Speciation Proves Devolution

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#364 Jan 23, 2014
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> How does my definition of a miracle conflict with reality?

It conflicts with the Bible even more than reality.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#365 Jan 23, 2014
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> It would be compelling if the AJP understood freshman physics.

Right.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#366 Jan 23, 2014
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> It would be compelling if the AJP understood freshman physics.
I bet they understood your stuff all right.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#367 Jan 23, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
I bet they understood your stuff all right.
They don't even understand what they do publish.

Why are Referees for Professional Physics Journals so Hopelessly Confused about Special Relativity in 1+1 Dimensions?

There are many published papers in refereed physics journals that derive special relativity in new ways in 1+1 dimensions. Some are laughably bad.

Read the AJP paper, "Would a topology change allow Ms. Bright to travel backward in time?" Am. J. Phys. 66 (3), March 1998 (pages 179-185). What a load of crap that paper is! The whole point of the paper is how terribly confused the author is, not understanding coordinates on SxR. Note the ACKNOWLEDGMENTS on page 184 where the author thanks the referees for "critically reading" the manuscript and their "helpful comments."

The given reference proves that many learned physicists are terribly confused by special relativity in 1+1 dimensions. The above referenced tripe, published by the American Journal of Physics, while suggesting a pretense of understanding, really reeks of incompetence for freshman physics. The chief editor of the AJP needs someone to teach him the very first principles of special relativity.

http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#368 Jan 23, 2014
So once again Shoob the boob admits he has nothing by linking to an idiot.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#369 Jan 24, 2014
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> They don't even understand what they do publish.
Why are Referees for Professional Physics Journals so Hopelessly Confused about Special Relativity in 1+1 Dimensions?
There are many published papers in refereed physics journals that derive special relativity in new ways in 1+1 dimensions. Some are laughably bad.
Read the AJP paper, "Would a topology change allow Ms. Bright to travel backward in time?" Am. J. Phys. 66 (3), March 1998 (pages 179-185). What a load of crap that paper is! The whole point of the paper is how terribly confused the author is, not understanding coordinates on SxR. Note the ACKNOWLEDGMENTS on page 184 where the author thanks the referees for "critically reading" the manuscript and their "helpful comments."
The given reference proves that many learned physicists are terribly confused by special relativity in 1+1 dimensions. The above referenced tripe, published by the American Journal of Physics, while suggesting a pretense of understanding, really reeks of incompetence for freshman physics. The chief editor of the AJP needs someone to teach him the very first principles of special relativity.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity...

Even ignoring the fact that you are mentally ill, I will take a group of PhD.'s over a grade school math teacher.

Just saying.

The advantage of peer review is that bad ideas get weeded out at some point in the process. On occasion it is after publication, but a paper that is 15 years old has had plenty of critical review.

If you cannot make a case to professionals in the field then you probably don't deserve to be published. Further, if your logic and arguments in your paper are as poor as what you have demonstrated here then it is certain.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#370 Jan 24, 2014
Dogen wrote:
If you cannot make a case to professionals in the field then you probably don't deserve to be published.
I believe all these professionals: http://everythingimportant.org/ ; you don't believe them. Why is that? You are willfully ignorant. Even worse: "Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." —Albert Einstein.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#371 Jan 24, 2014
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> I believe all these professionals: http://everythingimportant.org/ ; you don't believe them. Why is that? You are willfully ignorant. Even worse: "Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." —Albert Einstein.
Because none of those professionals believe you.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#372 Jan 24, 2014
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> I believe all these professionals: http://everythingimportant.org/ ; you don't believe them. Why is that? You are willfully ignorant. Even worse: "Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." —Albert Einstein.

You managed to get through a post without actually saying anything coherent.

Kudos. Assuming that is what you were after.

I notice you did not address my points.

Kudos again.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#373 Jan 24, 2014
What i'm saying is a first glance remark. But i am actually very curious for all the remarks you got (and are not showing here).

quote from shub:
The most glaring misconception in relativity theory is the belief that nature requires
linearity for the space and time transformation equations between inertial frames of
reference. That mystifying, nonsensical, conceptual riddle, which began with Einstein,
has been perpetuated by adoring physicists ever since. It should be dispensed with
immediately. If spacetime is de ned intuitively, tangibly, with minimal restrictions,
then nonlinear Lorentz-equivalent transformation equations arise naturally.
Like the early Einstein, most authors of elementary textbooks on special relativity
attach undue importance to how clocks should be synchronized. Requiring clocks to
be synchronized is unnecessary. I believe that it's more enlightening to dispense with
nonessentials and to pursue the elegance of greater simplicity and generality.
The approach taken here illustrates the essence of spacetime with a tangible model.
It provides a clear foundation for not only Einstein's relativity but also admits the
possibility that Einstein's postulates are too restrictive. It may be that all the laws of
physics may be divided into two main categories. It is possible that some of the laws of
physics are Lorentz invariant and that other physical laws are not. This generalization
is required to allow for the possibility of motion faster than light and for our universe
to have come into existence at some inexplicable event in the nite past.

wiki on timedilation

Today, time dilation of particles is routinely confirmed in particle accelerators alongside with tests of relativistic energy and momentum, and its consideration is obligatory in the analysis of particle experiments at relativistic velocities.

Twin paradox[edit]

Bailey et al.(1977) measured the lifetime of positive and negative muons sent around a loop in the CERN Muon storage ring. This experiment confirmed both time dilation and the twin paradox, i.e. the hypothesis that clocks sent away and coming back to their initial position are retarded with respect to a resting clock.[27][28] Other measurements of the twin paradox involve gravitational time dilation as well, see for instance the Hafele–Keating experiment and repetitions.

Clock hypothesis[edit]

The clock hypothesis states that the extent of acceleration doesn't influence the value of time dilation. In most of the former experiments mentioned above, the decaying particles were in an inertial frame, i.e. unaccelerated. However, in Bailey et al.(1977) the particles were subject to a transverse acceleration of up to &#8764;10^18 g. Since the result was the same, it was shown that acceleration has no impact on time dilation.[27] In addition, Roos et al.(1980) measured the decay of Sigma baryons, which were subject to a longitudinal acceleration between 0.5 and 5.0 × 10^15 g. Again, no deviation from ordinary time dilation could be measured.[29]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation_of...

And linearity:
In physics, linearity is a property of the differential equations governing many systems; for instance, the Maxwell equations or the diffusion equation.

Linearity of a differential equation means that if two functions f and g are solutions of the equation, then any linear combination af+bg is too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell_equation...
As in space and time taken together.

Since the mid-20th century, it has been understood that Maxwell's equations are not exact laws of the universe, but are a classical approximation to the more accurate and fundamental theory of quantum electrodynamics. In most cases, though, quantum deviations from Maxwell's equations are immeasurably small. Exceptions occur when the particle nature of light is important or for very strong electric fields.

cont.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#374 Jan 24, 2014
Maxwell's equations, when they were first stated in their complete form in 1865, would turn out to be compatible with special relativity.[1] Moreover, the apparent coincidences in which the same effect was observed due to different physical phenomena by two different observers would be shown to be not coincidental in the least by special relativity. In fact, half of Einstein's 1905 first paper on special relativity, "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies," explains how to transform Maxwell's equations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_electr...
Just to refresh:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equa...

And
http://physicsessays.org/doi/abs/10.4006/1.32...
https://groups.google.com/forum/ #!topic/sci.astro/qeNTWVwcE9s
And we are back at Camelia. However dark energy and dark matter are a fact. It continues discussing 'gamma' and Ebergy.

Equate Hayek with shubee:
I tried to explain to you the difference between the inertial field,
that influences all of physics, and local inertia.

Inertia does lots of things : it tells us when we rotate, it gives us
straight paths, it crashes our cars, it kills us when we fall or crash.
And of course, it makes our clocks give time.

It also supports the relativistic creed : the laws of physics are the
same for every rectilineair moving observer.

If the all the laws of physics are the same, but time is different,
there must be something, that cannot be measured locally, but that
influences all of physics in that local frame.

I claim that this an external field, that creates inertia in that frame.

It cannot be measured locally, you only notice it when you compare
frames, with different inertia.
>
> Whatever language you are using, you are not talking about inertia
> or physics.

I think this is the exact analysis of the problem.
--The laws of physics are the same for any rotating frame and nothing
whatever to do with observers. Light curves:
http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/ (Gh)/guides/mtr/fw/gifs/coriol is.mov
---
The only puzzling point about shubee's paper is the do not stop on point of return, nor look at a clock, it somehow making it 'a jump'.
And therefore non-lineairity is presumed.

“Headline”

Since: Jan 14

Hometown

#375 Jan 24, 2014
MAAT wrote:
What i'm saying is a first glance remark. But i am actually very curious for all the remarks you got (and are not showing here).
wiki on timedilation
Today, time dilation of particles is routinely confirmed in particle accelerators alongside with tests of relativistic energy and momentum, and its consideration is obligatory in the analysis of particle experiments at relativistic velocities.
Twin paradox[edit]
Bailey et al.(1977) measured the lifetime of positive and negative muons sent around a loop in the CERN Muon storage ring. This experiment confirmed both time dilation and the twin paradox, i.e. the hypothesis that clocks sent away and coming back to their initial position are retarded with respect to a resting clock.[27][28] Other measurements of the twin paradox involve gravitational time dilation as well, see for instance the Hafele–Keating experiment and repetitions.
Clock hypothesis[edit]
The clock hypothesis states that the extent of acceleration doesn't influence the value of time dilation. In most of the former experiments mentioned above, the decaying particles were in an inertial frame, i.e. unaccelerated. However, in Bailey et al.(1977) the particles were subject to a transverse acceleration of up to &#8764;10^18 g. Since the result was the same, it was shown that acceleration has no impact on time dilation.[27] In addition, Roos et al.(1980) measured the decay of Sigma baryons, which were subject to a longitudinal acceleration between 0.5 and 5.0 × 10^15 g. Again, no deviation from ordinary time dilation could be measured.[29]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation_of...
And linearity:
In physics, linearity is a property of the differential equations governing many systems; for instance, the Maxwell equations or the diffusion equation.
Linearity of a differential equation means that if two functions f and g are solutions of the equation, then any linear combination af+bg is too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell_equation...
As in space and time taken together.
Since the mid-20th century, it has been understood that Maxwell's equations are not exact laws of the universe, but are a classical approximation to the more accurate and fundamental theory of quantum electrodynamics. In most cases, though, quantum deviations from Maxwell's equations are immeasurably small. Exceptions occur when the particle nature of light is important or for very strong electric fields.
cont.
Which time(s) are correct? They both are because time is not absolute but is relative, it depends on the reference frame.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#376 Jan 24, 2014
Any exceptions:
The solutions are found and analyzed for
cases when the form of the prescribed trajectory (rigidly rotating field line) is
approximated by:(a) straight line, and (b) Archimedean spiral. Dynamics of
particles not influenced by radiation reaction and the particles affected by RR
force are compared with the emphasize on the role of RR forces in the latter case.
It is shown that for charged particles there exist locations of stable equilibrium. It
is demonstrated that for particular initial conditions RR forces cause centripetal
motion of the particles: their “falling” on the central rotating object. It is found
that in the case of Archimedean spiral in both cases, when RR force is taken
into account and neglected, particles can reach infinity where their motion has
asymptotically force-free character.

http://www.tp4.rub.de/~wwwhelio/theses/Doktor...
Study of dynamical plasma processes in stellar winds
Giorgi Dalakishvili, 2010 KU Leuven

We first calculate the resulting
distortion of the external magnetic field and then determine the plasma velocity by
employing the frozen-in condition. Subsequently, the plasma density and pressure
are expressed as functions of the magnetic field and the velocity field.
The plasma
flow parameters are determined by solving MHD equations for both the stationary
regime and for the case of an expanding cylindrical magnetic cloud, thus extending
previous results that appeared in the literature.

Always maintaining causality.

This process, being responsible for the production of TeV range emission, requires the existence of relativistic, charged particles with Lorentz
factors up to &#947; &#8764; 103 &#8722; 106. Only a few particle acceleration processes could be
so efficient. One that is often suggested is the Fermi-type II particle acceleration
process, but it would imply an existence of a seed population of “pre-accelerated”
relativistic electrons with the Lorentz factors &#947; &#8805; 100 (see e.g. Rieger & Mannheim
2000, and references therein). The nature of this pre-acceleration remains to be
understood (Kirk et al. 1994). The interest in the stellar outflows is big, but
upgrading of highly idealized models to more realistic, astrophysically relevant
ones is still related with major theoretical and computational difficulties.

We enter black hole realm.
All in all a clear and nice antidote to all the speculation ala Shubee and Hayek since relations are explained causaly..

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#377 Jan 24, 2014
To test 'string theory' we would need TeV.

http://phys.org/news/2012-01-physicists-loop-...

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#378 Jan 24, 2014
HTN640509-040147 wrote:
<quoted text>
Which time(s) are correct? They both are because time is not absolute but is relative, it depends on the reference frame.
exactly, so what do we do with a theory that lacks that...

“Headline”

Since: Jan 14

Hometown

#379 Jan 24, 2014
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
exactly, so what do we do with a theory that lacks that...
Just for amusement: If one has concludes a theory in London but yet another concludes the same theory in Africa who gets credit for the theory if it was derived at the same time?

Does time difference go vertical, horizontal, diagonal or does time difference exist in a radius? Besides gravity and speed does anything else affect time(there are probabilities)?Does relativity of simultaneity needs more work to it?

You tell me.

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#380 Jan 24, 2014
HTN640509-040147 wrote:
<quoted text>
Which time(s) are correct? They both are because time is not absolute but is relative, it depends on the reference frame.

That is exactly what MAAT is pointing out. He is just refuting Shoobs nonsense. Doing a pretty nice job too!

“May you be at peace.”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#381 Jan 24, 2014
HTN640509-040147 wrote:
<quoted text>
Just for amusement: If one has concludes a theory in London but yet another concludes the same theory in Africa who gets credit for the theory if it was derived at the same time?

Whoever gets published first.
HTN640509-040147 wrote:
<quoted text>
Does time difference go vertical, horizontal, diagonal or does time difference exist in a radius?

No.
HTN640509-040147 wrote:
<quoted text> Besides gravity and speed does anything else affect time(there are probabilities)?

Acceleration.
HTN640509-040147 wrote:
<quoted text> Does relativity of simultaneity needs more work to it?

No.

“Headline”

Since: Jan 14

Hometown

#382 Jan 24, 2014
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Whoever gets published first.
<quoted text>
No.
<quoted text>
Acceleration.
<quoted text>
No.
All you have are remedial answers? Surely a person that claims to know much can come up with better answers.

“Headline”

Since: Jan 14

Hometown

#383 Jan 24, 2014
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
That is exactly what MAAT is pointing out. He is just refuting Shoobs nonsense. Doing a pretty nice job too!
Matt and I seem to be on the same page so where are you?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 4 hr Science 32,988
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 5 hr Regolith Based Li... 164,268
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 5 hr replaytime 81,558
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... Tue Science 2,188
Did humans come from Sturgeons? Mon Science 1
Proof humans come from Tennessee Mon Science 1
Science News (Sep '13) Oct 14 Science 4,005
More from around the web