriage, no society has ever recognized gays as being fitting subjects of “marriage”. That’s as natural as you can get: the unanimity of natural human existence. Natural law is not pulled from the sky; it is manifested in the actual functioning of our species. A final question I have is, if marriage between two gay partners is allowable because it makes them happy and is ostensibly good for social stability, is marriage between a father and his daughter also acceptable to you? If not, why not? <br /><br />Here are the links: <br /><br />1. http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2010/12/the-essence-of-marriage-again/ <br /><br />2. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1722155 <br /><br />3. http://www.theird.org/Page.aspx?pid=1730 <br /><br /><br />Best,Codgitator (Cadgertator)https://www.blogger.com/profile/00872093788960965392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-70035868686797633452010-12-30T22:30:06.662-06:002010-12-30T22:30:06.662-06:00OB: I listed it as one of a number of possible end...OB: <i>I listed it as one of a number of possible end-states, which I had intended to be independent … even when raising children is not involved.</i><br /><br />Red herring. You already let the cat out of the bag that gay marriage is good because it could support the future generation as well as straight marriage, so now you’re just covering your tracks. No children, no species. No species, no “end-states”, just The End. <br /><br />OB <i>… to say we need the 2%-10% of the population that are homosexuals to copulate in order to preseve [sic] the species doesn't seem accurate. … also [need to] make the argument we won't get enough population without them.</i> <br /><br />No, the point is that, as far as humanity works to propagate itself by procreation, homosexual marriages add no more to that natural propagation than do teachers, firefighters, nurses, and the like. In that case, the gay marriage lobby is just a form of unionist lobbying. Is marriage just a tax break, after all? The point is not that we need homosexuals to procreate—good luck--, but that there is no coherent reason to call what they do, without any possibility of furthering the species, “marriage.” As far as the natural sustenance of our species goes, there is no more special status to be granted gay marriage than ought to be granted college fraternities and bobsled teams, all very close and socially enriching “units” in their own ways. <br /><br />OB: <i>So the only moral claims that can be taken seriously have to come from a foundation that allows for objective morality?</i> <br /><br />No, but if you premise your position by denying anything at all is objectively evil, you also have no grounds for defending anything at all as objectively good, including fairness, respect, etc. Do you recognize that torturing infants is always and everywhere wrong? If so, this is because you implicitly recognize that doing the opposite of torture to infants—loving, nourishing, protecting, teaching, etc.—is always and everywhere good for infants. And there’s your objective morality, entrenched at the core of your allegedly relativist morality. If you refuse to defend even those essential goods as objective goods, then your position is self-refuting in terms of its own goals and morally vicious for condoning behavior like Vlad’s as morally acceptable. <br /><br />As for you views on the nutritional benefits of oral sex, I wonder if the recent horror movie “The Centipede” is not also morally uncontroversial in your worldview. <br /><br />...Codgitator (Cadgertator)https://www.blogger.com/profile/00872093788960965392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-78689247859480540082010-12-30T20:24:30.204-06:002010-12-30T20:24:30.204-06:00I said: "He merely claims it is "faster ...I said: "He merely claims it is "faster than light"<br /><br />You responded: "By a couple of orders of magnitude. The differences are still experimentally detectable."<br /><br />What "differences" are "detectable?" I have no clue what you're tryin to say here.<br /><br />The author is trying suggest that if the speed of light has been measured to be anyithing less than infinite, then Van Flandern is wrong and GR is right that the speed of light cannot be exceeded. That is an absurd, all or nothing, suggestion, on it's face. You appear to be trying to defend it, but I can't see how.aintntuhinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-41019679702561352522010-12-30T18:40:50.953-06:002010-12-30T18:40:50.953-06:00Edit: I'm [NOT]suggestingEdit: I'm [NOT]suggestingaintnuthinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-67146815573264683572010-12-30T18:39:49.249-06:002010-12-30T18:39:49.249-06:00One Brow said: "Eistwin is no more crank tha...One Brow said: "Eistwin is no more crank than Newton was a crank, but that doesn't make his interpretation of gravity any more sacrosanct."<br /><br />I'm suggesting that any particular interpretation is sacrosanct. You're the one who takes on the appearance of doing that by calling those who disagree with you "cranks" because they don't adhere to your interpretation.aintnuthinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-32219386424227676732010-12-30T18:36:24.248-06:002010-12-30T18:36:24.248-06:00aintnuthin quoted: "The recent experiments a...aintnuthin quoted: "The recent experiments are not especially new."<br /><br />One Brow responded: "Neither are the cold fusion experiements. When the results get duplicated by a couple of independent groups, then it will be time to rework the theory."<br /><br />====<br /><br />Is this statement supposed to deny, undermine, or refute the merit of the experiments? Are you IN ANY WAY suggesting that the experiments HAVE NOT been duplicated or CAN NOT be duplicated?<br /><br />Or are ya just sayin anything which comes to mind which will (to your idiosyncratic satisfaction) uphold your pet view?aintnuthinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-17730315724505094842010-12-30T18:31:07.967-06:002010-12-30T18:31:07.967-06:00One Brow said: "Confirmation by experimentati...One Brow said: "Confirmation by experimentation is different from proof within a theory. You are making a category error there."<br /><br />Other than use of the word "proof," which I simply meant in a deductive, not an empirical, sense in this context, do you have any disagreement with my comment? My point was that you cannot deduce or derive a light speed limitation from SR/GR because it is in fact a fundamantal, axiomatic presupposition for all that follows in SR. Some scientists seem to lose sight of this.<br /><br />In science, the word "confirmation" is, of course, use very loosely and differently than in normal usage. Scientifically, "confirmation," merely means evidence "which does not refute," or which "is consistent with," the theory is question.<br /><br />If I claim I was not in LA on new year's eve and you say that you were in Illinois, you have "confirmed" my claim, because it doesn't disprove it and is not inconsistent with my claim that I was in LA (even if I was in fact in Illinois). Big Whoop with "confimation," eh?aintnuthinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-35330898081632501232010-12-30T08:45:34.613-06:002010-12-30T08:45:34.613-06:00aintnuthin said...
He merely claims it is "f...aintnuthin said... <br /><i>He merely claims it is "faster than light"</i><br /><br />By a couple of orders of magnitude. The differences are still experimentally detectable.<br /><br /><i>To treat it as cut and dried, or to treat Einstein, et al, as "cranks," for rejecting a geometrical interpretation of GR, is simply to legislate one's preferences as indisputable, I figure. </i><br /><br />Eistwin is no more crank than Newton was a crank, but that doesn't make his interpretation of gravity any more sacrosanct. <br /><br /><i>The recent experiments are not especially new. </i><br /><br />Neither are the cold fusion experiements. When the results get duplicated by a couple of independent groups, then it will be time to rework the theory.<br /><br /><i>The implication here is mistaken, I think. The prohibition against faster-than-light travel/communication, has NOT been "confirmed by experiments." It is simply an axiomatic assumption of SR, not a product of, or subject to, proof within the confines of relativity theory.</i><br /><br />Confirmation by experimentation is different from proof within a theory. You are making a category error there.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-47485313505787395142010-12-29T19:44:33.022-06:002010-12-29T19:44:33.022-06:00The Franson guy quoted in the last article said:
...The Franson guy quoted in the last article said:<br /><br />"Quantum theory is confirmed by experiments, and so is relativity theory, which prevents us from sending messages faster than light."<br /><br />The implication here is mistaken, I think. The prohibition against faster-than-light travel/communication, has NOT been "confirmed by experiments." It is simply an axiomatic assumption of SR, not a product of, or subject to, proof within the confines of relativity theory.aintnuthinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-42854898176399925362010-12-29T19:38:12.734-06:002010-12-29T19:38:12.734-06:00Just to reinforce the point, here's another ex...Just to reinforce the point, here's another excerpt. My "point," by the way is NOT that faster than light speed is or is not, possible. That I don't know. The "point" is merely that all is not indisputably clear, beyond debate, by any means, and that pretenses to the contrary are misguided.<br /><br />"In 1935 a famous paper by Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen challenged the quantum theory prediction that entangled particles could remain instantly in touch with each other. One of their objections was based on the speed limit imposed by Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity: nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. <br /><br />Einstein and his colleagues preferred a more intuitive explanation of the simultaneous correlation between entangled particles, based on the idea that the match between them is ordained by their identical antecedents. The behavior of each particle, they argued, is the product of hidden "local" factors, not by spooky long-distance effects. <br /><br />But again and again in recent years, increasingly sensitive experiments have decisively proved that Einstein's explanation was wrong and quantum theory is correct...<br /><br />This is not the same thing as transmitting information, the experts say, and therefore it does not violate relativity theory. <br /><br />====<br />But why is a numerical correlation between two particles different from information? <br /><br />"That's a difficult question," Franson said, "and I don't think anyone could give you a coherent answer. Quantum theory is confirmed by experiments, and so is relativity theory, which prevents us from sending messages faster than light. I don't know that there's any intuitive explanation of what that means." <br /><br />====<br /><br />"We find," Chiao said, "that a barrier placed in the path of a tunneling particle does not slow it down. In fact, we detect particles on the other side of the barrier that have made the trip in less time than it would take the particle to traverse an equal distance without a barrier -- in other words, the tunneling speed apparently greatly exceeds the speed of light. Moreover, if you increase the thickness of the barrier the tunneling speed increases, as high as you please. <br />This is another great mystery of quantum mechanics." <br /><br />http://www.cebaf.gov/news/internet/1997/spooky.htmlaintnuthinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-62812260746545802792010-12-29T18:50:31.303-06:002010-12-29T18:50:31.303-06:00Excerpts from one of many such articles:
"Ne...Excerpts from one of many such articles:<br /><br />"New experiments show that some things can travel faster than the speed of light. <br /><br />It is a fundamental law of physics, a fact that is built into the architecture of the Universe and taught to every student, that nothing can travel faster than light which is roughly 300,000 km a second (186,000 miles). Well not exactly.<br /><br />The recent experiments are not especially new. Physicists have been making light pulses that travel faster than c (the speed of light in a vacuum) for years...<br /><br />In the other experiment, a pulse of light that enters a transparent chamber filled with caesium gas reaches speeds 300 times the normal speed of light..."<br /><br />http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sci/tech/781199.stmaintnuthinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-40392799130820287322010-12-29T18:38:45.600-06:002010-12-29T18:38:45.600-06:00One Brow said: "In fact GR does predict small...One Brow said: "In fact GR does predict small measurable effects that an infinite-speed gravity would not..."<br /><br />This appears to be a straw man based on a fabricated false dichotomy. <br /><br />1. Van Flandern does NOT (best I can tell) argue that the speed of gravity is "infinite" (although Newton did). He merely claims it is "faster than light"<br /><br />2. It seems funny that this author would claim that GR predicts some "less than infinite" speed of gravity (which could still be much faster than c) and let it go as that, as though Van Flandern had thereby been refuted.<br /><br />3. Best I can tell, Van Flandern and his associates claim that Carlip, and others who have attempted to claims, confuse "gravity waves" with gravity itself in their arguments. I don't pretend to understand it all enough to satisfy myself about who is right, but there seem to be highly respected physicists on each side of the issue.<br /><br />To treat it as cut and dried, or to treat Einstein, et al, as "cranks," for rejecting a geometrical interpretation of GR, is simply to legislate one's preferences as indisputable, I figure.aintnuthinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6070900770513300240.post-89801494739946996892010-12-29T09:07:23.291-06:002010-12-29T09:07:23.291-06:00You askfactmaster site has much of the information...You askfactmaster site has much of the information from the <a href="http://www.onpedia.com/encyclopedia/Tom-Van-Flandern" rel="nofollow">Onpedia</a> article, but it did leave this part out:<br /><br /><i>In fact GR does predict small measurable effects that an infinite-speed gravity would not, effects which appear in several of the examples Van Flandern himself uses for evidence against GR. This has been pointed out on many occasions, but both Van Flandern and his supporters continue to reject this conclusion. To date Van Flandern's refutation of these issues has always come down to either re-stating his original objections, or claiming that people do not understand his theory. The latter may indeed be true because he has never stated it in complete form. Repeated calls for such a statement, preferrably mathematically, have not been answered to date. In fact the only statements to date have been simple thought experiments, with little that one could call theory. Many conclude that there is no such theory, just his "feelings" that something is wrong with the standard model. </i><br /><br />So, GR still fits the experimental data, Van Flandern's ideas leave discrepancies with the experimental data. GR is a theory, Van Falndern did not seem to produce one. While the leading physicists of 100 years ago liked teh field interpretation of GR, most modern physicists prefer the geometric interpretation.<br /><br />By the way, under any formulation of gravity, from Newton through GR and even in Von Flandern, gravity from nearby galaxies affects our galaxy, regardless of dark matter or not. I have no trouble acknowledging dark matter, etc., as a real puzzle to be solve or that GR needs to be improved. That does mean replaced with an inferior model, much less an inferior non-model such as Van Flandern's.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.com