Would Religion still continue if.... [Archive]

24th February 2003, 06:26 AM

Originally posted by Franko

Ohh Pie there is something irresistible about You. If only it weren’t for that “evil-A-Theist” thingy … ;)

Hypothetically speaking if you are a daughter (for the sake of argument), why would you want to be kind and loyal to your Mother?

I mean seriously? … what did that bee-atch ever do for You?

You still were, it’s just that it’s a soup of Time and Energy not your imaginary little playmate … “the matter”.

Franko your starting to scare me lol, your making me question myself.

Hey can't a chick have a dark evil side ;);)

Hypothetically speaking, it' one of the unwritten laws you follow respect your elders blah blah. What did that hypothetical bee*atch do for me , raised me fed me clothed me and made me go to school. Dang it ;)

So matter is imaginary? talk me through it slowly, show me it through your eyes, show me my choice of atheism is a bad call on my part?

You say I am an atheist, that's bad in your eyes. So what are you? If god doesn't exist doesn't that make you the same as me? Explain simply.

Franko

24th February 2003, 06:57 AM

Ms. Pie,

Franko your starting to scare me lol, your making me question myself.

hehe ... Welcome to the R & P forum Darling. :)

Hey can't a chick have a dark evil side

Why do you think us Men find you Women so irresistible in the first place? ;)

Hypothetically speaking, it' one of the unwritten laws you follow respect your elders blah blah. What did that hypothetical bee*atch do for me , raised me fed me clothed me and made me go to school. Dang it

My point is you have a very similar type of relationship with “God”. But let me explain what I mean …

Try and imagine what it must have been like when you were first born – when you were an infant. How do you suppose you perceived your mother then? Are you sure that you even perceived her as an entity like Yourself? Compared to you as a newborn, your mother possessed “magical powers” that were far beyond you ability to comprehend. She could walk, and talk. She had the ability to make matter appear and disappear at will. Even as you grew older I bet you perceived you mother as a semi-omnipotent being. I bet that you believed that if your mother did not do something it wasn’t because She couldn’t do it … it was because She didn’t want to do it.

For all intent and purposes “God” has a 13 billion year evolutionary head start on you. For you to perceive Her as She really is, is analogous to an ant trying to perceive that a Human is a fellow living being.

So matter is imaginary? talk me through it slowly, show me it through your eyes, show me my choice of atheism is a bad call on my part?

In a manner of speaking – Yes – “matter” is imaginary, or more accurately, the “matter” is not as real as You or I.

Okay … A-Theism is not what you think. A-Theism is just another mystical religion with it’s own deity and system of dogma. The “God” of A-Theism is “free willy” (Belief in Free will). In order to be an A-Theist you have to believe in some form of “free will”. It is impossible for a person to call themselves an A-Theist and have any consistency in their beliefs at all without first asserting the existence of these “magical powers”. You see, if you don’t have “free will”, then Fatalism is True, and if Fatalism is True, then that is your evidence for a conscious “God”.

And what is the evidence for “free willy” … NONE. In fact all of the evidence argues against “free will”.

Atoms obey the Laws of Physics (TLOP)
You are made of atoms.
You obey TLOP.

TLOP (God) makes/controls YOU makes/controls CAR

In the same way that YOU are more conscious than CAR, TLOP must be more conscious than YOU. More conscious things control less conscious things. To claim otherwise is analogous to claiming that when YOU go for a ride in your CAR, your CAR has more “free will” (is more in control) than YOU are!

I say that A-Theism is “Mystical” Religion because one cannot be an A-Theist without a strong (yet typically hidden) belief in “magic”. The basis for the A-Theists magical “free willy” powers is typically an incomprehensible appeal to the magic of “Quantum Randomness”. Essentially this boils down to the A-Theist claiming that the present is not based on the past, and the future not being based on the present (magic). As if this weren’t ridiculous enough, A-Theists seem to think that claiming the entire universe and complete functioning set of The Laws of Physics (TLOP) just magically popped out of the Void one day is a “Scientific” claim. There is nothing scientific about claiming that anything magically appears out of nowhere. Claiming that the entire Universe magically appeared and calling it “Scientific” is simply delusional. That is a complete and total rejection of Science in my mind.

You say I am an atheist, that's bad in your eyes. So what are you? If god doesn't exist doesn't that make you the same as me? Explain simply.

I believe in a Deity. I worship the Logical Goddess (The Goddess of Skepticism).

I am a Logical Deist. Logical Deism (LD) is a non-dogmatic, non-mystical belief system based on Logic and Natural Law. LD operates under the premise that reality is completely logical, objective, and ultimately completely comprehensible. It is a highly optimistic worldview. We are kind of like Anti-Atheists.

28th February 2003, 02:00 AM

Originally posted by Franko
Ms. Pie,hehe ... Welcome to the R & P forum Darling. :) X Ty Babes X

Why do you think us Men find you Women so irresistible in the first place? ;) Hee hee Franko you dark horse ;) Too right mans place is to worship and lay on the ground for us us women to walk are dark sides all over ;)

My point is you have a very similar type of relationship with “God”. But let me explain what I mean …

Try and imagine what it must have been like when you were first born – when you were an infant. How do you suppose you perceived your mother then? Are you sure that you even perceived her as an entity like Yourself? Compared to you as a newborn, your mother possessed “magical powers” that were far beyond you ability to comprehend. She could walk, and talk. She had the ability to make matter appear and disappear at will. Even as you grew older I bet you perceived you mother as a semi-omnipotent being. I bet that you believed that if your mother did not do something it wasn't’t because She could’t do it … it was because She didn't’t want to do it. Ahh but as a baby the world revolves around me, I manipulate the adults to do my bidding don't I? As I grow up that idealism is shattered as reality kicks in as I find that I was not center of the universe I was a helpless being. That alone then makes me(hypothetically) push the boundaries to how far I can go.

For all intent and purposes “God” has a 13 billion year evolutionary head start on you. For you to perceive Her as She really is, is analogous to an ant trying to perceive that a Human is a fellow living being. True thought I still wouldn't acknowledge the *God* part more like environment and biology had a head start. Perception what I perceive as real may and is often different from others, yes that part I do understand. Does my nonacceptance of certain things blind what I do see is a good question to ask?

In a manner of speaking – Yes – “matter” is imaginary, or more accurately, the “matter” is not as real as You or I. True matter is in the form we view it as so I suppose there could be a doubt there. We only know it is thee as somebody has told us its there before hand. There lies another quandary.

OK … A-Theism is not what you think. A-Theism is just another mystical religion with it’s own deity and system of dogma. The “God” of A-Theism is “free willy” (Belief in Free will). In order to be an A-Theist you have to believe in some form of “free will”. It is impossible for a person to call themselves an A-Theist and have any consistency in their beliefs at all without first asserting the existence of these “magical powers”. You see, if you don’t have “free will”, then Fatalism is True, and if Fatalism is True, then that is your evidence for a conscious “God”.

And what is the evidence for “free willy” … NONE. In fact all of the evidence argues against “free will”.
Stop saying free willy you keep getingt me all excited ;)

Now free will, does it exist for the best part no it is limited.

Dogma??

Explain fatalism

But why *god terms* why does it have to be a god not a natural thing?

Atoms obey the Laws of Physics (TLOP)
You are made of atoms.
You obey TLOP.

TLOP (God) makes/controls YOU makes/controls CAR

In the same way that YOU are more conscious than CAR, TLOP must be more conscious than YOU. More conscious things control less conscious things. To claim otherwise is analogous to claiming that when YOU go for a ride in your CAR, your CAR has more “free will” (is more in control) than YOU are![/quote see now this really confuses me. the law of physics TLOP?? why does it have to be conscious?

[quote]I say that A-Theism is “Mystical” Religion because one cannot be an A-Theist without a strong (yet typically hidden) belief in “magic”. The basis for the A-Theists magical “free willy” powers is typically an incomprehensible appeal to the magic of “Quantum Randomness”. Essentially this boils down to the A-Theist claiming that the present is not based on the past, and the future not being based on the present (magic). As if this weren't’t ridiculous enough, A-Theists seem to think that claiming the entire universe and complete functioning set of The Laws of Physics (TLOP) just magically popped out of the Void one day is a “Scientific” claim. There is nothing scientific about claiming that anything magically appears out of nowhere. Claiming that the entire Universe magically appeared and calling it “Scientific” is simply delusional. That is a complete and total rejection of Science in my mind. you and the free willy stoppit ;)

why is it? Confused again. Science explains things ok we dot know how the universe appeared but there are good theories to explain it's beginning?

I believe in a Deity. I worship the Logical Goddess (The Goddess of Skepticism). I am skeptical but also remain open minded on something too, perhaps that is why I get confused so much:D

I am a Logical Deist. Logical Deism (LD) is a non-dogmatic, non-mystical belief system based on Logic and Natural Law. LD operates under the premise that reality is completely logical, objective, and ultimately completely comprehensible. It is a highly optimistic worldview. We are kind of like Anti-Atheists. Need more info, logic yes I understand, but you use god that makes me think religion and there fore contradicts atheism, confused again.

Penrich

28th February 2003, 12:20 PM

Originally posted by Franko
And what is the evidence for “free will” … NONE. In fact all of the evidence argues against “free will”.

Atoms obey the Laws of Physics (TLOP)
You are made of atoms.
You obey TLOP.

Since this thread has become a place for Franko to be open about his beliefs, may I ask a question?

In my understanding of science, neurology especially, our thought processes are governed by neurons - chemical reactions, pathways built up over time, reinforced with use, others neglected wither and are replaced by new ones. These form memories, experiences and together lead us to act in certain ways when faced with new challenges/decisions. This is my defintion of free will.

Franko - you obviously know more about physics and neurobiology than I - can you explain to me exactly how the laws of physics control this process? How does Heisenburg's Uncertainty principle fit in with this? How can the course of neural development be preordained? Given especially that biology tends to be not 100% one way or another - gradients of development "factors" (homeo-box containing proteins and the like), graded gene responses, etc.

28th February 2003, 02:31 PM

Franko,

What you believe the logical deity part etc, is it like what the book of the Kabbalah/Zohar teaches?

The teaching of invisible universal laws like a spiritual equivalent of gravity thing? When you meditate you reach a divine light which helps you understand these laws and so improve your life ?

Franko

28th February 2003, 03:23 PM

Pie:
The teaching of invisible universal laws like a spiritual equivalent of gravity thing?

I certainly understand where Lucus came up with the idea of “the Force”.

When you meditate you reach a divine light which helps you understand these laws and so improve your life ?

I’ve heard people describe it like that.

What’s the Source of the Truth, Pie? Is it some random non-conscious force, or is it something much, much more like us, only older and wiser … more evolved?

A-Theist always want god to appear out of the clouds surrounded by angels and radiant light. I guess She can, but Gods like the DM in D&D, She doesn’t physically manifest as an entity like us in this reality, because 1) She’s generating this reality (She “is” the reality (her mind projects it)), and 2) because Her physically manifesting would rather defeat the entire purpose of the Universe being created in the first place (it would make us all conformist).

Franko

28th February 2003, 03:38 PM

Penrich:
... can you explain to me exactly how the laws of physics control this process? How does Heisenburg's Uncertainty principle fit in with this? How can the course of neural development be preordained? Given especially that biology tends to be not 100% one way or another - gradients of development "factors" (homeo-box containing proteins and the like), graded gene responses, etc.

Let me just set you straight on the heisenberg magical uncertainty principle real quick. Quantum “magic” is a myth. It doesn’t exist. First of all, particles only “seem” to do their “magic” when no one is looking. As soon as some one looks, then they are as real and as solid as you or me.

Ohhh, but wait! the A-Theists cry. You forget about the Heinyberg unsupernaturalty principle! They don’t really look solid at all you can only see position, or velocity, but you can’t see both. But actually they are wrong, very wrong. You take a picture of the particles, and then you look at the picture, and low and behold you just blasted hienyberg a new and larger heinyberg, because in that image is far more certainty than Heiny or John Bell says is possible to ever know.

It’s just like Einstein said, The Goddess does not play dice with the universe. She just uses Her own imagination.

As to your questions regarding genetics. Our DNA is like a “body program” the Goddess has been working on for a long, long time. She is making constant improvements to the overall algorithm. Your body comes from the LG, it’s not you, it’s just your “character”, it’s like the clothes you wear while you’re here in this universe. The real You is your Soul, your graviton, your core algorithm. Your Soul manifest in your genetics as “random” mutations in the DNA sequence. But where your Soul really manifest is in the personality. It’s far more magnified at that point.

28th February 2003, 03:41 PM

Originally posted by Franko

I certainly understand where Lucas came up with the idea of “the Force”.

I’ve heard people describe it like that.

What’s the Source of the Truth, Pie? Is it some random non-conscious force, or is it something much, much more like us, only older and wiser … more evolved?

A-Theist always want god to appear out of the clouds surrounded by angels and radiant light. I guess She can, but Gods like the DM in D&D, She does'nt’t physically manifest as an entity like us in this reality, because 1) She’s generating this reality (She “is” the reality (her mind projects it)), and 2) because Her physically manifesting would rather defeat the entire purpose of the Universe being created in the first place (it would make us all conformist).

Lucas the force lol got it :D

More evolved more conscious? Isn't all consciousness random?

Why she?

Sounds like we are her dreams?

What you say sounds like the Kabbalah teaching similar law and invisible laws gravity etc.

Franko

28th February 2003, 03:59 PM

Princess Pie:
More evolved more conscious? Isn't all consciousness random?

In the sense that you and I were lucky enough to be born humans instead of dogs, cows, or worms. But who knows … on the scale of Eternity … ?

Why she?

What makes you think it’s a he? ;)

Sounds like we are her dreams?

That’s the Eastern way of looking at it, but it is not accurate, and I believe it leads to conformity. Gravitons (individual self-aware consciousnesses), Time-aware entities are all intrinsically the same. We all share a common core algorithm. She’s definitely way above us on the pyramid of reality, but we are inherently just as solid as She is.

But you could look at yourself in the same light. You have good memes (good ideas) and bad memes (bad ideas) inside your head, and those memes are like individual entities in some regard, and You are like the Goddess of that universe, you are the one who will pass ultimate judgment over those memes, declaring which memes get their autonomy, and which memes are consigned to languish in the Abyss and be forgotten.

What you say sounds like the Kabbalah teaching similar law and invisible laws gravity etc

According to LD, Gravity is the unifying, or constant force through out the entire Omniverse. In other words, if there were different Universes all of the laws of physics could be altered in the different universes, but not Gravity.

28th February 2003, 04:19 PM

My view... if god(s) was/were proven to exist, could there possibly be anything more important? I'd become a believer, if not a worshipper.

Franko

28th February 2003, 04:27 PM

My view... if god(s) was/were proven to exist, could there possibly be anything more important? I'd become a believer, if not a worshipper.

You seem to be doing a good job of believing in "free willy" right now, and there is no evidence for "free willy" what-so-ever.

Atoms obey the Laws of Physics.
You are made of atoms.
You obey The laws of Physics.

How can you worship a god ("free willy") that clearly doesn't even exist?

You're worshipping the wrong deity, my friend.

28th February 2003, 04:28 PM

Originally posted by Thorin LungHammer
My view... if god(s) was/were proven to exist, could there possibly be anything more important? I'd become a believer, if not a worshipper.

Why TLH if it was proven?

28th February 2003, 04:39 PM

I didnt think he either unsexed was in my mind.

No memes are bad, dont meme me

Ahhh penny is dropping slowly its making sense sort of I can see what you mean.:D

Franko

28th February 2003, 05:42 PM

Pie:
I didnt think he either unsexed was in my mind.

Ohhh, my goddess … you SkeptiChicks are simply to delectable for mere words.

Spin (Gender) is an intrinsic property of all gravitons. Viewed from one level in the hierarchy it is definitely a binary option – it is either Positive, or Negative. But once you rise about a certain base level Spin manifest as a Sequence. It’s a range – a scale. Above a mean value (0, or “Neutral Spin”) you have Positive, and below that same mean you have Negative.

The LG has a Positive Spin.

No memes are bad, dont meme me

Anytime you exchange any comprehensible information with any other consciousness you are memeing and being memed. Memes are like packets of information (quanta) than Gravitons exchange. And technically speaking, Gravitons (individual consciousnesses) are made of memes.

(Meme = an encapsulated idea)

There are plenty of “bad memes”. There are memes that are downright “Evil”. And they are evil by any logically consistent definition of that term. Look … this universe is like a “system”, and that system was based on a simpler previous system. Now when this “newer” system was created/designed someone made improvements on the old system, but we were still stuck with the old data as the starting point, and some of that data was bad (False). The new system is designed to sniff out and eliminate that bad data, and correct flaws in the overall algorithm, but that doesn’t change the fact that there is still bad data in the system.

[Gravity …] Ahhh penny is dropping slowly its making sense sort of I can see what you mean.

People go from one extreme to the other, their algorithm is cycling. Things may not seem constant, it may seem that reality cannot possibly be consistent over Time, but there is a fundamental constant that stretches across Time and unifies Eternity. It’s our way of keeping the good ideas (memes) as we move along.

How do you describe your metaphysical stance Pie? At first I thought you were an A-Theist, but now I wonder if you more likely label yourself Agnostic or Buddhist beyond the universe of this forum?

28th February 2003, 05:56 PM

Originally posted by Franko

You seem to be doing a good job of believing in "free willy" right now, and there is no evidence for "free willy" what-so-ever.

Atoms obey the Laws of Physics.
You are made of atoms.
You obey The laws of Physics.

How can you worship a god ("free willy") that clearly doesn't even exist?

You're worshipping the wrong deity, my friend.

When I was young, my mother used to knock on my door and tell me, "Your record's skipping again." whenever I listened to my Philip Glass LPs.

Frank, your record's skipping again...

Franko

28th February 2003, 06:11 PM

When I was young, my mother used to knock on my door and tell me, "Your record's skipping again." whenever I listened to my Philip Glass LPs.

Frank, your record's skipping again...

I just wonder why some one would be so proud of looking down on Theists while holding a fundamental core belief based on far less evidence (None) then the very people you are so proud to look down on?

And then to repeat this utterance in a Skeptics forum of all places? It boggles the mind ... ? ? ?

28th February 2003, 06:32 PM

Originally posted by Franko

I just wonder why some one would be so proud of looking down on Theists while holding a fundamental core belief based on far less evidence (None) then the very people you are so proud to look down on?

And then to repeat this utterance in a Skeptics forum of all places? It boggles the mind ... ? ? ?

So now I'm 'proud of looking down on theists'... so proud... do we know each other? Have I ever expressed this pride to you?

Your rec- rec- rec- rec- rec(smack) record's skipping Franko.

I look at the concept of god skeptically. I have no 'fundamental core belief', rather, a lack of belief. I can't find any reason to believe in a god.

Franko, you often make me think. More often, however, I find your ad nauseum repetition of the same ideas boring. Gotta keep your potential audience interested Franko. :rolleyes:

Penrich

28th February 2003, 07:41 PM

Originally posted by Franko

Let me just set you straight on the heisenberg magical uncertainty principle real quick. Quantum ?magic? is a myth. It doesn?t exist. First of all, particles only ?seem? to do their ?magic? when no one is looking. As soon as some one looks, then they are as real and as solid as you or me.

Ohhh, but wait! the A-Theists cry. You forget about the Heinyberg unsupernaturalty principle! They don?t really look solid at all you can only see position, or velocity, but you can?t see both. But actually they are wrong, very wrong. You take a picture of the particles, and then you look at the picture, and low and behold you just blasted hienyberg a new and larger heinyberg, because in that image is far more certainty than Heiny or John Bell says is possible to ever know.

It?s just like Einstein said, The Goddess does not play dice with the universe. She just uses Her own imagination. I am glad that you are so knowledgeable about physics (after all, it is your religion). Can you point me to a peer-reviewed journal in which the HUP and quantum mechanics is debunked?

As to your questions regarding genetics. Our DNA is like a ?body program? the Goddess has been working on for a long, long time. She is making constant improvements to the overall algorithm. Your body comes from the LG, it?s not you, it?s just your ?character?, it?s like the clothes you wear while you?re here in this universe. The real You is your Soul, your graviton, your core algorithm. Your Soul manifest in your genetics as ?random? mutations in the DNA sequence. But where your Soul really manifest is in the personality. It?s far more magnified at that point.
I mentioned "genes" once right at the end. It was not a genetics question at all. I was asking about neurons (nerve cells, in the brain...).

Let me put it to you in this way then: Do the laws of physics (TLOP, as you call them) control every single aspect of biology? A simple YES or NO answer would suffice.

Penrich

28th February 2003, 08:09 PM

Originally posted by Franko

Let me just set you straight on the heisenberg magical uncertainty principle real quick. Quantum ?magic? is a myth. It doesn?t exist. First of all, particles only ?seem? to do their ?magic? when no one is looking. As soon as some one looks, then they are as real and as solid as you or me.

Ohhh, but wait! the A-Theists cry. You forget about the Heinyberg unsupernaturalty principle! They don?t really look solid at all you can only see position, or velocity, but you can?t see both. But actually they are wrong, very wrong. You take a picture of the particles, and then you look at the picture, and low and behold you just blasted hienyberg a new and larger heinyberg, because in that image is far more certainty than Heiny or John Bell says is possible to ever know.

It?s just like Einstein said, The Goddess does not play dice with the universe. She just uses Her own imagination.

Einstein was very unhappy about this apparent randomness in nature. His views were summed up in his famous phrase, 'God does not play dice'. He seemed to have felt that the uncertainty was only provisional: but that there was an underlying reality, in which particles would have well defined positions and speeds, and would evolve according to deterministic laws, in the spirit of Laplace. This reality might be known to God, but the quantum nature of light would prevent us seeing it, except through a glass darkly.

Einstein's view was what would now be called, a hidden variable theory. Hidden variable theories might seem to be the most obvious way to incorporate the Uncertainty Principle into physics. They form the basis of the mental picture of the universe, held by many scientists, and almost all philosophers of science. But these hidden variable theories are wrong. The British physicist, John Bell, who died recently, devised an experimental test that would distinguish hidden variable theories. When the experiment was carried out carefully, the results were inconsistent with hidden variables. Thus it seems that even God is bound by the Uncertainty Principle, and can not know both the position, and the speed, of a particle. So God does play dice with the universe. All the evidence points to him being an inveterate gambler, who throws the dice on every possible occasion.
From http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/dice.html (my emphasis)

Again - if you are going to say the HUP is false, I am going to need some very good evidence (but, you already know that, being a skeptic yourself).

Franko

28th February 2003, 08:33 PM

Penrich: (Skeptic)
Let me put it to you in this way then: Do the laws of physics (TLOP, as you call them) control every single aspect of biology? A simple YES or NO answer would suffice.

Depends upon what you specifically mean by “biology”.

If you are asking if TLOP decided what your body was going to look like – YES TLOP decided.

If you are asking if TLOP decides everything regarding your existence; if you are asking if TLOP created you utterly and entirely – the answer is NO.

If you are asking if TLOP is controlling your ultimate Fate – She’s judging it, but it’s your Fate.

Einstein was very unhappy about this apparent randomness in nature. His views were summed up in his famous phrase, 'God does not play dice'. He seemed to have felt that the uncertainty was only provisional: but that there was an underlying reality, in which particles would have well defined positions and speeds, and would evolve according to deterministic laws, in the spirit of Laplace. This reality might be known to God, but the quantum nature of light would prevent us seeing it, except through a glass darkly.

Einstein's view was what would now be called, a hidden variable theory. Hidden variable theories might seem to be the most obvious way to incorporate the Uncertainty Principle into physics. They form the basis of the mental picture of the universe, held by many scientists, and almost all philosophers of science. But these hidden variable theories are wrong. The British physicist, John Bell, who died recently, devised an experimental test that would distinguish hidden variable theories. When the experiment was carried out carefully, the results were inconsistent with hidden variables.

Heisenberg was wrong, and then Bell compounded the error. There are two hidden variables – Time and Consciousness. Bell overlooked Both.

If you take a image of sub-atomic particles in a super-collider, then by examining the image you can determine both velocity and position well below the Heisenberg limit, and well below what John Bell swore was impossible! Essentially John Bell proved that you can’t know what the particle is going to do 100% accurately in the future, and based on an incomplete history of the particle you are observing in the present.

Thus it seems that even God is bound by the Uncertainty Principle, and can not know both the position, and the speed, of a particle. So God does play dice with the universe. All the evidence points to him being an inveterate gambler, who throws the dice on every possible occasion.

Yeah, but I’ll tell you something, get your velocity up closer to the speed of light, and I wonder if things don’t start looking a whole lot more deterministic? It only looks like God is doing magic because Her hands are a lot quicker than your minds-eye.

Penrich

28th February 2003, 10:39 PM

Originally posted by Franko

Depends upon what you specifically mean by ?biology?.

If you are asking if TLOP decided what your body was going to look like ? YES TLOP decided.

If you are asking if TLOP decides everything regarding your existence; if you are asking if TLOP created you utterly and entirely ? the answer is NO.

If you are asking if TLOP is controlling your ultimate Fate ? She?s judging it, but it?s your Fate.

No - it doesn't depend on what I specifically mean by biology. You claim
Atoms obey the Laws of Physics.
You are made of atoms.
You obey The laws of Physics

All biological entities are made of atoms correct? Thus all of biology is decided by TLOP, correct?

Penrich

28th February 2003, 10:46 PM

Originally posted by Franko
Heisenberg was wrong, and then Bell compounded the error. There are two hidden variables ? Time and Consciousness. Bell overlooked Both.

If you take a image of sub-atomic particles in a super-collider, then by examining the image you can determine both velocity and position well below the Heisenberg limit, and well below what John Bell swore was impossible! Essentially John Bell proved that you can?t know what the particle is going to do 100% accurately in the future, and based on an incomplete history of the particle you are observing in the present.

A reference for this please. I am not much of a physicist, so take it easy on me...

But are you not saying in this line "you can?t know what the particle is going to do 100% accurately in the future, and based on an incomplete history of the particle you are observing in the present. " That the HUP is correct - you cannot know what it will do in the future based on what you know about its past (or even present). I only have dull recollections of this stuff in my physics classes, but I thought that basically WAS the HUP?

Intersting as this is - it is actiually irrelevant to the main point of my questions which was how does the law of physics determine neurone function?

Doctor X

28th February 2003, 10:54 PM

Again - if you are going to say the HUP is false, I am going to need some very good evidence (but, you already know that, being a skeptic yourself).

Funny that he never provided it.

However, one could have predicted that, methinks.

--J.D.

Penrich

28th February 2003, 11:08 PM

Add to quote you from another ]thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=351891) (I'm having trouble keeping up with all of your posts!)

You are just your physical brain, and your physical brain is simply made of atoms (chemicals) which obey the same laws of chemistry that ALL chemicals obey! How do the chemicals in your brain have any more ?free will? than some chemicals in a beaker somewhere?

And the timeless classic TLOP (God) controls YOU controls CAR

In summary, biology = chemistry = physics. All governed of course, by TLOP. Am I correct?

Franko

28th February 2003, 11:14 PM

Penrich:
All biological entities are made of atoms correct? Thus all of biology is decided by TLOP, correct?

Atoms obey TLOP, and you are made of atoms … what do you think?

But are you not saying in this line "you can?t know what the particle is going to do 100% accurately in the future, and based on an incomplete history of the particle you are observing in the present.

Sure if you only have an incomplete history …

" That the HUP is correct –

(HUP = Heisenberg Uncertain (supernatural) Principle)

you cannot know what it will do in the future based on what you know about its past (or even present).

No.

Are you listening to what I am saying, or are you just trying to find any way possible to believe what you want to believe regardless of what is actually True?

I only have dull recollections of this stuff in my physics classes, but I thought that basically WAS the HUP?

Apparently you must have been sleeping through the class when they covered the Copenhagen interpretation of QM. No matter, the A-Theist have it on the list of prohibited books, it’s probably best you let a guy like Dr X (aka De-Bungler) do your thinking for you. Besides It’s not nearly as magical or “romantic” as the Feynman-Star Trek version.

The fact that it has even more evidence than the supernatural and mythic A-Theist version, minus all the bothersome logical contradictions and inconsistencies is probably not even worth me mentioning. Guys like Neils Bohr -- claiming that reality doesn’t exist until you look -- are clearly delusional religious fanatics. :rolleyes:

The A-Theists are trying to brainwash you, and you’re letting it happen.

Penrich

28th February 2003, 11:29 PM

Originally posted by Doctor X

Funny that he never provided it.

However, one could have predicted that, methinks.

--J.D. Asked twice now - three times and you are out.

EDIT - but posted before I saw his answer above. there is some kind of reference in there...

Penrich

28th February 2003, 11:54 PM

No-one is brain washing me (I hope...).

I will look into the Coopenhagen Interpretation and the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen argument. Way too deep for me right now.

But, back to TLOP. I am trying to fathom just what TLOP is responsible for. From your above response, every single chemical reaction, and thus every single enzymatic reaction is dependent on TLOP. Thus, using TLOP, they can be predicted in advance. Otherwise, what use the law, right? Just taking it one step at a time, so I don't get ahead of myself.

Franko

1st March 2003, 12:10 AM

Penrich:
I will look into the Coopenhagen Interpretation and the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen argument. Way too deep for me right now.

EPR, isn’t that tough.

Suppose you and I have a magic set of coins. Every time one of them is flipped the other also flips. And if the one coin lands HEADs up, then by necessity the other must land TAILs up.

Of course since this happens instantly (and it is empirically verified) it takes a big whiz all over the speed of light … but who’s really paying attention to insignificant details like this when you have already concluded that God doesn’t exist based on no evidence what-so-ever?

Penrich:
But, back to TLOP. I am trying to fathom just what TLOP is responsible for. From your above response, every single chemical reaction, and thus every single enzymatic reaction is dependent on TLOP. Thus, using TLOP, they can be predicted in advance. Otherwise, what use the law, right? Just taking it one step at a time, so I don't get ahead of myself.

The “Uncertainty” in the Uncertainty principle, really isn’t that uncertain at all. It is actually the interaction (entanglement) between yourself and the LG. It's the interaction of Gravity.

Tell me this, how can John Bell be so sure there are no hidden variables when John Bell has no idea how Quantum Gravity works? Someone could come along and solve QG, and John Bell and Heinyberg could be out on the street faster than the Flat-Earthers after Galileo, or The Aether-advocates post Einstein. When some nitwit claims that some thing will be unknown (or uncertain) for ALL times you just know they are begging to be made a fool of. To even think otherwise is to have a fundamental misunderstanding about what Science really is.

Penrich

1st March 2003, 06:45 AM

Interesting, but not relevant to the question I asked.

Doctor X

1st March 2003, 07:28 AM

Penrich:

Asked twice now - three times and you are out.

EDIT - but posted before I saw his answer above. there is some kind of reference in there...

Indeed, reference without any attempt to provide evidence for his claims.

I seem to have a good record predicting his behavior. It generally follows this pattern:

1. Make an unsupported irrelevant claim.
2. Ignore requests for support for irrelevant claim.
3. Respond to repeated requests by insulting the questioners, accusing them of making arguments they did not make, and repeating logical fallacies.
4. Repeat

As noted on other threads, he seems reduced now to just suffering from emotional incontinence. This does not harm anyone other than himself; however, in a sordid way, it is amusing to watch.

You probably did not miss his inability to discuss the neurobiological issues he raised. Perhaps he hoped you had forgotten them.

To extend your analogy, he is rather like a batsman still swinging madly at the plate long after both teams have left, and security has locked up the stadium.

--J.D.

Q-Source

1st March 2003, 10:34 AM

Originally posted by Pie

you and the free willy stoppit ;)

why is it? Confused again. Science explains things ok we dot know how the universe appeared but there are good theories to explain it's beginning?

Pie,

If you weren't so funny, I would be very upset with you for flirting with the Serpent (my boy :p).

Your posts keep me laughing and laughing :D

Q-S

Unas

1st March 2003, 01:22 PM

Originally posted by Franko
Apparently you must have been sleeping through the class when they covered the Copenhagen interpretation of QM. No matter, the A-Theist have it on the list of prohibited books...What list is that, Franko?

The answer is: None. No such list exists.

Doesn't all this accumulated bad karma from your continual lying bother you in the least, little meat puppet?

Penrich

1st March 2003, 03:41 PM

Originally posted by Franko
The Copenhagen interpretation of QM, my friend. The A-Theists like to pretend that it doesn't exist. It kind of throws a wrench into their whole "magic did it" theory.

I've already said it doesn't actually matter exactly how you define the laws of physics. My question was:

But, back to TLOP. I am trying to fathom just what TLOP is responsible for. From your above response, every single chemical reaction, and thus every single enzymatic reaction is dependent on TLOP. Thus, using TLOP, they can be predicted in advance. Otherwise, what use the law, right?

I am going to assume (unless you respond in the negative) that your answer is thus YES - the TLOP are responsible for every chemical reaction and the outcome can thus be predicted 100% in advance.

Franko

1st March 2003, 09:54 PM

Penrich:
I am going to assume (unless you respond in the negative) that your answer is thus YES - the TLOP are responsible for every chemical reaction and the outcome can thus be predicted 100% in advance.

Atoms obey The Laws of Physics. Are you claiming otherwise?

Or are you trying to say that you don't believe the present is based on the past?

Listen Penrich, please don't play the little A-Theist game of pretending that Determinism means Omniscience. One doesn't require proof of Omniscience if they are asking for evidence that Determinism is True.

Why do you believe Determinism is False, because some "smart" A-Theist professor told you the Universe was magic at the fundamental level? Did you offer him a sacrifice for that divine knowledge?

Unas

2nd March 2003, 04:42 AM

This post is a response to Franko's post #360098 (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=360098#post360098). Should that post vanish, it will mean that Franko has deleted it. He will most likely repost it below, to make it appear as though no one had responded to it. His actions will be yet another demonstration of his fundamental intellectual dishonesty.
Originally posted by Franko
Why do you believe Determinism is False...Franko is lying again. Penrich has not claimed that "Determinism is False".

Penrich

2nd March 2003, 08:29 AM

Originally posted by Franko

Atoms obey The Laws of Physics. Are you claiming otherwise?
No - I am asking what you think. You appear unable to answer a direct question though.

Listen Penrich, please don't play the little A-Theist game of pretending that Determinism means Omniscience. One doesn't require proof of Omniscience if they are asking for evidence that Determinism is True.

Why do you believe Determinism is False, because some "smart" A-Theist professor told you the Universe was magic at the fundamental level? Did you offer him a sacrifice for that divine knowledge?
I hate condescension, especially from one who claims willing to explain, but then is completely unable to do so. For all you know, I may be the smart University professor...

My understanding of TLOP as defined by you is that everything that happens is determined by TLOP. One who is able to COMPLETELY comprehend TLOP is able to predict with unflailing accuracy everything that will happen in the universe. Such a hypothetical being is what I understand your Logical Godess to be. Am I right so far?

OK - so assuming I am correct (I hate to "assume" all the time, but in the absence of direct conformation or denial, it is the best I can do) every chemical process, every biological process is controlled by TLOP. i.e. TLOP are deterministic. (Where did I mention omni-anything in this thread?). You as much said so when you said If you are asking if TLOP decided what your body was going to look like ? YES TLOP decided.i.e. TLOP determines gene expression, protein levels, enzyme activity etc etc etc.

Thus --- everything can be predicted given enough knowledge of TLOP.

My question to you is very simple: where does biological variation fit into this?

Franko

2nd March 2003, 11:22 AM

My understanding of TLOP as defined by you is that everything that happens is determined by TLOP. One who is able to COMPLETELY comprehend TLOP is able to predict with unflailing accuracy everything that will happen in the universe. Such a hypothetical being is what I understand your Logical Godess to be. Am I right so far?

More or less, but it is more complicated then you have it here.

Essentially the LG controls 3 out of the 4 forces completely. The 4th force (Gravity) binds Her exactly the same as it binds us.

… well, not EXACTLY, the same. In the same way that You or I understand Electromagnetism far better than a Dog does, the LG comprehends Gravity far better than you or I do. Really, the LG’s superior knowledge of Gravity (Time) is what makes Her so much more powerful then us. Her knowledge of Gravity is what allowed her to create the other 3 forces (They are all based on Gravity (used Gravity as a model))

OK - so assuming I am correct (I hate to "assume" all the time, but in the absence of direct conformation or denial, it is the best I can do)

Hey, listen Unas, Dr. X whatever you are calling yourself now. If you don’t want to play the game, don’t think that I am going to play myself and let you watch.

every chemical process, every biological process is controlled by TLOP. i.e. TLOP are deterministic. (Where did I mention omni-anything in this thread?). You as much said so when you said

Everything is Deterministic, correct.

i.e. TLOP determines gene expression, protein levels, enzyme activity etc etc etc.

Thus --- everything can be predicted given enough knowledge of TLOP.

My question to you is very simple: where does biological variation fit into this?

It’s the nature of the system to evolve. A consciousness left alone in Time doesn’t just sit there doing nothing. It is constantly thinking, constantly pondering new ideas, constantly growing.

Either that, or it withers and dies.

Doctor X

2nd March 2003, 11:33 AM

TallyHO!!

Hey, listen Unas, Dr. X whatever you . . . . are calling yourself now. If you don?t want to play the game, don?t think that I am going to play myself and let you watch.

Indeed for the Bigotted Coward et Liar et Hypocrit is far too busy fleeing across the threads.

FASTER!!! Faster!!! The hounds are nearly upon you!!

I mean, at least tried to make some sport out of it.

--J.D.

Doctor X

2nd March 2003, 11:43 AM

Surround'd and expos'd will he NOW address the Child. . .

. . . or will he show his yellow tail again and run further. . . .

Hurry up, it is hard to keep the hounds at bay.

--J.D.

Franko

2nd March 2003, 11:57 AM

Ahh, the A-Theist Trolls are out in force today.

Ohh, I guess it is all my fault for NOT being another brainwashed hypocritical A-Theist moron.

When will I learn?

I am going to concentrate real hard and try and believe in "free willy" based on no evidence.

Lets see how I do ...

(thinking ... thinking ... thinking ... thinking ... thinking ...)

I don't think it's working ...

(thinking ... thinking ... thinking ... thinking ...

Doctor X

2nd March 2003, 12:02 PM

. . . or hoofs . . . or paws . . . or . . . have you ever considered actually cleaning your "feet?"

May attract other things than voles . . . perhaps the same species or something.

Nevertheless:

HE AVOIDS THE CHOICE of the CHILD!!!!

Why?

Does the thinking hurt so much?

That he cannot demonstrate critical thinking remains his error and not that of anyone else.

--J.D.

Franko

2nd March 2003, 12:05 PM

you STILL haven’t presented ANY evidence for your religious beliefs, and since you post NOTHING but the same spam over and over again, what do you want me to say? If you have an actual argument for your religious beliefs – some evidence – I’ll be happy to discuss it with you, but your spam doesn’t really require anything other than me restating the obvious. I realize you don’t like your hypocrisy exposed Doctor X/De-Bungler, perhaps you should run along then? I honestly don’t know why you keep non-responding to all of my posts?

Actually, I do know why … It’s because you are a severely brainwashed religious fanatic with no evidence for his beliefs.

What is your evidence for the existence of “free will”?
Doctor X fanatical A-Theist: NONE, but I devoutly and dogmatically believe in “free will” anyway!

What is your evidence for the non-existence of “god”?
Doctor X fanatical A-Theist: NONE, but I devoutly and dogmatically believe there is NO “god”, and anyone who believes otherwise is a credulous Theist moron!

--------------------------

What is your evidence for the non-existence of “free will”?
Franko, Logical Deist: Atoms obey TLOP; You are made of Atoms; YOU OBEY TLOP!

What is your evidence for the existence of “god”?
Franko, Logical Deist: TLOP (“god”) makes/controls YOU makes/controls CAR.
In the same way that YOU are more conscious then a CAR, TLOP is more conscious then YOU.

When are you going to explain what the "YOU" is that is making the "decisions"??? I thought that according to Materialism there was no "YOU"? I thought that "YOU" were nothing more then a collection of Atoms?

Why do you believe that the atoms in your brain aren't controlled by the laws of Physics, Unas? You never seem to want to explain this? What are you hiding A-Theist? Are you embarrassed to tell us what you believe?

LucyR

2nd March 2003, 12:06 PM

Originally posted by Franko

Essentially the LG controls 3 out of the 4 forces completely. The 4th force (Gravity) binds Her exactly the same as it binds us.

I was under the impression there were at most only three distinct forces, viz. the strong nuclear force, the electro-weak force, and gravity.

This total may have been further reduced in recent years. I have however, lost touch with this branch of physics. Are there any genuine theoreticians out there who'd like to comment?

Unas

2nd March 2003, 12:12 PM

Originally posted by Franko
Essentially the LG controls 3 out of the 4 forces completely.A simple question that you should have no problem answering, Franko:

What is the empirically verifiable evidence for the existence of the "Logical Goddess"?

Doctor X

2nd March 2003, 12:45 PM

Since the blatherings were posted on another thread, the response to them suffices here. . . .

Having cornered him in the pig sty, they watch him flounder a bit. Instructs Staff to stop poking him with the sticks. . . .

. . . you STILL haven?t presented ANY evidence for your religious beliefs, . . .

I have not posted religious beliefs.

The individual is free to choose one of the five conclusions or attempt to justify the suffering.

It is all up to him.

. . . and since you post NOTHING but the same spam (sic) over and over again, . . .

The individual runs, lies, tries to duck the issues, et cetera. He would have avoided it if he merely answered the questions.

. . . what do you want me to say?

The individual has a choice:

1. Choose one of the conclusions
2. Try to justify the suffering.
3. Continue his cowardly and dishonest behavior.

A gentleman would choose one of the first two.

If you have an actual argument for your religious beliefs ? some evidence ? I?ll be happy to discuss it with you. . . .

I am afraid I do not characterize fallacy filled temper-tantrums as "discussion." Nevertheless, the rational for the Child with the Pontine Tumor Problem has been repeated many times, with redundancy.

. . . but your spam doesn?t really require anything other than me restating the obvious.

That he cannot answer the question?

That he is a Coward?

That he is a Liar?

That he is a Hypocrit?

I realize you don?t like your hypocrisy exposed Doctor X/De-Bungler

The attempt to commit an argumentum ad hominem by creating a lie about identity rather demonstrates his own hypocrisy.

Quod erat demonstrandum indeed.

Of course, I never tried to avoid responsibility for my posts by deleting them.

. . . perhaps you should run along then?

If the individual starts running again, I am more than happy to pursue. I will even give him a head start.

I honestly (sic) don?t know why you keep non-responding to all of my posts?

On the contrary, I have pursued him with a rather single purpose:

HE MUST RESPOND TO THE QUESTION OF THE CHILD

I cannot make it clearer than that to the individual.

Perhaps if I type more slowly. . . .

I do know why ? It?s because you are a severely brainwashed religious fanatic with no evidence for his beliefs.

Blathers a "goddess" follower who not only has no evidence for his beliefs he RUNS FROM THE OPPORTUNITY.

Hypocrisy.

Quod erat demonstrandum times two.

Doctor X fanatical A-Theist: NONE, but I devoutly and dogmatically believe in ?free will? anyway!

Since I have never made this statement this renders him a Liar.

Quod erat demonstrandum times three.

What is your evidence for the non-existence of ?god??

Again, I have never made such an argument--Liar again--I have Demonstrated Five Possible Conclusions which the individual has fled from.

Thus:

Doctor X fanatical A-Theist: (sic) NONE, but I devoutly and dogmatically believe there is NO ?god?, and anyone who believes otherwise is a credulous Theist moron!

Again, never made that argument. Argumntum ad veritatem Obfuscandum and, yes, further evidence that he is a Liar.

Now:

What is your evidence for the non-existence of ?free will??
Franko, Logical (sic) Deist: Atoms obey TLOP; You are made of Atoms; YOU OBEY TLOP!

Excellent! As noted, nothing humans do with freewill contravenes the Laws of Physics which brings us to another topic the individual flees from:

The Science of Consciousness

What is your evidence for the existence of ?god??
Franko, Logical Deist: TLOP (?god?)

Is merely an ipse dixit. Despite the fallacy he uses for his sandwich board when frightening children in the neighborhood, he SHOULD be able to then Chose between the 5 Possible Conclusions

Various blatherings follow. . . .

Should the Coward et Liar et Hypocrit wishes to run again, he should avail himself of the Estate's pond--will wash away the mudd and filth of the pig sty.

--J.D.

2nd March 2003, 02:38 PM

Originally posted by Q-Source

Pie,

If you weren't so funny, I would be very upset with you for flirting with the Serpent (my boy :p).

Your posts keep me laughing and laughing :D

Q-S

Well thank you kindly Q-Source, :D A laugh and flirt a day makes you all warm inside.

Flirting with the Serpent(my boy?)Franko do you mean?? but Q-Source I flirt with everybody, I like to give everybody a warm glow, no harm in making everybody feel special is there really.;)

Note flirting in post to you, it my natural nature to do so

Franko

2nd March 2003, 02:47 PM

Pie:
… I flirt with everybody, I like to give everybody a warm glow, no harm in making everybody feel special is there really.

You just keep get better and better Chicky-poo … I got that same MEME!!! Hehehe :D

But in fairness, Q-Source did call dibs on me. (aside: we’ll talk …;) )

2nd March 2003, 02:55 PM

Originally posted by Franko

Ohhh, my goddess … you SkeptiChicks are simply to delectable for mere words.

Spin (Gender) is an intrinsic property of all gravitons. Viewed from one level in the hierarchy it is definitely a binary option – it is either Positive, or Negative. But once you rise about a certain base level Spin manifest as a Sequence. It’s a range – a scale. Above a mean value (0, or “Neutral Spin”) you have Positive, and below that same mean you have Negative.

The LG has a Positive Spin.

Anytime you exchange any comprehensible information with any other consciousness you are memeing and being memed. Memes are like packets of information (quanta) than Gravitons exchange. And technically speaking, Gravitons (individual consciousnesses) are made of memes.

(Meme = an encapsulated idea)

There are plenty of “bad memes”. There are memes that are downright “Evil”. And they are evil by any logically consistent definition of that term. Look … this universe is like a “system”, and that system was based on a simpler previous system. Now when this “newer” system was created/designed someone made improvements on the old system, but we were still stuck with the old data as the starting point, and some of that data was bad (False). The new system is designed to sniff out and eliminate that bad data, and correct flaws in the overall algorithm, but that doesn’t change the fact that there is still bad data in the system.

People go from one extreme to the other, their algorithm is cycling. Things may not seem constant, it may seem that reality cannot possibly be consistent over Time, but there is a fundamental constant that stretches across Time and unifies Eternity. It’s our way of keeping the good ideas (memes) as we move along.

How do you describe your metaphysical stance Pie? At first I thought you were an A-Theist, but now I wonder if you more likely label yourself Agnostic or Buddhist beyond the universe of this forum?

Franko, don't you dare start turning all huffy on me again. :(

I am not atheist I am not agnostic and I am not Buddhist I am everything, I am open minded to everything, I have my own beliefs. Yes I don't think there is a god, for the amount of cruelty and suffering that goes on, if there is a God I will not worship something that allows/encourages such suffering and cruelty when it has the power to stop it and does not. How can I. What am I beyond the universe of this forum, Warm loving and lyal to friends, other than that there are no label or pigeon holes to put me in. I want to leran and evolve my thinking and I will because I have the drive and the willingness to learn. If that is a crime lock me up and throw away the key.

You say logic I to prefer logic (stop laughing I may not seem logical but then never judge a book by its cover or a write by tis writing) I once said to a very close freind, Understanding is a 3 edged sword, There's your side, there's my side and there's the truth. That sums it up. :D

2nd March 2003, 02:58 PM

Originally posted by Franko

You just keep get better and better Chicky-poo … I got that same MEME!!! Hehehe :D

But in fairness, Q-Source did call dibs on me. (aside: we’ll talk …;) ) That case I second dibs you and Q-Source :D

Chicky poo?:(

Franko

2nd March 2003, 03:07 PM

That case I second dibs you and Q-Source

Waiter! Check please.

2nd March 2003, 04:26 PM

Originally posted by Franko

Waiter! Check please.

:( :( Nobody lubs me nobody wants me *boo hooo* :( :(

Franko

2nd March 2003, 04:49 PM

Precious Pie:
Nobody lubs me nobody wants me *boo hooo*

Ohh, No, no, no, Darling. You misunderstood me. My apologies.

Check please ... in as ... Q-Source, Pie -- Ladies get your coats, we are GOING HOME! :D :D :D

;) ... You gotz the good kind of "devilishness" about ya -- don't ya?

2nd March 2003, 05:32 PM

Originally posted by Franko

Ohh, No, no, no, Darling. You misunderstood me. My apologies.

Check please ... in as ... Q-Source, Pie -- Ladies get your coats, we are GOING HOME! :D :D :D

;) ... You gotz the good kind of "devilishness" about ya -- don't ya?

Wohooooooooo :D:D:D

Franko

2nd March 2003, 06:01 PM

Ohhh, Milady Fate, how could you keep this one away from me for so long?

;)

justsaygnosis

2nd March 2003, 06:47 PM

I've partied after every ex so this shouldn't be an exception.

Penrich

2nd March 2003, 08:24 PM

Originally posted by Franko

More or less, but it is more complicated then you have it here.

Essentially the LG controls 3 out of the 4 forces completely. The 4th force (Gravity) binds Her exactly the same as it binds us.

… well, not EXACTLY, the same. In the same way that You or I understand Electromagnetism far better than a Dog does, the LG comprehends Gravity far better than you or I do. Really, the LG’s superior knowledge of Gravity (Time) is what makes Her so much more powerful then us. Her knowledge of Gravity is what allowed her to create the other 3 forces (They are all based on Gravity (used Gravity as a model))

Hey, listen Unas, Dr. X whatever you are calling yourself now. If you don’t want to play the game, don’t think that I am going to play myself and let you watch.
Keep guessing... maybe I'm muscleman's strawman, maybe nobodys???

Everything is Deterministic, correct.

It’s the nature of the system to evolve. A consciousness left alone in Time doesn’t just sit there doing nothing. It is constantly thinking, constantly pondering new ideas, constantly growing.

Either that, or it withers and dies.
Hmmm - wasn't talking evolution. Biological variation. Two cells, clonally derived from the same parent (i.e. share an identical past) may behave differently when challenged. How do you predict which is will behave in a given way based on TLOP?

Franko

2nd March 2003, 09:21 PM

Hmmm - wasn't talking evolution. Biological variation. Two cells, clonally derived from the same parent (i.e. share an identical past) may behave differently when challenged. How do you predict which is will behave in a given way based on TLOP?

Well ... that depends on if Solipsism is True or not.

... meaning, if Solipsism was True, then there wouldn't really be "two cells" would there?

neutrino_cannon

2nd March 2003, 09:32 PM

Originally posted by Penrich
Add to quote you from another ]thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=351891) (I'm having trouble keeping up with all of your posts!)

And the timeless classic

In summary, biology = chemistry = physics. All governed of course, by TLOP. Am I correct?

Indeed, everything can be defined by the laws of physics, being that those are mathematical statements of how everything in the universe works, thus making it impossible for anything to violate them.

Let's have that again, nothing can violate the laws of physics, because they are drawn around the universe (ignoring the possibility of false posits on laws, as those get weeded out).

The laws themselves are incomplete, so I'm not sure what the meaning (if any) of Franko's syllogism is.

Franko

2nd March 2003, 09:35 PM

Yes, Neutrino, but why do YOU believe in "free will"? What makes you think that your "choices" are not derived entirely algorithmically?

That's Fatalism -- everything preordained by a set of rules beyond our control.

Penrich

2nd March 2003, 09:41 PM

Originally posted by Franko

Well ... that depends on if Solipsism is True or not.

... meaning, if Solipsism was True, then there wouldn't really be "two cells" would there?
Well - to my thinking, this must mean then that Solipsism is thus wrong. I know that I can get two bacteria that are clones of each other.

neutrino_cannon

2nd March 2003, 09:46 PM

Originally posted by Franko
Yes, Neutrino, but why do YOU believe in "free will"? What makes you think that your "choices" are not derived entirely algorithmically?

That's Fatalism -- everything preordained by a set of rules beyond our control.

My actions are completely within my control Franko, and whether or not they are completely predictable is at this point unascertainable.

There is no "big calculator" in the sky, nor is there any need for there to be. Particles (which is all the universe is, a collection of various particles) behave in certain ways. We know some of these ways, but not all of them. The mathematical expression of how these particles interact is a collection of laws known as the laws of physics, which are still under some debate.

All particles interact of their own accord, and a collection of them with about 1.3 kg mass controls (for the most part) my actions.

Penrich

2nd March 2003, 09:48 PM

Originally posted by Franko
Yes, Neutrino, but why do YOU believe in "free will"? What makes you think that your "choices" are not derived entirely algorithmically?

That's Fatalism -- everything preordained by a set of rules beyond our control.
No - thats biological variation. While each atom in each cell is governed by the laws of physics, the totallity of our brain is not something that I see can be completely predetermined. Too many chance encounters need to go on for it to be 100% predictable. Thus TLOP is no more a god(dess) than, well, the laws of physics...

neutrino_cannon

2nd March 2003, 10:01 PM

Originally posted by Penrich

Thus TLOP is no more a god(dess) than, well, the laws of physics...

I thought the TLOP were human constructs, and even in ideal form (i.e., no more theorretical physics, we know it all) only an expression of how things work.

So about as far from God as a computer simulation of a garden is from a gardener.

Q-Source

3rd March 2003, 04:24 AM

What is "dibs"? :confused:

Pie,

You know what I like abourt Bigamy or Poligamy?. I like that every woman has a role on the group, so I can let you the housekeeping and cooking... and I'll do the rest :D .

Q-S

3rd March 2003, 07:17 AM

Originally posted by Q-Source
What is "dibs"? :confused:

Pie,

You know what I like about Bigamy or Polygamy?. I like that every woman has a role on the group, so I can let you the housekeeping and cooking... and I'll do the rest :D .

Q-S
LMAO Q-S I don't cook and I don't clean but I have an army of male slaves who do ;) so you rest while I take care of the serpent ;) :D:D

dibs means you claimed him Q-S as yours.

Penrich

3rd March 2003, 07:51 AM

Originally posted by neutrino_cannon

I thought the TLOP were human constructs, and even in ideal form (i.e., no more theorretical physics, we know it all) only an expression of how things work.

So about as far from God as a computer simulation of a garden is from a gardener.
Not according to Franko...

Franko

3rd March 2003, 07:54 AM

Well - to my thinking, this must mean then that Solipsism is thus wrong. I know that I can get two bacteria that are clones of each other.

Yes, but isn't a Solipsist who imagines an exact duplicate of himself still a Solipsist?

Franko

3rd March 2003, 07:56 AM

No - thats biological variation. While each atom in each cell is governed by the laws of physics, the totallity of our brain is not something that I see can be completely predetermined. Too many chance encounters need to go on for it to be 100% predictable. Thus TLOP is no more a god(dess) than, well, the laws of physics...

Define “chance encounter”? Are you suggesting that these “chance encounters” occur magically? Because if they do not, then aren’t the “chance encounters” also Deterministic events?

Penrich

3rd March 2003, 07:58 AM

Originally posted by Franko

Yes, but isn't a Solipsist who imagines an exact duplicate of himself still a Solipsist? Can a bacteria imagine...?

Franko

3rd March 2003, 07:58 AM

I thought the TLOP were human constructs, and even in ideal form (i.e., no more theorretical physics, we know it all) only an expression of how things work.

So about as far from God as a computer simulation of a garden is from a gardener.

Yes, but the world was still round and moved even when men believed it was flat and motionless.

In other words, not knowing the rules doesn’t mean that the rules do not exist and that things occur magically and without explanation or cause.

Akots

3rd March 2003, 08:00 AM

Strictly speaking, Franko, we don't know the earth is round and mobile. We merely percieve it that way with our current array of knowledge and perception.

Franko

3rd March 2003, 08:06 AM

Q-Source: (Fabulous)
Pie,

You know what I like abourt Bigamy or Poligamy?. I like that every woman has a role on the group, so I can let you the housekeeping and cooking... and I'll do the rest

Pie: (Gorgeous)
LMAO Q-S I don't cook and I don't clean but I have an army of male slaves who do so you rest while I take care of the serpent

Hehehe!! Ohhh, my Goddess … You two are making it hard to concentrate on religion and Philosophy! Hehehe …

“army of male slaves”? … Ohhh, Pie, me-o-my!

So how come, you rarely see “reverse-bigamy” – One women with multiple husbands? Now, I can understand from a procreation standpoint, but in modern times procreation is a secondary concern to economic pursuits, and a household with multiple males would seem to be better capable of generating revenue (not that I am commenting on the issue of gender wage discrepancy).

I wonder if it isn’t something more fundamental about the nature of Men and Women?

Do you two believe that Polygamy is a relic from the past, or do you think it may make a resurgence again at some point in the future? In other words, in evolutionary terms is polygamy in the process of going extinct?

(slightly off topic, I know, but marriage is definitely associated with “Religion”)

Penrich

3rd March 2003, 08:09 AM

Originally posted by Franko

Define “chance encounter”? Are you suggesting that these “chance encounters” occur magically? Because if they do not, then aren’t the “chance encounters” also Deterministic events?
Molecules are moving around inside a cell. Proteins are moving around inside a cell. Now - while there may be some order to it (the proteins may be moving along an actin filament, or near a membrane) much of this is happening in three dimensional space. If the molecule interacts with protein A, a certain recation may occur. If the same molecule interacts with protein B before it encounters protein A, a different reaction will occur. Alternatively, protein A maight encounter molecule 2 before molecule 1, and again a different set of events will unwind.

Imagine two people, who don't know each other, but have a rough description of each other, trying to meet in a large, crowded airport. What are the chances that they will meet before they ask a couple of strangers who look like the person they are looking for if they are the one? They may end up going home with the "wrong" person, if that person also has a similar description of someone they are looking for. Now - you might be able to set up an algorithm that predicts the probablilty, or defines how many people they will ask before they find the right one, but that will not determine the sequence of events and predict with 100% accuracy the outcome.

Franko

3rd March 2003, 08:09 AM

neutrino_cannon:
I thought the TLOP were human constructs, and even in ideal form (i.e., no more theorretical physics, we know it all) only an expression of how things work.

Franko:
Yes, but the world was still round and moved even when men believed it was flat and motionless.

In other words, not knowing the rules doesn’t mean that the rules do not exist and that things occur magically and without explanation or cause.

Akots:
Strictly speaking, Franko, we don't know the earth is round and mobile. We merely percieve it that way with our current array of knowledge and perception.

In other words, not knowing the rules doesn’t mean that the rules do not exist and that things occur magically and without explanation or cause.

If you want to claim that your “current perception” is evidence that the universe is forever magical, then please make your case.

Franko

3rd March 2003, 08:15 AM

Penrich:
Molecules are moving around inside a cell. Proteins are moving around inside a cell. Now - while there may be some order to it (the proteins may be moving along an actin filament, or near a membrane) much of this is happening in three dimensional space. If the molecule interacts with protein A, a certain recation may occur. If the same molecule interacts with protein B before it encounters protein A, a different reaction will occur. Alternatively, protein A maight encounter molecule 2 before molecule 1, and again a different set of events will unwind.

That is all True; however, it is also True that ALL of these events are being governed COMPLETELY, TOTALLY, and UTTERLY by the laws of Physics (TLOP).

If you are saying that there is some non-TLOP element to the mix, then what is that “Extra” element” (Magic?)?

Penrich:
Imagine two people, who don't know each other, but have a rough description of each other, trying to meet in a large, crowded airport. What are the chances that they will meet before they ask a couple of strangers who look like the person they are looking for if they are the one? They may end up going home with the "wrong" person, if that person also has a similar description of someone they are looking for. Now - you might be able to set up an algorithm that predicts the probablilty, or defines how many people they will ask before they find the right one, but that will not determine the sequence of events and predict with 100% accuracy the outcome.

Yes, but never-the-less even though you cannot track the individual events yourself, the Laws of Physics can, and that is how the whole Shebang is occurring – entirely governed by the Laws of Physics.

Do you seriously believe it was a “coincidence” that You encountered me Here and Now?

… In Logic (or Fatalism) there are no “coincidences” everything happens for a Logical Reason.

Unas

3rd March 2003, 08:22 AM

Originally posted by Franko
In other words, not knowing the rules doesn’t mean that the rules do not exist and that things occur magically and without explanation or cause.By the same token, not knowing the rules doesn’t mean that the rules do exist. You are claiming that even though you do not know the deterministic rules that govern the entire Universe, they must nevertheless exist. That's simply not a scientific or logical position to take, Franko. Your claim is an article of faith, a superstition -- and nothing more.
Originally posted by Franko
If you want to claim that your “current perception” is evidence that the universe is forever magical, then please make your case. If you want to be regarded as something other than a lying kook, stop insisting that others must defend propositions that you invent and then dishonestly attribute to them.

Akots

3rd March 2003, 08:30 AM

One thing Franko does not do, as a rule, is Prove His Point.

Franko

3rd March 2003, 08:31 AM

So why the sock-puppet? That you must hide your identity demonstrates that you are insincere and ashamed of your beliefs …

Unas:
By the same token, not knowing the rules doesn’t mean that the rules do exist.

Knowing the rules does not mean that the rules exist?

Does knowing YOU exist mean that YOU don’t exist?

You are claiming that even though you do not know the deterministic rules that govern the entire Universe, they must nevertheless exist.

I am saying that ALL (EVERY) observation that “Science” has made, as well as my own lifetime of experiences (and beyond) tells me that reality is objective and obeys logical rules. I have no reason what-so-ever for believing that things happen magically.

Unless you would care to give me a reason to believe things can happen magically?

That's simply not a scientific or logical position to take, Franko. Your claim is an article of faith, a superstition -- and nothing more.

If the assumption that nothing is magical based on the observation that everything is objective and logical is an illogical observation, then how would I know it?

Can you explain how you acquired your magical powers for us mystical A-Theist?

I wonder if so many A-Theists would be letting you make a fools of them if they knew who and what you really are?

If you want to be regarded as something other than a lying kook, stop insisting that others must defend propositions that you invent and then dishonestly attribute to them.

Listen to me you lying kook, I don’t believe in Magic. I believe that all things are logical. Since you reject logic utterly I don’t expect you to comprehend any of this, but fortunately others who are capable of understanding are reading along.

You may be an evil-motherf*cker, but I’ll still use your worthless ass to save those that can be saved.

3rd March 2003, 08:41 AM

Originally posted by Franko

Hehehe!! Ohhh, my Goddess … You two are making it hard to concentrate on religion and Philosophy! Hehehe …

“army of male slaves”? … Ohhh, Pie, me-o-my!

So how come, you rarely see “reverse-bigamy” – One women with multiple husbands? Now, I can understand from a procreation standpoint, but in modern times procreation is a secondary concern to economic pursuits, and a household with multiple males would seem to be better capable of generating revenue (not that I am commenting on the issue of gender wage discrepancy).

I wonder if it isn't’t something more fundamental about the nature of Men and Women?

Do you two believe that Polygamy is a relic from the past, or do you think it may make a resurgence again at some point in the future? In other words, in evolutionary terms is polygamy in the process of going extinct?

(slightly off topic, I know, but marriage is definitely associated with “Religion”)
Speaking for myself my little love serpent ;)that's what I am here for to distract and entrap my with are feminine wiles.

Franko why wouldn't I have an army of male slaves to cater for my every whim.

Naturally a house full of men would provide me a lot of satisfaction and you are right a larger income. Even in the so called equality age men do still seem to warm more.

Now why from a procreation standpoint?

I have no idea really why, but I would say it is stereotypical male attitude one man with several woman is admired one woman with several men is a whore with no morals.

Of course there is Males think there strong dominant and should provide, but some of us women aren't destined to be subservient, they are just as strong dominant and predatory.

Polygamy tough, I need to collate my thoughts on that. Say it at this moment on a whim its had it's day too many Pc'ers and dictating religions put paid to that. I need more thought on this to answer correctly

My view on marriage in general is a bad idea, having already been there and had a bad one it has tainted my view on it. Would I marry just one man and live with several women depends on the man and the women, would I live with several men oh yes I would enjoy that.

Why are you planning on marrying me and Q_s lol :D

It's my topic and I allow you to wander off when it involves me and you and Q-s ;)

Unas

3rd March 2003, 08:46 AM

Franko continues his incessant barrage of lies...
Originally posted by Franko
Knowing the rules does not mean that the rules exist?That's right, Franko: Lie about what I said. It's the only tactic you have left.

Not knowing the rules doesn’t mean that the rules do exist. You are claiming that even though you do not know the deterministic rules that govern the entire Universe, they must nevertheless exist. That's simply not a scientific or logical position to take, Franko. Your claim is an article of faith, a superstition -- and nothing more.
Originally posted by Franko
I am saying that ALL (EVERY) observation that “Science” has made, as well as my own lifetime of experiences (and beyond) tells me that reality is objective and obeys logical rules. I have no reason what-so-ever for believing that things happen magically.I have not asked you to believe in magic. At the moment, all I ask of you is that you stop lying about my words and the words of others.
Originally posted by Franko
Unless you would care to give me a reason to believe things can happen magically?First, tell me why you persist in lying about claims I have not made.
Originally posted by Franko
Can you explain how you acquired your magical powers for us mystical A-Theist?Can you explain why you are still lying, after your lies have been exposed for what they are?
Originally posted by Franko
You may be an evil-motherf*cker, but I’ll still use your worthless ass to save those that can be saved. You are unable to counter my arguments rationally. You therefore descend to lies and ad hominem attacks. It is clear that you are incapable of anything more.

3rd March 2003, 08:53 AM

Originally posted by Unas
Unas can I ask what do you believe in then?

One little thing you say not knowing the rules does not mean that they do exist, ok, but science it self uses rules it doesn't know are real applicable or are correct, that is why they are called theories isn't it? People accept them readily do they not?:D

Franko

3rd March 2003, 09:19 AM

Now why from a procreation standpoint?

Ohh, isn’t that rather obvious?

Lets say that You and I are both Polygamist …

You have 10 husbands, and I have 10 Wives.

Now in one year how many children can your family produce from within the marriage, and how many children can my family produce from within my marriage?

I have no idea really why, but I would say it is stereotypical male attitude one man with several woman is admired one woman with several men is a whore with no morals.

That is a “Christian” way of thinking, but what about people who don’t think in the “Christian” way on this point? Why do you suppose that this sort of arrangement seems rare to the point of non-existence? Even in Ancient times and Societies with quite different morals and sexual standards the One Female many male scenario is virtually unheard of?

Like I said, I wonder if there isn’t some more fundamental reason?

some of us women aren't destined to be subservient, they are just as strong dominant and predatory.

Ohh, I agree completely Soldata.

My view on marriage in general is a bad idea, having already been there and had a bad one it has tainted my view on it. Would I marry just one man and live with several women depends on the man and the women, would I live with several men oh yes I would enjoy that.

What’s good for the Goose is Good for the Gander? Hehehe … I agree completely Chicky.

Why are you planning on marrying me and Q_s lol :D

I allow you to wander off when it involves me and you and Q-s ;)

(these comments have been added to the users “sexual fantasies” file for future research/reference …) :D

3rd March 2003, 02:55 PM

Originally posted by Franko

Ohh, isn’t that rather obvious?

Lets say that You and I are both Polygamist …

You have 10 husbands, and I have 10 Wives.

Now in one year how many children can your family produce from within the marriage, and how many children can my family produce from within my marriage?

You mean I have to breed.:eek: Can't I just have lots and lots and lots and lots of lots of sex:D

That is a “Christian” way of thinking, but what about people who don’t think in the “Christian” way on this point? Why do you suppose that this sort of arrangement seems rare to the point of non-existence? Even in Ancient times and Societies with quite different morals and sexual standards the One Female many male scenario is virtually unheard of?

Like I said, I wonder if there isn’t some more fundamental reason? good point, I need to rectify that ;)

Ohh, I agree completely Soldata. I love it when man agrees with me saves so much trouble;)

What’s good for the Goose is Good for the Gander? Hehehe … I agree completely Chicky. Ohh twice in one day Franko easy tiger ;) people will gossip xx:D lol

(these comments have been added to the users “sexual fantasies” file for future research/reference …) :D A man after my own dark psyche I am blessed ;)

I wonder location change to Franko's harem?

Franko

3rd March 2003, 03:50 PM

Pie:
You mean I have to breed. Can't I just have lots and lots and lots and lots of lots of sex

Listen Darling, this is R&P, if we are going to have a thinly veiled innuendo laced conversation about group sex, then the least we can do is puppet the veneer of a philosophical discourse regarding the pro’s and con’s of Male Bigamy verses Female Bigamy. (hehe)

Pie:
I love it when man agrees with me saves so much trouble

… and it’s so convenient for me, when you are correct in advance. ;)

Pie:
Ohh twice in one day Franko easy tiger people will gossip xx lol

Ohhh Pie … when I’m chatting with You, who can think of the world?

Pie:
A man after my own dark psyche I am blessed

I wonder location change to Franko's harem?

Pleasse Goddess! Please Goddess … Please Goddess … please Goddess

I really don’t comprehend why the A-Theists are so down on this prayer “thing”.

Ahhh, where was I … ?

… change to Franko's harem?

Ohhh Yeah!

Pleasse Goddess! Please Goddess … Please Goddess … please Goddess … please Goddess … please Goddess … please Goddess … please Goddess … please Goddess …

Alright Pie, so you said that some of the things I believed confused You. … Like, for example? :confused:

3rd March 2003, 04:21 PM

Algorithms, and atoms.

;)

Franko

3rd March 2003, 04:26 PM

Your consciousness is an algorithm. The Logical Deists call this Algorithm MPB (Maximum Perceived Benefit). Essentially, here’s how it works.

Imagine your existence as consisting of a series (or sequence) of “decisions”. These “decisions” are triggered by a situation in Time (an event, and actually events are ALWAYS triggered by an entanglement with another consciousness). Whenever you find yourself approaching an “event” Your consciousness begins to scan through its memory of past situations, which are similar or analogous to the present one. From this database of past experiences (information from the past) your mind extrapolates and ranks a list of options.

But here is the thing … the list of options is RANKED, and the top choice on the list is the “option” that is perceived (by YOU) as MOST beneficial. It may not actually be the most beneficial choice in reality, mind you, but according to the information that you carry – as far as YOU know – it is your best choice. YOUR Consciousness always, Always, ALWAYS selects the option of Maximum perceived benefit. In reality you make NO choice. In reality you are an Algorithm that follows a preordained path based on logical rules.

Despite what you may think, your mind is not “magical” (or random/acausal). It only seems that way, because you do not fully understand it.

Atoms? ... you'll have to be a little more specific on that one.

3rd March 2003, 04:28 PM

Originally posted by Franko
Your consciousness is an algorithm. The Logical Deists call this Algorithm MPB (Maximum Perceived Benefit). Essentially, here’s how it works.

Imagine your existence as consisting of a series (or sequence) of “decisions”. These “decisions” are triggered by a situation in Time (an event, and actually events are ALWAYS triggered by an entanglement with another consciousness). Whenever you find yourself approaching an “event” Your consciousness begins to scan through its memory of past situations, which are similar or analogous to the present one. From this database of past experiences (information from the past) your mind extrapolates and ranks a list of options.

But here is the thing … the list of options is RANKED, and the top choice on the list is the “option” that is perceived (by YOU) as MOST beneficial. It may not actually be the most beneficial choice in reality, mind you, but according to the information that you carry – as far as YOU know – it is your best choice. YOUR Consciousness always, Always, ALWAYS selects the option of Maximum perceived benefit. In reality you make NO choice. In reality you are an Algorithm that follows a preordained path based on logical rules.

Despite what you may think, your mind is not “magical” (or random/acausal). It only seems that way, because you do not fully understand it.

Atoms? ... you'll have to be a little more specific on that one.
Yes, at last I understand algorithms and what you mean by it now.

Atoms and TLOP seen you say it before master ;)

Franko

3rd March 2003, 04:33 PM

Pie:
Yea I understand.

Ohh, come on Pie! You'll have to dance much better than this if you want to be in my harem ... :cool:

3rd March 2003, 04:35 PM

Franko's harem!?

There's a mental image I could have done without.

Franko

3rd March 2003, 04:39 PM

Now here’s the thing ... From Your POV, there are actually Two light cones (The OmniWorldTree (and it’s Roots)), in other words, a pyramid above you, and another one below your. The one below you is your past, and the one above you is your future.

If you imagine a Tree-diagram, and you are a point particle following a path along that Tree, and when you reach a branch in the tree that represents a decision in your existence (a “choice you make”). Now even though you are on this Tree structure, the actual path you follow is a single jagged line, sort of like a lightning bolt would make. The LD call this your worldline, it is your path of Destiny (worldline through spacetime), it’s like your own personal path of least resistance.

The “Thing” that determines your “Path” is your MPB algorithm. Your Graviton (your fractal pattern in the Energy).

Always-With-Foot-In-Mouth: (Indian Name)
There's a mental image I could have done without.

Hehehe … more conclusions based on no evidence?

3rd March 2003, 04:41 PM

I'll bet the Godess gets jealous.

Unas

3rd March 2003, 04:54 PM

Originally posted by Pie
Unas can I ask what do you believe in then?Specify. What beliefs are you asking about?
Originally posted by Pie
One little thing you say not knowing the rules does not mean that they do exist, ok, but science it self uses rules it doesn't know are real applicable or are correct, that is why they are called theories isn't it? People accept them readily do they not?Theories aren't "rules". Theories are explanations regarding observable phenomena. If a theory can consistently explain a particular phenomenon, and can accurately predict what new observations may be made in later trials, then it is provisionally accepted as 'correct', until new observations come along that don't fit the theory. No scientific theory is exempt from questioning, re-evaluation, revision, or discard -- although, being human, many scientists may cling to a favorite theory (especially if they had a hand in formulating it) long past the time when the theory must be altered or abandoned.

Unas

3rd March 2003, 04:58 PM

Originally posted by Franko
Your consciousness is an algorithm. The Logical Deists call this Algorithm MPB (Maximum Perceived Benefit). Essentially, here’s how it works.

Imagine your existence as consisting of a series (or sequence) of “decisions”. These “decisions” are triggered by a situation in Time (an event, and actually events are ALWAYS triggered by an entanglement with another consciousness). Whenever you find yourself approaching an “event” Your consciousness begins to scan through its memory of past situations, which are similar or analogous to the present one. From this database of past experiences (information from the past) your mind extrapolates and ranks a list of options.

But here is the thing … the list of options is RANKED, and the top choice on the list is the “option” that is perceived (by YOU) as MOST beneficial. It may not actually be the most beneficial choice in reality, mind you, but according to the information that you carry – as far as YOU know – it is your best choice. YOUR Consciousness always, Always, ALWAYS selects the option of Maximum perceived benefit. In reality you make NO choice. In reality you are an Algorithm that follows a preordained path based on logical rules.That's a most interesting theory of psychology. Now... what experimental evidence exists to support it?

More importantly, what experiment could be performed that could potentially falsify your theory?

Franko

3rd March 2003, 05:06 PM

Unas: (insane)
That's a most interesting theory of psychology. Now... what experimental evidence exists to support it?

What evidence did I offer (how about you following me around like a trained monkey?)? This is a Philosophy forum not a Science symposium A-Theist-Clown. But the JREF does have a Science forum, unless perhaps www.Infidels.org is more to your liking?

Now, do you have a LOGICAL reason for disputing my little “theory”, or are you just here to make morons out of anyone calling themselves an Atheist?

More importantly, what experiment could be performed that could potentially falsify your theory?

You could begin running red lights, jumping off the roof of tall buildings, or burning your hand on the hot stove repeatedly … Doh! Too late … hehehe … you crack me up sock-puppy. Dance for me!

Unas

3rd March 2003, 05:14 PM

Originally posted by Franko
What evidence did I offerNone. It begins to appear that there is no evidence for Franko's theory.
Originally posted by Franko
Now, do you have a LOGICAL reason for disputing my little “theory”I've disputed nothing. I asked Franko a civil question, regarding the evidence for his theory. As expected, he has responded with evasion and ad hominem attacks.

Unas

3rd March 2003, 05:30 PM

Originally posted by Franko
WOW! I noticed...Franko is merely repeating his earlier post. He is unwilling to take responsibility for his lies (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=362883#post362883), and seems to believe that spamming this forum will somehow magically make all knowledge of his lies vanish.

Franko

3rd March 2003, 05:32 PM

WOW! I noticed you have already managed to make 150 posts without answering a single question. That is excellent work A-Theist I want to thank you for beautifully demonstrating an oft quoted prophecy of mine … A-Theists are masters of talking without saying anything.

Why are you unable to cite the SPECIFIC POINT that you disagree with regarding my beliefs, and SPECIFIC REASON for disagreeing with it?

Are you so embarrassed by your own beliefs that you cannot tell us what they are? Why have you even bothered to post on a SKEPTICS forum then? Perhaps www.Infidels.org would be a more appropriate venue for your hate-mongering against individuals who believe in God then a board full of Free-Thinkers, and Philosophers?

Why your repeated demonstrations of such intellectual dishonesty, cowardice, double standards, and hypocrisy? Surely you must realize what a huge embarrassment you are causing the other A-Theists here? Some of them have even had the ballz to tell you to your face.

Do you honestly believe that your continued nonsense is making me look bad? ... keep thinking that A-Theist.

neutrino_cannon

3rd March 2003, 10:36 PM

Originally posted by Franko
WOW! I noticed you have already managed to make 150 posts without answering a single question. That is excellent work A-Theist I want to thank you for beautifully demonstrating an oft quoted prophecy of mine … A-Theists are masters of talking without saying anything.

Why are you unable to cite the SPECIFIC POINT that you disagree with regarding my beliefs, and SPECIFIC REASON for disagreeing with it?

Are you so embarrassed by your own beliefs that you cannot tell us what they are? Why have you even bothered to post on a SKEPTICS forum then? Perhaps www.Infidels.org would be a more appropriate venue for your hate-mongering against individuals who believe in God then a board full of Free-Thinkers, and Philosophers?

Why your repeated demonstrations of such intellectual dishonesty, cowardice, double standards, and hypocrisy? Surely you must realize what a huge embarrassment you are causing the other A-Theists here? Some of them have even had the ballz to tell you to your face.

Do you honestly believe that your continued nonsense is making me look bad? ... keep thinking that A-Theist.

http://spot.colorado.edu/~vstenger/Quantum/qkids.html
Ok, here's a citation, and I'll explain it too.

The whole venture of theroretical physics has taken phenomona and condensed them into mathematical form. Such was the precision that could be onbtained with these calculations that some thought everything could be predicted.

In fact, newtonian physics, which is still the groundwork for modern engineering held that things could be perfectly predicted if all of the forces were known.

It seemed that everything was making sense, and in fact there are many quotes from this time predicting the end of science:

In 1894 Albert Michelson (who is famous for his experiments on the velocity of light) said in a speech,

"While it is never safe to say that the future of Physical Science has no marvels even more astonishing than those of the past, it seems probable that most of the grand underlying principles have been firmly established, …1, p19
http://www.albertson.edu/aboutaci/liberal_arts/la_lecture.asp

But in fact there was more to be explained. Nobody thought that the bizzare shift of two stars that occured when a planet passed between them would be the begining of a new sort of physics, but it was.

Elsewhere in the world, Albert Einstein was working out the basis of relativity.

What it meant was not that Newtonian physics was wrong, but that they were not the underlying structure of the universe.

In relation to your philosophy Franko, it means that the universe is not entirely predictable. This is not magic, nor is it some unknown force poorly defined, but the conviction, in accordance with all observed phenomena that the universe is not entirely predictable.

I'll let that sink in for a paragraph.

The world is at it's most base level acting withing a set range of actions, some more likely than others. We live at a high enough macro level that it seems predictable, and this is due to statistics rather than the laws of physics.

So, in short Franko I disagree with your citing the laws of physics as a reason for determinism. With what is now known about the cosmos, no such position can be as firmly (and rudely) posited as you posit you position. Who knows, perhaps quantum mechanics is only one step closer to reality, with the actual truth being much smaller and complex.

What is known now is that the undelying structure of the universe is not predictable, not magical, and randomized.

Franko

3rd March 2003, 11:10 PM

Neutrino_cannon (arrogant)

What it meant was not that Newtonian physics was wrong, but that they were not the underlying structure of the universe.

Newton works fine (here in this Universe). Go to the planet Mercury, and compute Mercury’s position while in orbit using Newtonian mechanics – you’ll get the right answer.

Relativity is only meaningful in terms of observers (Copenhagen) and Points of View (consciousness).

In relation to your philosophy Franko, it means that the universe is not entirely predictable. This is not magic, nor is it some unknown force poorly defined, but the conviction, in accordance with all observed phenomena that the universe is not entirely predictable.

Nonsense – utter nonsense.

Furthermore you standing here and trying to act “smart” while asserting NOTHING more than a Special Plead (universe is not entirely predictable/ This is not magic/ nor is it some unknown force poorly defined/ but the conviction)

“Conviction”? Gimme a F*cking break meatwad! What’s the difference between Your conviction, and any other religious nitwits Faith?

The world is at it's most base level acting withing a set range of actions, some more likely than others. We live at a high enough macro level that it seems predictable, and this is due to statistics rather than the laws of physics.

Statistics are based on Logical rules and a logical sequence (order) of events. Are you denying this?

What is known now is that the undelying structure of the universe is not predictable, not magical, and randomized.

You sound very convinced.

Unfortunately I can’t believe in the tooth fairy (It’s not magic) just because you say it’s not. It sounds just like Magic to me.

Magic: = without Logical (comprehensible) cause.

neutrino_cannon

3rd March 2003, 11:23 PM

Newton works fine (here in this Universe). Go to the planet Mercury, and compute Mercury’s position while in orbit using Newtonian mechanics – you’ll get the right answer.

You would get the right answer, but for the wrong reasons. The biggest problem being that gravity propigates at c, rather than instantly, as in newtonian physics.

As for that last bit, I'm not sure what you're on about.

“Conviction”? Gimme a F*cking break meatwad! What’s the difference between Your conviction, and any other religious nitwits Faith?

Well, there was the link.

Magic: = without Logical (comprehensible) cause.

Webster says :

"1a) The use of spells, charms, and rituals in seeking or pretending to cause or control events or to govern certain natural or supernatural forces"

could need some reconciliation.

Neutrino_cannon (arrogant)
Da*n straight Franko.

MRC_Hans

3rd March 2003, 11:38 PM

Franko:
Newton works fine (here in this Universe). Go to the planet Mercury, and compute Mercury’s position while in orbit using Newtonian mechanics – you’ll get the right answer. I'm sorry, but you are wrong. (To be perfectly honest: No, I'm not sorry, but you are still wrong).

If you try to compute the orbit of Mercury using only Newtonian mechanics, you DONT get the right answer. This puzzled astronomers for the better part of a century and led to the search for a planet inside the orbit of Mercury. It even got a name, Vulcan. Only after the discovery of Relativity, it was possible to calculate the orbit of Mercury and make it fit observations. For an easily readable and yet comprehensive description of this, I recommend Isaak Asimov's "The Planet That Wasn't" (Doubleday).

The Copenhagen Interpretation is about Quantum Mechanics, not Relativity. And it doesn't say, as you seem to claim, that QM only functions when there is an observer. It says that any part of QM has to be proven empirically to be accepted true. Which also means that all accepted statements about QM have been proved empirically.

Hans

neutrino_cannon

3rd March 2003, 11:46 PM

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
I'm sorry, but you are wrong. (To be perfectly honest: No, I'm not sorry, but you are still wrong).

If you try to compute the orbit of Mercury using only Newtonian mechanics, you DONT get the right answer. This puzzled astronomers for the better part of a century and led to the search for a planet inside the orbit of Mercury. It even got a name, Vulcan. Only after the discovery of Relativity, it was possible to calculate the orbit of Mercury and make it fit observations. For an easily readable and yet comprehensive description of this, I recommend Isaak Asimov's "The Planet That Wasn't" (Doubleday).

The Copenhagen Interpretation is about Quantum Mechanics, not Relativity. And it doesn't say, as you seem to claim, that QM only functions when there is an observer. It says that any part of QM has to be proven empirically to be accepted true. Which also means that all accepted statements about QM have been proved empirically.

Hans

Darn, missed that one.

4th March 2003, 05:05 AM

Originally posted by Unas
Specify. What beliefs are you asking about?
Theories aren't "rules". Theories are explanations regarding observable phenomena. If a theory can consistently explain a particular phenomenon, and can accurately predict what new observations may be made in later trials, then it is provisionally accepted as 'correct', until new observations come along that don't fit the theory. No scientific theory is exempt from questioning, re-evaluation, revision, or discard -- although, being human, many scientists may cling to a favorite theory (especially if they had a hand in formulating it) long past the time when the theory must be altered or abandoned.
Unas if I knew what you believed in, in the first place I wouldnt bother asking you would I :D I would be however spending the Randi's million having so proved my mind reading ability of you lol.

ok

4th March 2003, 05:08 AM

Originally posted by Franko

Ohh, come on Pie! You'll have to dance much better than this if you want to be in my harem ... :cool:

You want me to dance Franko? Sorry but I have been told to punish you for being bad Franko ;) Never bite a friend Franko she bites back harder xxx

4th March 2003, 05:09 AM

Originally posted by Thorin LungHammer
Franko's harem!?

There's a mental image I could have done without.
Shut up thorin and go play with your bong :D

Q-Source

4th March 2003, 05:17 AM

Originally posted by Pie

Sorry but I have been told to punish you for being bad Franko

You have been told...?

So much for freedom of speech (and thought) :rolleyes:

Franko

4th March 2003, 09:09 AM

MRC:
I'm sorry, but you are wrong. (To be perfectly honest: No, I'm not sorry, but you are still wrong).

If you try to compute the orbit of Mercury using only Newtonian mechanics, you DONT get the right answer. This puzzled astronomers for the better part of a century and led to the search for a planet inside the orbit of Mercury. It even got a name, Vulcan. Only after the discovery of Relativity, it was possible to calculate the orbit of Mercury and make it fit observations. For an easily readable and yet comprehensive description of this, I recommend Isaak Asimov's "The Planet That Wasn't" (Doubleday).

Newton works fine (here in this Universe). Go to the planet Mercury, and compute Mercury’s position while in orbit [around Mercury] using Newtonian mechanics – you’ll get the right answer

The Copenhagen Interpretation is about Quantum Mechanics, not Relativity.

Relativity is meaningless without the concept of Point of View (i.e. an Observer, i.e. as per Copenhagen). If there were no observers then what exactly would things be Relative to, pray tell?

And it doesn't say, as you seem to claim, that QM only functions when there is an observer. It says that any part of QM has to be proven empirically to be accepted true. Which also means that all accepted statements about QM have been proved empirically.

The Copenhagen Interpretation of QM (generally hated by A-Theists) clearly states that the waveform only collapses in the presence of an Observer!. In other words, reality doesn’t exist unless someone is looking.

MRC_Hans

4th March 2003, 09:45 AM

Originally posted by Franko

Newton works fine (here in this Universe). Go to the planet Mercury, and compute Mercury’s position while in orbit [around Mercury] using Newtonian mechanics – you’ll get the right answer

Repeating your statement doesnt make it right. Mercury's orbit shows a progression not explainable by pure Newton physics. Obviously, your position while calculating it doesn't make any difference. Relaivity clears the problem by including the mass of the Sun's gravity.

Relativity is meaningless without the concept of Point of View (i.e. an Observer, i.e. as per Copenhagen). If there were no observers then what exactly would things be Relative to, pray tell?

Obviously function A can be relative to function B regardless if either is observed by anybody or not. If a tree falls in the forest and nobody listens, does it make a noise? Since we can often observe the effects of events that were not observed when they happened, this is really a silly notion.

The Copenhagen Interpretation of QM (generally hated by A-Theists) clearly states that the waveform only collapses in the presence of an Observer!. In other words, reality doesn’t exist unless someone is looking.

"Hated by A-Theists" is another of your strawmen, or lies. The Copenhagen Interpretation states, in short, that:

"There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract quantum description" (Herbert 1985, p. 17). This premise maintains that sensory observations are the only reality in physics, so that quantum theory--or any other theory in physics--cannot be extended beyond what can be directly observed."

The key words here are "CAN be observed", not IS observed. In other words, it must be observable, but of course it needs not be observed. More about the Copenhagen Interpretation here:

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/CopenhagenInterpretation.html

Hans

Franko

4th March 2003, 11:19 AM

MRC:
Repeating your statement doesnt make it right. Mercury's orbit shows a progression not explainable by pure Newton physics. Obviously, your position while calculating it doesn't make any difference. Relaivity clears the problem by including the mass of the Sun's gravity.

Yeah … here’s the thing, when you are in orbit around Mercury … YOU are also experiencing the Relativistic effects of the Sun’s Gravity (just like Mercury). Time and Distance will be dilated for you when compared with an observer on the Earth. Because of this effect your measurements will physically differ from an observer back on Earth, and because of this dilation your Newtonian calculations will produce the correct result.

A result that – back on Earth – would require General Relativity to reproduce.

Obviously function A can be relative to function B regardless if either is observed by anybody or not. If a tree falls in the forest and nobody listens, does it make a noise? Since we can often observe the effects of events that were not observed when they happened, this is really a silly notion.

Without commenting on Trees falling in the woods … how often are math equations calculated when no consciousness is around? Do trees and rocks even understand mathematics?

Relativity is about Time and Distance dilation. Are you telling me that something other than a consciousness would even be aware of such an effect? How?

MRC_Hans

4th March 2003, 11:31 AM

Originally posted by Franko
Yeah … here’s the thing, when you are in orbit around Mercury … YOU are also experiencing the Relativistic effects of the Sun’s Gravity (just like Mercury). Time and Distance will be dilated for you when compared with an observer on the Earth. Because of this effect your measurements will physically differ from an observer back on Earth, and because of this dilation your Newtonian calculations will produce the correct result.

A result that – back on Earth – would require General Relativity to reproduce.

No. Sorry, but that is absolute nonsense. Any time-dilution experienced in orbit around Mercury would be as much influenced by your orbital motion as by Mercury's motion, and in any case insignificant. The realitivistic effects of the Sun's gravity do not create time-dilution. Finally, this obviously does not explain Mercury's progression as observed from Earth.

Without commenting on Trees falling in the woods … how often are math equations calculated when no consciousness is around? Do trees and rocks even understand mathematics?

Meaning what? Surely 2+2=4 whether somebody percieves it or not?

Relativity is about Time and Distance dilation. Are you telling me that something other than a consciousness would even be aware of such an effect? How?

Are you telling me that you think relativity only works on entities that are aware of it? Then you are whackier than I thought.

Hans

Franko

4th March 2003, 11:48 AM

In addition to General Relativity, Einstein also developed the case of Special Relativity which asserts that the laws of physics are identical in all inertial frames. For this to be true, the speed of light cannot be different in different frames, even if those frames are in relative motion. This condition is met if the speed of light is a Universal constant. This finite communication time, which was not a component of Newton's description of gravity, allows for cause and effect relations which leads to the concept of Causality. Among many things, special relativity shows for objects moving at high velocity time runs slower, lengths become shorter and masses increase. This last effect can be understood through relativity as a relation between the increase of kinetic energy in one frame and a mass increase in another. This leads to the important principle of equivalence, E= mc2. The conditions of general relativity follow from those of special relativity but are applied to an accelerating frame (such as a gravitational potential). Hence inertial and gravitational forces are the same phenomenon and there is an identity between inertial masses as derived from Newton's laws of motion and gravitational masses which produce the force.

The basic prediction is that Newtonian gravity is very accurate when the gravitational field is weak (meaning that space is locally flat) but breaks down when the gravitational field is very strong (meaning space is locally curved). This was first manifested observationally when precision measures of the orbit of Mercury disagreed with Newtonian mechanics

But ONLY when measured from well outside the gravity field back on planet Earth! go to Mercury itself, and Space will seem just as "flat" as it did back on Earth ... Relative to You.

The resolution is provided by General Relativity. Mercury is sufficiently close to the Sun that it orbits in curved space and hence Newtonian mechanics provides an incomplete specification of its orbital parameters. The precession of the perihelion of Mercury's orbit and the bending of star light when it passes near the Sun are in excellent agreement with predictions from General Relativity and serve as its best verification.[

Tricky

4th March 2003, 11:54 AM

When you copy someone else's work (http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Bothun2/Bothun1_1_6.html), Franko, you are supposed to cite the reference. Otherwise it is plagarism.

Of course, there was never any question that you did not write the previous post. It was comprehensible.

Franko

4th March 2003, 12:01 PM

Doh! ... my bad!

I pulled that off a google search, but I don't know the site.

Tricky

4th March 2003, 12:14 PM

Originally posted by Franko
Doh! ... my bad!

I pulled that off a google search, but I don't know the site.
If you're using Internet Explorer, go into View --> Toolbars and make sure address bar is checked. That way the website address will appear at the top of your browser page.

Stimpson J. Cat

4th March 2003, 12:31 PM

Franko,

But ONLY when measured from well outside the gravity field back on planet Earth! go to Mercury itself, and Space will seem just as "flat" as it did back on Earth ... Relative to You.

This is false. The curvature of space is a local quantity, and can be measured (in principle) on an arbitrarily small distance scale (at least, until you get down to the quantum scale). It is nonzero both on Mercury and on Earth. It is just much easier to measure over large distance scales.

The curvature of space can be measured as follows. Take three points in space. Connect those points with straight lines (where a straight line is defined to be the shortest path connecting two points). You now have a triangle. Add up the angles. If they do not add up to 180 degrees (pi radians), then space is curved.

The average curvature over the triangle can then be calculated as the sum of the angles (in radians), minus pi, divided by the area of the triangle.

Although it is not obvious from the above, as we take the limit of the triangle's area going to zero, the average curvature does not go to zero. Instead, it approaches a finite limit, which is the local curvature.

Dr. Stupid

Franko

4th March 2003, 12:47 PM

So what are you saying Stimp?

Relativity accounts for dilation, Newton doesn't --correct?

That was the difference between the two -- correct? If not, then why did everyone get so excited about Einstein?

So if the reason that Mercury is miscalculated from Earth is because of dilation, are you saying that a person in orbit around Mercury wouldn't also feel the effects of this same dilation?

neutrino_cannon

4th March 2003, 01:37 PM

Franko:
So what are you saying Stimp?

Relativity accounts for dilation, Newton doesn't --correct?

That was the difference between the two -- correct? If not, then why did everyone get so excited about Einstein?

So if the reason that Mercury is miscalculated from Earth is because of dilation, are you saying that a person in orbit around Mercury wouldn't also feel the effects of this same dilation?

That would apear to be his case.

The only reason I included relativity in my post was to point out that we have come a long way from newtonian physics, and that the emerging field of quantum physics, which according to the link I posted http://spot.colorado.edu/~vstenger/Quantum/qkids.html
shows, along with many others that quantum physics is in complete accord with all observed data. Furthermore, for reasons explained in the link, quantum physics show that individual reactions between particles are randomized.

Thus, as the nature of the universe is at a quantum level, random, fatalism cannot be true.

I posit this not because it is a dogmatically held belief, as you would have the world know, but because that is what all the evidence points too, as posted above.

Stimpson J. Cat

4th March 2003, 02:05 PM

Franko,

So what are you saying Stimp?

I thought that was clear. I am saying that what you stated is wrong.

Relativity accounts for dilation, Newton doesn't --correct?

That was the difference between the two -- correct? If not, then why did everyone get so excited about Einstein?

So if the reason that Mercury is miscalculated from Earth is because of dilation, are you saying that a person in orbit around Mercury wouldn't also feel the effects of this same dilation?

If someone living on Mercury were to use Newtonian mechanics to calculate its orbit, they would get a different answer than we get here on Earth (due to time dilation and length contraction). But the answer they get would still be wrong, even from their own frame of reference.

Why you think this is relevent is beyond me, though. Either way, Newtonian relativity is wrong. End of story.

Dr. Stupid

Franko

4th March 2003, 02:15 PM

Stimpson J. Cat

4th March 2003, 02:26 PM

Franko,

So you are saying that General Relativity is accounting for some other factor than Time and Distance dilation?

Yes.

Like what … specifically?

Space-time curvature. Time dilation and distance contraction are both manifestations of space-time curvature (as well as Special Relativity). They are not sufficient to completely describe General Relativistic gravitational effects, though. The effect of GR on the orbit of Mercury is far more complicated than you seem to think it is.

Dr. Stupid

Franko

4th March 2003, 02:32 PM

Franko:
Relativity accounts for dilation, Newton doesn't --correct?

That was the difference between the two -- correct? If not, then why did everyone get so excited about Einstein?

So if the reason that Mercury is miscalculated from Earth is because of dilation, are you saying that a person in orbit around Mercury wouldn't also feel the effects of this same dilation?

Stimpson:
If someone living on Mercury were to use Newtonian mechanics to calculate its orbit, they would get a different answer than we get here on Earth (due to time dilation and length contraction). But the answer they get would still be wrong, even from their own frame of reference.

Franko:
So you are saying that General Relativity is accounting for some other factor than Time and Distance dilation?

Like what … specifically?

Stimpson:
Space-time curvature. Time dilation and distance contraction are both manifestations of space-time curvature (as well as Special Relativity). They are not sufficient to completely describe General Relativistic gravitational effects, though.

So what else is there SPECIFICALLY?

You mention Time and Distance dilation (which is the result of the curvature of spacetime). But you seem to be implying that there is another component that would not be fully accounted for by a person standing in the same gravity field as Mercury itself. What is the other component?

Stimpy:
The effect of GR on the orbit of Mercury is far more complicated than you seem to think it is.

How so? I thought the difference between Newton and Einstein was Relativity (curvature of spacetime by gravity)? You seem to be saying there is something else? … what is the something else?

Stimpson J. Cat

4th March 2003, 02:45 PM

Franko,

So what else is there SPECIFICALLY?

You mention Time and Distance dilation (which is the result of the curvature of spacetime). But you seem to be implying that there is another component that would not be fully accounted for by a person standing in the same gravity field as Mercury itself. What is the other component?

What you are asking me to explain is not only far to complicated for me to try to explain on a message board, it would also require me to teach you Tensor Calculus.

The effect of GR on the orbit of Mercury is far more complicated than you seem to think it is.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How so? I thought the difference between Newton and Einstein was Relativity (curvature of spacetime by gravity)? You seem to be saying there is something else? … what is the something else?

No, I am saying that there is more to spacetime curvature than just time dilation and distance contraction.

For one thing, Mercury is not in a circular orbit. That means that the gravitational strength, and the resulting deviations from Newtonian physics, vary as a function of time. Your assumption that all of the non-Newtonian effects of GR will cancel out if all your measurements are done within the same frame as Mercury, would only be valid if Mercury were in a Uniform gravitational field. It is not.

But you don't have to take my word for it. Go to the Library and check out a book on General Relativity (a textbook, not some popular-science book that introduces a bunch of intuitive analogies, and glosses over the math).

Of course, you would be advised to learn the necessary math first. There is a reason General Relativity is tought as an advanced level physics course.

Dr. Stupid

Franko

4th March 2003, 05:06 PM

Stimpson:
For one thing, Mercury is not in a circular orbit. That means that the gravitational strength, and the resulting deviations from Newtonian physics, vary as a function of time. Your assumption that all of the non-Newtonian effects of GR will cancel out if all your measurements are done within the same frame as Mercury, would only be valid if Mercury were in a Uniform gravitational field. It is not.

Yeeeaaah Budddy … but here is the thing … if you are in a spaceship orbiting Mercury … and you are doing your simply little Newtonian calculations on a computer. Then as you moved through the changing Gravitational field (Information density) then wouldn’t the Relativistic effects also be changing right along with you (and Mercury as it moved around closer and farther from the Sun). In other words, Time dilation and Distance dilation would be effecting MERCURY, YOU, your SHIP, and the COMPUTER, and ergo your calculations?

Stimpson:
But you don't have to take my word for it. Go to the Library and check out a book on General Relativity (a textbook, not some popular-science book that introduces a bunch of intuitive analogies, and glosses over the math).

Of course, you would be advised to learn the necessary math first. There is a reason General Relativity is tought as an advanced level physics course.

Okay, so essentially what you are telling me is that Newtonian mechanics is wholly dependant on the precise orbital position of the Earth? If our Earth were some how moved to the orbit of Mercury, Newton would have been just another knucklehead?

Stimpson J. Cat

5th March 2003, 01:41 AM

Franko,

For one thing, Mercury is not in a circular orbit. That means that the gravitational strength, and the resulting deviations from Newtonian physics, vary as a function of time. Your assumption that all of the non-Newtonian effects of GR will cancel out if all your measurements are done within the same frame as Mercury, would only be valid if Mercury were in a Uniform gravitational field. It is not.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeeeaaah Budddy … but here is the thing … if you are in a spaceship orbiting Mercury … and you are doing your simply little Newtonian calculations on a computer. Then as you moved through the changing Gravitational field (Information density) then wouldn’t the Relativistic effects also be changing right along with you (and Mercury as it moved around closer and farther from the Sun). In other words, Time dilation and Distance dilation would be effecting MERCURY, YOU, your SHIP, and the COMPUTER, and ergo your calculations?

Like I said, the effects don't cancel out. I am sorry if this seems counter-intuitive to you. You don't have to take my word for it. Do the math.

Okay, so essentially what you are telling me is that Newtonian mechanics is wholly dependant on the precise orbital position of the Earth?

No, I am saying that, as an approximation to reality, Newtonian mechanics works better at the orbital position of the Earth, then it does at the orbital position of Mercury. It doesn't give the right answer for the orbit of the Earth, either. The answer it gives is just much closer to the actual orbit, than it is for Mercury.

If our Earth were some how moved to the orbit of Mercury, Newton would have been just another knucklehead?

No, but we would have discovered that his laws of motion were flawed sooner.

Dr. Stupid

5th March 2003, 04:09 PM

Originally posted by Q-Source

You have been told...?

So much for freedom of speech (and thought) :rolleyes:

Yes the little voice inside my head told me well it's the fuggin tumor speaking but what the hell I obey it's voice.

Oh yes I have been told by mortal means to choose. I have I choose to continue posting to whom I want, when I want so tough banana cakes.

If somebody has a problem with that go get a life.:mad:Coz I sure as hell don't' give a bowler hat and custard tart about it.

Franko

6th March 2003, 10:07 AM

Franko:
If our Earth were some how moved to the orbit of Mercury, Newton would have been just another knucklehead?

Stimpson:
No, but we would have discovered that his laws of motion were flawed sooner.

Suppose that at some point in the future Humans are capable of building a spacecraft that can travel of 70% the speed of Light. But imagine that this is a spacecraft built to send Human colonists to another planet, so they build this craft from a large rocky asteroid captured from the solar system.

Now suppose that they build Two of these “spacecraft” – both capable of traveling 70% the speed of light …

… and they send them off in opposite directions. From the POV of the crew on either of these crafts they are standing on a “stationary planetary body” (like the Earth). But since BOTH ships are traveling away from the Earth at 70% the speed of light, wouldn’t they being traveling at 140% the speed of light away from each other? In other words from a person on one of the asteroids, wouldn’t it appear that the other asteroid was moving away from him at a speed beyond what is “allowable” by General Relativity?

Or think of it this way … suppose you have two flashlights, and you “glue” the back ends together so that the beams of lights are shining in opposite directions. From the “POV” of the photons in one beam, aren’t the photons in the opposite beam moving away at twice the speed of light?

7th March 2003, 05:37 AM

Silence ?

Or think of it this way … suppose you have two flashlights, and you “glue” the back ends together so that the beams of lights are shining in opposite directions. From the “POV” of the photons in one beam, aren’t the photons in the opposite beam moving away at twice the speed of light?

How can that happen?

Franko

7th March 2003, 06:57 AM

How can that happen?

Because Solipsism is True?

PixyMisa

7th March 2003, 08:21 PM

Originally posted by Pie
Silence ?

How can that happen? Simple: It can't. It doesn't. Franko, not surprisingly, is wrong.

Franko

7th March 2003, 08:30 PM

Simple: It can't. It doesn't. Franko, not surprisingly, is wrong.

So what does that mean exactly, Princess?

If we have two ships flying in opposite directions then they can't go faster than half the speed of light?

MRC_Hans

8th March 2003, 08:20 AM

Originally posted by Franko

Suppose that at some point in the future Humans are capable of building a spacecraft that can travel of 70% the speed of Light. But imagine that this is a spacecraft built to send Human colonists to another planet, so they build this craft from a large rocky asteroid captured from the solar system.

Now suppose that they build Two of these “spacecraft” – both capable of traveling 70% the speed of light …

… and they send them off in opposite directions. From the POV of the crew on either of these crafts they are standing on a “stationary planetary body” (like the Earth). But since BOTH ships are traveling away from the Earth at 70% the speed of light, wouldn’t they being traveling at 140% the speed of light away from each other? In other words from a person on one of the asteroids, wouldn’t it appear that the other asteroid was moving away from him at a speed beyond what is “allowable” by General Relativity?

Or think of it this way … suppose you have two flashlights, and you “glue” the back ends together so that the beams of lights are shining in opposite directions. From the “POV” of the photons in one beam, aren’t the photons in the opposite beam moving away at twice the speed of light?

What is this? Are you making fun of us Franko? Surely you cannot be this ignorant? Havent you understood one scrap of relativity?

Hans

Franko

8th March 2003, 09:40 AM

What is this? Are you making fun of us Franko?

What exactly do you mean?

Surely you cannot be this ignorant? Havent you understood one scrap of relativity?

Are you telling me you are actually passing up an opportunity to demonstrate (show-off) that marvelous A-Theist intelligence of Yours?

MRC_Hans

9th March 2003, 06:36 AM

SO you are this ignorant? The person who claims to understand Quantum Mechanics better than the entire scientific community of the past fifty years in earnest asks such questions? :rolleyes:

You disappoint me deeply, but I guess its my own fault. It's just that I thought you had at least some clue about those laws of physics you keep yapping about.

But, at least this explains why everything seems "magic" to you.

And it explains why trying to tell you about probabilistic events has been fruitless. I thought you were ignoring my explanations because they did not fit your mode of debate, but now I realize that you simply did not understand anything. Well, in a way, it redeems you somewhat.

I could explain some of it to you, but I'm not experienced in teaching basic physics, so if you really want to know, I suggest you seek knowledge elsewhere. But I warn you: You might have to review your cosmology.

Hans

Franko

9th March 2003, 08:22 AM

MRC:
SO you are this ignorant? The person who claims to understand Quantum Mechanics better than the entire scientific community of the past fifty years in earnest asks such questions?

You disappoint me deeply, but I guess its my own fault. It's just that I thought you had at least some clue about those laws of physics you keep yapping about.

But, at least this explains why everything seems "magic" to you.

Hey … it seemed like a simple question to me. You were the one going on and on about Newton ceasing to operate when someone is experiencing Relativistic effects.

And it explains why trying to tell you about probabilistic events has been fruitless. I thought you were ignoring my explanations because they did not fit your mode of debate, but now I realize that you simply did not understand anything. Well, in a way, it redeems you somewhat.

I could explain some of it to you, but I'm not experienced in teaching basic physics, so if you really want to know, I suggest you seek knowledge elsewhere. But I warn you: You might have to review your cosmology.

Hmmm. “Me” review? You really think so? I am curious as to why you say that?

But look MRC, you shouldn’t worry about “me” and my cosmology so much. “I’ll” be just fine. It’s You “we” should be worrying about. You still haven’t explained to me why it is you believe that an entire Universe magically appearing is more probable that YOU magically appearing and then just imagining everything else?

evildave

9th March 2003, 08:46 AM

If a god appeared and proved its existence beyond any conceivable scientific doubt and said in a booming voice that all understood at once:

"Harken unto me, fools! All of your religions, and all of their prophets and saviors are false! You speak only to the air when you pray. Your idols are naught to me. Your religious leaders are nothing to me, and speak lies in MY name. Nothing they say or do in MY name has anything to do with MY will.

"Oh, and by the way, your sun will be destroyed by this (very large, designated object, converging on its position) in about 1000 years. Your deaths have always been final. There is no afterlife. Unless you find a means to colonize other solar systems in that time, the entire human race will become extinct. I don't really care whether you succeed or not. Just thought you'd like to know that you had better get your technological asses in gear if you want any hope of a future of any kind."

If god himself said this, not only would religion continue, a sizable subset of it would claim that it is god's divine judgment that the human race should die, and they would actively seek to sabotage all attempts to leave the solar system.

The rest would only claim that this god was false (just as they dismiss other forms of scientific evidence), and that the massive and observable object, predictably converging on the sun's position is an illusion, and that believing in it is a mortal sin that will condemn you to eternal hell. These will also actively seek to sabotage all attempts to leave the solar system, to "save souls".

Yahzi

9th March 2003, 10:45 AM

Evildave is completely right.

Franko

9th March 2003, 11:08 AM

I don’t see how your pessimistic little fantasies about how evil “God” is …

evildave: (God is bad!)
booming voice … Harken unto me, fools! … All of your religions, and all of their prophets and saviors are false! … You speak only to the air when you pray … Your religious leaders are nothing to me … your sun will be destroyed … Your deaths have always been final … There is no afterlife … the entire human race will become extinct … I don't really care whether you succeed or not

… And how much “superior” you’re a-Theist (paranoia/pessimism) mind is compared to all of the “imbecilic” lesser figments of your imagination …

evildave: (Most people are stupider than Me!)
Harken unto me, fools! … all of their prophets and saviors are false! … You speak only to the air when you pray … Your religious leaders are nothing to me, and speak lies in MY name … not only would religion continue, a sizable subset of it would claim that it is god's divine judgment that the human race should die, and they would actively seek to sabotage all attempts to leave the solar system … The rest would only claim that this god was false (just as they dismiss other forms of scientific evidence) … an illusion, and that believing in it is a mortal sin that will condemn you to eternal hell … These will also actively seek to sabotage all attempts to leave the solar system, to "save souls".

Is evidence against Solipsism being True … ? Sounds more just like You, (God) re-stating the obvious.

Yatzi: (A-Theist)
Evildave is completely right.

See what “I” mean? Who can argue with “God”?

MRC_Hans

9th March 2003, 11:09 AM

Originally posted by Franko
Hey … it seemed like a simple question to me. You were the one going on and on about Newton ceasing to operate when someone is experiencing Relativistic effects.

You know, I wouldn't mind trying to explain things to you, but I loose patience with your strawmen. Do you think you could answer once in a while without invoking one? Newton does "not cease to operate", Newton's laws are just insufficient to precisely explain observations. The very basic of Relativity is that the speed of light is the maximum you can observe, no matter the conditions. If you are in a spaceship going 70% lightspeed and shine a light forward, you will see it leaving you at lightspeed, but the the stationary observer, it will still move only at lightspeed, not 170% lightspeed. Time dilation is the key to the answer.

Actually, you can show that certain incidents can be defined that move faster than light, the theoretical differential speed between your two spaceships being one example, but information still travels only at the speed C.

Hmmm. “Me” review? You really think so? I am curious as to why you say that?

Because your cosmology does not fit within the scientific (and thus logic) perception of the universe.

But look MRC, you shouldn’t worry about “me” and my cosmology so much. “I’ll” be just fine. It’s You “we” should be worrying about. You still haven’t explained to me why it is you believe that an entire Universe magically appearing is more probable that YOU magically appearing and then just imagining everything else?

If you don't worry about you, why should I worry about me?
I dont worry about your cosmology, but since you keep going on about it, I somehow assume you want to debate it?

Hans

Franko

9th March 2003, 11:42 AM

MRC:
You know, I wouldn't mind trying to explain things to you, but I loose patience with your strawmen. Do you think you could answer once in a while without invoking one?

If you think I am creating a strawman fallacy on some point then you should cite specifically what you disagree with, and the specific reason why you disagree. Shouting strawman! Strawman! Doesn’t tell me (or anyone else reading along) anything (no information).

MRC:
Newton does "not cease to operate", Newton's laws are just insufficient to precisely explain observations.

If you were on a big spaceship traveling at relativistic speeds, and you were doing some calculations would Newtonian mechanics still function properly? I thought that Newton always worked relative to the observer in question?

The very basic of Relativity is that the speed of light is the maximum you can observe, no matter the conditions. If you are in a spaceship going 70% lightspeed and shine a light forward, you will see it leaving you at lightspeed, but the the stationary observer, it will still move only at lightspeed, not 170% lightspeed. Time dilation is the key to the answer.

Actually, you can show that certain incidents can be defined that move faster than light, the theoretical differential speed between your two spaceships being one example, but information still travels only at the speed C.

Right, but I thought that according to GR Nothing could move faster than the speed of light relative to any other object? And if information can’t travel faster than the speed of light, then how come the one ship could relay a signal back to the earth, and then the earth could relay the signal on to the second ship? You just acknowledged that the ships would be separating faster than the speed of light, yet they are still able to communicate?

Can you explain this apparent discrepancy for me?

MRC_Hans

9th March 2003, 12:18 PM

Originally posted by Franko
If you think I am creating a strawman fallacy on some point then you should cite specifically what you disagree with, and the specific reason why you disagree. Shouting strawman! Strawman! Doesn’t tell me (or anyone else reading along) anything (no information).

You consistently claiming that I resort to explaining magic is a straw-man, since I have not done so (this also makes it a blatant lie). Or, in the post above you imply that I have said that Newtonian laws were "ceasing to operate", is a strawman. Need I go on?

Uhh, and don't kid yourself, everybody spots your strawmen (with muscleman as a possible exception, heheh)

If you were on a big spaceship traveling at relativistic speeds, and you were doing some calculations would Newtonian mechanics still function properly? I thought that Newton always worked relative to the observer in question?

I suppose that for objects within the spaceship they function, why?

Right, but I thought that according to GR Nothing could move faster than the speed of light relative to any other object? And if information can’t travel faster than the speed of light, then how come the one ship could relay a signal back to the earth, and then the earth could relay the signal on to the second ship? You just acknowledged that the ships would be separating faster than the speed of light, yet they are still able to communicate?

Can you explain this apparent discrepancy for me?

Yes. Actually they would not need to depend on Earth for a realy, exactly the same thing would happen if they communicated directly.

Lets assume that ship A sends a message towards B. For simplicity, lets assume it's just a green laser beam. The laser beam will move at the speed C, but because ship A will move away from it at 0.7C, it will be strongly red-shifted (like a police siren when the squad car speeds by, it is called Doppler shift). To the occupants of ship A it will seem normal because their time will run correspondently slower.

Sooner or later the laser beam travelling at C will catch up with ship B, and since B is running away from it at 0.7C, it will be further red-shifted (way into infrared), but this will not be visible to the occupants of Ship B, because their time-dilution will cancel out this extra red-shift. So what they will see is a laserbeam redshifted from being sent backwards from a ship going away at 0,7C; exactly the same as a stationary observer would observe.

However, the stationary observer might calculate the time taken for the laser beam to traverse from ship A to ship B and realize that their speed difference was 1,4C.

Hans

LucyR

9th March 2003, 01:03 PM

Hans,

Perhaps it helps to state at this point the relativistic expression for composition of velocities, i.e. (v_1 + v_2)/(1 + v_1*v_2/c^2).

It's easy to see from this expression that the combined velocity cannot exceed c.

So from the point of view of Ship A, Ship B is only moving at 0.94c.

Perhaps you've already gone through this somewhere. If so, sorry.

evildave

9th March 2003, 10:12 PM

Originally posted by Franko
I don’t see how your pessimistic little fantasies about how evil “God” is …

… And how much “superior” you’re a-Theist (paranoia/pessimism) mind is compared to all of the “imbecilic” lesser figments of your imagination …

Is evidence against Solipsism being True … ? Sounds more just like You, (God) re-stating the obvious.

See what “I” mean? Who can argue with “God”?

Boy listen to the rants. I give a very positive image of God being nice enough to give forewarning of doom before it happens, rather than just letting mankind die.

A sporting chance.

It's the PEOPLE who are evil in the scenario... but that's lost on him.

But of course, Franko only understands things the way he wants to, further illustrating my point about how some theists perceive things.

MRC_Hans

10th March 2003, 01:06 AM

Originally posted by LucyR
Hans,

Perhaps it helps to state at this point the relativistic expression for composition of velocities, i.e. (v_1 + v_2)/(1 + v_1*v_2/c^2).

It's easy to see from this expression that the combined velocity cannot exceed c.

So from the point of view of Ship A, Ship B is only moving at 0.94c.

Perhaps you've already gone through this somewhere. If so, sorry. Thanks. No, I did not go through it.

This may not help Franko, though, as I have not seen him handle math beyond 2+2 :rolleyes:

Cheers,
Hans

Franko

10th March 2003, 06:40 AM

Franko:
Suppose that at some point in the future Humans are capable of building a spacecraft that can travel of 70% the speed of Light. But imagine that this is a spacecraft built to send Human colonists to another planet, so they build this craft from a large rocky asteroid captured from the solar system.

Now suppose that they build Two of these “spacecraft” – both capable of traveling 70% the speed of light …

… and they send them off in opposite directions. From the POV of the crew on either of these crafts they are standing on a “stationary planetary body” (like the Earth). But since BOTH ships are traveling away from the Earth at 70% the speed of light, wouldn’t they being traveling at 140% the speed of light away from each other? In other words from a person on one of the asteroids, wouldn’t it appear that the other asteroid was moving away from him at a speed beyond what is “allowable” by General Relativity?

Or think of it this way … suppose you have two flashlights, and you “glue” the back ends together so that the beams of lights are shining in opposite directions. From the “POV” of the photons in one beam, aren’t the photons in the opposite beam moving away at twice the speed of light?

MRC:
The very basic of Relativity is that the speed of light is the maximum you can observe, no matter the conditions. If you are in a spaceship going 70% lightspeed and shine a light forward, you will see it leaving you at lightspeed, but the the stationary observer, it will still move only at lightspeed, not 170% lightspeed. Time dilation is the key to the answer.

Actually, you can show that certain incidents can be defined that move faster than light, the theoretical differential speed between your two spaceships being one example, but information still travels only at the speed C.

Franko:
Right, but I thought that according to GR Nothing could move faster than the speed of light relative to any other object? And if information can’t travel faster than the speed of light, then how come the one ship could relay a signal back to the earth, and then the earth could relay the signal on to the second ship? You just acknowledged that the ships would be separating faster than the speed of light, yet they are still able to communicate?

Can you explain this apparent discrepancy for me?

MRC:
Lets assume that ship A sends a message towards B. For simplicity, lets assume it's just a green laser beam. The laser beam will move at the speed C, but because ship A will move away from it at 0.7C, it will be strongly red-shifted (like a police siren when the squad car speeds by, it is called Doppler shift). To the occupants of ship A it will seem normal because their time will run correspondently slower.

Sooner or later the laser beam travelling at C will catch up with ship B, and since B is running away from it at 0.7C, it will be further red-shifted (way into infrared), but this will not be visible to the occupants of Ship B, because their time-dilution will cancel out this extra red-shift. So what they will see is a laserbeam redshifted from being sent backwards from a ship going away at 0,7C; exactly the same as a stationary observer would observe.

However, the stationary observer might calculate the time taken for the laser beam to traverse from ship A to ship B and realize that their speed difference was 1,4C.

Exactly.

So if the speed of light is the MAXIMUM speed, then how can information travel back and fourth between the TWO ships which are separating at 1.4 x C? In other words, if the two ships are both flying away from the Earth at 0.7 x C (each), then they are separating at a rate of 1.4 x C.

So if light (information) only travels at 1.0 x C, then how can the Two ships communicate? Isn’t 1.0 less than 1.4?

MRC:
This may not help Franko, though, as I have not seen him handle math beyond 2+2 :rolleyes:

Hehehe … think so? ;)

Upchurch

10th March 2003, 07:21 AM

Originally posted by Franko
So if the speed of light is the MAXIMUM speed, then how can information travel back and fourth between the TWO ships which are separating at 1.4 x C? In other words, if the two ships are both flying away from the Earth at 0.7 x C (each), then they are separating at a rate of 1.4 x C.
this is only true from the point of view of the Earth frame of reference. From either ship's point of view, their relative velocities would be different and under 1.0C. I don't have time today or I'd do the math and give the actual relativistic speed, but hans is right. it has to do with length contraction and time dialation. (I'm assuming, of course, that there is no acceleration/decelleration going on.)

Franko

10th March 2003, 07:25 AM

this is only true from the point of view of the Earth frame of reference. From either ship's point of view, their relative velocities would be different and under 1.0C. I don't have time today or I'd do the math and give the actual relativistic speed, but hans is right. it has to do with length contraction and time dialation. (I'm assuming, of course, that there is no acceleration/decelleration going on.)

The Two ships are separating at 1.4 x C, and they are still able to communicate. You don’t see a contradiction there Upchimp?

this is only true from the point of view of the Earth frame of reference. From either ship's point of view, their relative velocities would be different and under 1.0C.

… hans is right

Really? …Then why does MRC agree with me and disagree with you?

MRC:

Actually, you can show that certain incidents can be defined that move faster than light, the theoretical differential speed between your two spaceships being one example, but information still travels only at the speed C.

Upchurch

10th March 2003, 07:34 AM

Originally posted by Franko

The Two ships are separating at 1.4 x C, and they are still able to communicate. You don’t see a contradiction there Upchurch? Inertial reference frames are a basic component of the Special Theory of Relativity (http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/SpecialRelativity.html). If you don't get that, I don't know what to tell you. Maybe other than, read a book.

Edited to add:

From the link above
According to special relativity, no wave or particle may travel at a speed greater than the speed of light c. Therefore, the usual rules from Newtonian mechanics do not apply when adding velocities that are large enough. For example, if a particle travels at a speed v with respect to a stationary observer, and another particle travels at a speed v' with respect to the first particle, the speed u of particle two seen by the observer is not v + v' as would be the case in Newtonian mechanics, but rather

u = (v + v') / (1 + (v v') / c^2)

Taken from the POV of one of the ships, the speed of the Earth, v, is 0.7c and the speed of the other ship, v', from the POV of the Earth is 0.7c. Everything else is a constant, so you can determine how fast the ships are actually traving apart from each other, u.

u = (0.7c + 0.7c) / (1 + (0.7c 0.7c) / c^2)

u = (1.4c) / (1.49)

u = 0.940c (approximately)

So, the spaceships have a relative velocity of 0.94c, not 1.4c

Franko

10th March 2003, 08:04 AM

Franko:
Suppose that at some point in the future Humans are capable of building a spacecraft that can travel of 70% the speed of Light. But imagine that this is a spacecraft built to send Human colonists to another planet, so they build this craft from a large rocky asteroid captured from the solar system.

Now suppose that they build Two of these “spacecraft” – both capable of traveling 70% the speed of light …

… and they send them off in opposite directions. From the POV of the crew on either of these crafts they are standing on a “stationary planetary body” (like the Earth). But since BOTH ships are traveling away from the Earth at 70% the speed of light, wouldn’t they being traveling at 140% the speed of light away from each other? In other words from a person on one of the asteroids, wouldn’t it appear that the other asteroid was moving away from him at a speed beyond what is “allowable” by General Relativity?

Or think of it this way … suppose you have two flashlights, and you “glue” the back ends together so that the beams of lights are shining in opposite directions. From the “POV” of the photons in one beam, aren’t the photons in the opposite beam moving away at twice the speed of light?

MRC:
The very basic of Relativity is that the speed of light is the maximum you can observe, no matter the conditions. If you are in a spaceship going 70% lightspeed and shine a light forward, you will see it leaving you at lightspeed, but the the stationary observer, it will still move only at lightspeed, not 170% lightspeed. Time dilation is the key to the answer.

Actually, you can show that certain incidents can be defined that move faster than light, the theoretical differential speed between your two spaceships being one example, but information still travels only at the speed C.

Franko:
Right, but I thought that according to GR Nothing could move faster than the speed of light relative to any other object? And if information can’t travel faster than the speed of light, then how come the one ship could relay a signal back to the earth, and then the earth could relay the signal on to the second ship? You just acknowledged that the ships would be separating faster than the speed of light, yet they are still able to communicate?

Can you explain this apparent discrepancy for me?

MRC:
Lets assume that ship A sends a message towards B. For simplicity, lets assume it's just a green laser beam. The laser beam will move at the speed C, but because ship A will move away from it at 0.7C, it will be strongly red-shifted (like a police siren when the squad car speeds by, it is called Doppler shift). To the occupants of ship A it will seem normal because their time will run correspondently slower.

Sooner or later the laser beam travelling at C will catch up with ship B, and since B is running away from it at 0.7C, it will be further red-shifted (way into infrared), but this will not be visible to the occupants of Ship B, because their time-dilution will cancel out this extra red-shift. So what they will see is a laserbeam redshifted from being sent backwards from a ship going away at 0,7C; exactly the same as a stationary observer would observe.

However, the stationary observer might calculate the time taken for the laser beam to traverse from ship A to ship B and realize that their speed difference was 1,4C.

Franko:
Exactly.

So if the speed of light is the MAXIMUM speed, then how can information travel back and fourth between the TWO ships which are separating at 1.4 x C? In other words, if the two ships are both flying away from the Earth at 0.7 x C (each), then they are separating at a rate of 1.4 x C.

So if light (information) only travels at 1.0 x C, then how can the Two ships communicate? Isn’t 1.0 less than 1.4?

Upchurch here is where the discussion stands. Am I understanding your correctly? Are you disagreeing with me and MRC that the two ships can be moving away from each other at 1.4 x C?

Please state specifically your precise point of disagreement, and the specific reason(s) you disagree.

Upchurch

10th March 2003, 08:12 AM

Originally posted by Franko

Upchurch here is where the discussion stands. Am I understanding your correctly? Are you disagreeing with me and MRC that the two ships can be moving away from each other at 1.4 x C?
Edited my post while you were posting. see my last post.

BTW, I always feel good when I can bring a little math into a philosophical argument. Warms my heart.

MRC_Hans

10th March 2003, 08:15 AM

Originally posted by Franko
The Two ships are separating at 1.4 x C, and they are still able to communicate. You don’t see a contradiction there Upchimp?

This is the tricky thing about relativism. There is no contradiction, and I really think my explanation showed quite well what happens. The crucial point is that the lightwave transmitted backwards from ship A moves at the speed of light, both from the POV of the ship and a stationary observer.

But the same would be true of sound waves. Imagine two aircraft flying away from each other each going MACH 0,7. Plane A fires a gun, and the sound travels towards plane B at MACH 1, eventually overtaking it and theoretically audible on board. Only here the full doppler shift would be observable, because there is no time dilation.

You could even make this experiment: Two ships are sailing in opposite directions away from each other, each doing 7 knots. Ship A lowers a launch which heads for ship B. The launch can make 10 knots. Despite the separation rate of the ships being 14 knots, the launch has no difficulty reaching ship B. It can also sail back to ship A.

It's really quite simple ;)

Really? …Then why does MRC agree with me and disagree with you?

Why should it bother him? But in this case it is not true. I referred to certain conditions where you can define an EVENT that moves faster than light. But an event is not a physical thing.

OK; since I stuck my head out on C+ events, I'd better put up:

Imagine a wave nearing a beach. If it moves towards the beach at a alightly different angle than 90deg, one end of the wave will hit the beach first, and the event of the wave hitting the beach will travel along the beach as more parts of the wave roll in. This event will travel much faster than the wave. You can sometimes observe this in reality, the speed of the event can be appr. the speed of sound, and if you stand at the end of the wave that hits last, the sound of the wave hitting will reach you as a single boom.

Of course, the same thing can be imagined when a light pulse reaches some surface slightly off-angle. The event of the pulse front hitting the surface travels perpendicular to the light beam, and at a speed that can be many times the speed of light.

Other experiments can be made to show similar effects.
This is mainly an academic exercise with little practical purpose.

Hans

Upchurch

10th March 2003, 08:29 AM

Originally posted by Franko

Upchurch here is where the discussion stands. Am I understanding your correctly? Are you disagreeing with me and MRC that the two ships can be moving away from each other at 1.4 x C?

Please state specifically your precise point of disagreement, and the specific reason(s) you disagree.
Sorry, I realized I didn't actually answer the question.

Yes, I disagree. The ships are not moving apart at 1.4c. The ships are moving apart at 0.94c in each ship's frame of reference as shown above. I hope the above calculation is a specific enough reason for why I disagree.

Sorry for any confusion

Franko

10th March 2003, 08:31 AM

So Upchurch, according to You, if we have two ships flying in opposite directions then they can't go faster than half the speed of light (each)?

Franko

10th March 2003, 08:35 AM

MRC:
This is the tricky thing about relativism. There is no contradiction, and I really think my explanation showed quite well what happens. The crucial point is that the lightwave transmitted backwards from ship A moves at the speed of light, both from the POV of the ship and a stationary observer.

But the same would be true of sound waves. Imagine two aircraft flying away from each other each going MACH 0,7. Plane A fires a gun, and the sound travels towards plane B at MACH 1, eventually overtaking it and theoretically audible on board. Only here the full doppler shift would be observable, because there is no time dilation.

You could even make this experiment: Two ships are sailing in opposite directions away from each other, each doing 7 knots. Ship A lowers a launch which heads for ship B. The launch can make 10 knots. Despite the separation rate of the ships being 14 knots, the launch has no difficulty reaching ship B. It can also sail back to ship A.

It's really quite simple

Actually wouldn’t it be more like, we have an asteroid, and we have another asteroid moving away at the rate of 1.4C, and we have a mini-space ship that only travels at 1.0C and somehow it is able to fly between the two asteroids?

Upchurch

10th March 2003, 08:39 AM

Originally posted by Franko
So Upchurch, according to You, if we have two ships flying in opposite directions then they can't go faster than half the speed of light (each)? Well, first, it's not according to me, it's according to SR. I can't claim credit for it, just for using it.

Second, The only restriction on speed is c, not 0.5c. In the above example, each ship is going 0.7c from the Earth reference frame, but from each ship's reference frame the other ship is moving at 0.94c.

See, the crux of it is that you have to specify what reference frame you are using. You can't use the Earth's reference frame with talking about the relative velocity of two objects that aren't in the Earth's reference frame, which is what you're trying to do when you say that the ships are moving apart at 1.4c. The Earth's reference frame is irrelevant to the relative speed between the two ships. The only two reference frames that matter of that of the ships.

Franko

10th March 2003, 08:46 AM

Franko:
So Upchurch, according to You, if we have two ships flying in opposite directions then they can't go faster than half the speed of light (each)?

Upchurch:
Well, first, it's not according to me, it's according to SR. I can't claim credit for it, just for using it.

Second, The only restriction on speed is c, not 0.5c. In the above example, each ship is going 0.7c from the Earth reference frame, but from each ship's reference frame the other ship is moving at 0.94c.

If you and I are traveling at opposite directions at 210,000 km/sec (0.7 x C – separating at 410,000 km/sec) then we are separating faster than the speed of light, are we not?

See, the crux of it is that you have to specify what reference frame you are using. You can't use the Earth's reference frame with talking about the relative velocity of two objects that aren't in the Earth's reference frame, which is what you're trying to do when you say that the ships are moving apart at 1.4c. The Earth's reference frame is irrelevant to the relative speed between the two ships. The only two reference frames that matter of that of the ships.

So are you also claiming that when light rays leave the Sun on opposite sides that these light rays (photons) are actually only moving at 0.5 x C, because they cannot be separating at a rate above 1.0xC total? I thought that it took light 8 minutes to reach the Earth from the Sun (the Earth is 8 “light minutes” distant from the Sun), are you claiming that it actually takes 16 minutes for the Sun’s light to reach the Earth?

Stimpson J. Cat

10th March 2003, 08:52 AM

Franko,

You are making a fool of yourself again. What Upchurch has described is how SR works. This has been demonstrated extensively through empirical testing. It is clear that you don't have any idea what you are talking about. This stuff is covered in any introductory text on the subject. Why don't you try learning about a subject, before you presume to tell people who have studied it extensively that they are all wrong?

Dr. Stupid

Upchurch

10th March 2003, 08:59 AM

Originally posted by Franko

If you and I are traveling at opposite directions at 210,000 km/sec (0.7 x C – separating at 410,000 km/sec) then we are separating faster than the speed of light, are we not?
Nope. If we are each traveling in opposite directions at 0.7c from the Earth, then we are traveling at 0.94c from each other. (You did read my calculation above, right? You understand Relativity, right?)

There is no absolute inertial reference frame. Speed is relative to what you're referencing it from.
So are you also claiming that when light rays leave the Sun on opposite sides that these light rays (photons) are actually only moving at 0.5 x C, because they cannot be separating at a rate above 1.0xC total?Nope again. I'm claiming that while the photons in each beam are traveling at 1c from the sun, they are also traveling at 1c from each other. Let's do the math:

u = (v + v') / (1 + (v v') / c^2)

where:
v = the relative speed of one photon from the sun = 1c
v' = the relative speed of the one photon from the sun = 1c
u = the relative speed of each photon from each other = ?

u = (1c + 1c) / (1 + (1c 1c) / c^2)

u = (2c) / (2)

u = 1c

So, even though each photon is traveling 1c relative to the sun, they are also traveling 1c relative to each other.

Upchurch

10th March 2003, 09:08 AM

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
What Upchurch has described is how SR works.
Thanks, Doc. SR/GR was my fav in college but it's been a while and it's nice to have verification that I'm not totally mis-applying the concepts here.

whitefork

10th March 2003, 09:12 AM

Well, this is almost as good as the theory of gravitation as put forth in the Nothing thread.

Either move it to Science, or pass me some popcorn. Or both.

Franko

10th March 2003, 09:15 AM

Franko:
If you and I are traveling at opposite directions at 210,000 km/sec (0.7 x C – separating at 410,000 km/sec [should have been 420,000km/sec]) then we are separating faster than the speed of light, are we not?

Upchurch:
Nope. If we are each traveling in opposite directions at 0.7c from the Earth, then we are traveling at 0.94c from each other. (You did read my calculation above, right? You understand Relativity, right?)

There is no absolute inertial reference frame. Speed is relative to what you're referencing it from.

Right, and if I am an observer on the EARTH (Earth is my “Relative” frame of reference), then I perceive the one ship traveling “West” away from me at 210,000 km/sec, and when I look in the opposite direction (“East”) I perceive the other ship traveling away from me at 210,000 km/sec IN THE OPPSITE DIRECTION OF THE FIRST SHIP! In other words from my perspective aren’t the two ships traveling away from each other at a rate Faster than the speed of light?

Upchurch: (A-Theist)
Nope. If we are each traveling in opposite directions at 0.7c from the Earth, then we are traveling at 0.94c from each other. (You did read my calculation above, right? You understand Relativity, right?)

So if there are two photons being simultaneously emitted from the surface of the sun in opposite directions then you are claiming that they are moving apart from each other at less than 2xC? Does that mean it takes photons longer than 8 minutes to go from the Sun to the Earth, because I am fairly certain the sun emits photons in ALL directions ALL the time?

Upchurch: (A-Theist)
Nope again. I'm claiming that while the photons in each beam are traveling at 1c from the sun, they are also traveling at 1c from each other. Let's do the math:

u = (v + v') / (1 + (v v') / c^2)

where:
v = the relative speed of one photon from the sun = 1c
v' = the relative speed of the one photon from the sun = 1c
u = the relative speed of each photon from each other = ?

u = (1c + 1c) / (1 + (1c 1c) / c^2)

u = (2c) / (2)

u = 1c

So, even though each photon is traveling 1c relative to the sun, they are also traveling 1c relative to each other.

So if the photons are traveling at 300,000 km/sec each, then in 10 seconds how far apart from the Sun will each photon be, and how far part from each other will each photon be?

I would say that in 10 seconds the two photons will each be 3,000,000 km from the Sun, and 6,000,000 km from each other. What EXACTLY are You claiming?

Franko

10th March 2003, 09:18 AM

Stimpson: (A-Theist)
You are making a fool of yourself again. What Upchurch has described is how SR works. This has been demonstrated extensively through empirical testing. It is clear that you don't have any idea what you are talking about. This stuff is covered in any introductory text on the subject. Why don't you try learning about a subject, before you presume to tell people who have studied it extensively that they are all wrong?

I’m simply asking some basic questions Stimpson. I don’t see why you are getting so worked up, but I am touched that you are so concerned about my reputation.

whitemeat: (A-Theist)
Well, this is almost as good as the theory of gravitation as put forth in the Nothing thread.

Either move it to Science, or pass me some popcorn. Or both.
Damn, for a bunch of nitwits who claim to understand QM so well this thread seems to be making a lot of A-Theists figgity … :confused:

Upchurch

10th March 2003, 09:39 AM

I'm going to break this up more than usual, because you're mixing frames:
Originally posted by Franko

Right, and if I am an observer on the EARTH (Earth is my “Relative” frame of reference),When you say it's relative, you have to say what it's relative to. then I perceive the one ship traveling “West” away from me at 210,000 km/sec,the relative speed between you and the "west" ship.and when I look in the opposite direction (“East”) I perceive the other ship traveling away from me at 210,000 km/sec the relative speed between you and the "east" ship. IN THE OPPSITE DIRECTION OF THE FIRST SHIP!In this specific case, the direction is the same for all frames of reference, but they could be different if moving in anything other than one dimension. In other words from my perspective aren’t the two ships traveling away from each other at a rate Faster than the speed of light?The question you're asking is what is the relative speed between the east and west ships. You're trying to make it a three frame problem when speed is only applicable between two frames. with the three frames you've given, you can only talk about the speeds between each set of frames. However, given SR, we can from one frame, calculate the relative speeds between any other set of frames, given the relative speeds of each frame to the first frame.
So if there are two photons being simultaneously emitted from the surface of the sun in opposite directions then you are claiming that they are moving apart from each other at less than 2xC?I just showed they are moving apart at half that speed above. Do you see an error in my math?
Does that mean it takes photons longer than 8 minutes to go from the Sun to the Earth, because I am fairly certain the sun emits photons in ALL directions ALL the time?Well, I know that 8 minutes is an approximation, but no it doesn't take longer than that approximation. And I am also fairly certain that the sun emits photons in all directions at all times.
So if the photons are traveling at 300,000 km/sec each, then in 10 seconds how far apart from the Sun will each photon be, and how far part from each other will each photon be?
Hm... Interesting question, which is actually beyond the scope of SR. Due to length contraction, one could approximate through limits that, from each photon's frame of reference, the relative velocity between the two photons is 1c. Special Relativity calculations of length contraction only work for velocities less than 1c. You can make an approximation using limits, however. So, from the photon's frame of reference, after "10 seconds" (I'm not sure that's valid to say), the photons would be 0 light seconds apart. Again, that's a tentative answer based on incomplete information.
I would say that in 10 seconds the two photons will each be 3,000,000 km from the Sun, and 6,000,000 km from each other. What EXACTLY are You claiming? I agree that they would be an amount of km greater than zero from the sun, but I can't say what they would be from each other, as per above.

Upchurch

10th March 2003, 09:44 AM

Originally posted by whitefork

Either move it to Science, or pass me some popcorn. Or both. Isn't it amazing how philosophical discussions about the nature of the universe always seem to come back to science? How do you differentiate the two?

I prefer butter on my popcorn, please.

LucyR

10th March 2003, 09:54 AM

Originally posted by Upchurch

u = (0.7c + 0.7c) / (1 + (0.7c 0.7c) / c^2)

u = (1.4c) / (1.49)

u = 0.940c (approximately)

So, the spaceships have a relative velocity of 0.94c, not 1.4c

Upchurch,

I have already demonstrated this in an earlier post in this thread. However, I agree that it probably doesn't hurt to go through it again.

Franko

10th March 2003, 09:58 AM

Upchurch:
In this specific case, the direction is the same for all frames of reference, but they could be different if moving in anything other than one dimension.

Say what?

Franko:
In other words from my perspective aren’t the two ships traveling away from each other at a rate Faster than the speed of light?

Upchurch:
The question you're asking is what is the relative speed between the east and west ships. You're trying to make it a three frame problem when speed is only applicable between two frames. with the three frames you've given, you can only talk about the speeds between each set of frames. However, given SR, we can from one frame, calculate the relative speeds between any other set of frames, given the relative speeds of each frame to the first frame.

Franko:
So if there are two photons being simultaneously emitted from the surface of the sun in opposite directions then you are claiming that they are moving apart from each other at less than 2xC?

Upchurch:
I just showed they are moving apart at half that speed above. Do you see an error in my math?

Franko:
Does that mean it takes photons longer than 8 minutes to go from the Sun to the Earth, because I am fairly certain the sun emits photons in ALL directions ALL the time?

Upchurch:
Well, I know that 8 minutes is an approximation, but no it doesn't take longer than that approximation. And I am also fairly certain that the sun emits photons in all directions at all times.

The Earth is approximately 93 million miles form the Sun. The speed of light (“C”) is about 186,000 miles per/sec. 93,000,000 divided by 186,000 = 500 seconds divided 60 = 8.333 minutes for light form the Sun to reach the Earth. Now, how can the light be reaching the Earth that quickly when there are also photons being emitted from the opposite side of the Sun and traveling in the opposite direction at the speed of light?

Look, imagine that there is another Planet the same distance from the Sun as Earth on the opposite side of the solar system. The Two planets would be approximately 186 million miles apart (93 million x 2), but light from the Sun reaches them both in 8.33 minutes. Obviously the photons headed off to the two different planets are moving apart from each other at twice the speed of light.

Are you still claiming something different Upchurch?

Franko:
So if the photons are traveling at 300,000 km/sec each, then in 10 seconds how far apart from the Sun will each photon be, and how far part from each other will each photon be?

I would say that in 10 seconds the two photons will each be 3,000,000 km from the Sun, and 6,000,000 km from each other. What EXACTLY are You claiming?

Upchurch:
Hm... Interesting question, which is actually beyond the scope of SR. Due to length contraction, one could approximate through limits that, from each photon's frame of reference, the relative velocity between the two photons is 1c. Special Relativity calculations of length contraction only work for velocities less than 1c. You can make an approximation using limits, however. So, from the photon's frame of reference, after "10 seconds" (I'm not sure that's valid to say), the photons would be 0 light seconds apart. Again, that's a tentative answer based on incomplete information.

I agree that they would be an amount of km greater than zero from the sun, but I can't say what they would be from each other, as per above.

So you are claiming that it takes Light Far longer than 8.333 minutes to reach the Earth from the Sun?

Upchurch

10th March 2003, 10:00 AM

Originally posted by Franko

What EXACTLY are You claiming? Dammit. Missed that word "exact" again.

Okay, length contraction is defined by:

l' = lo / gamma

Where,
l' is the contracted length
lo is the rest length
gamma = 1 / Sqrt( 1- v^2 / c^2 )

Note: when v = 0, gamma = 1 so l' = lo.

as v increases, gamma increases. as v approaches c, gamma approaches infinity.

So, as v approaches 1c then

l' = lo / inifinity

l' = 0

Upchurch

10th March 2003, 10:14 AM

Not getting the whole Relativity concept, are ya?
Originally posted by Franko
Say what?The example that we're talking about occurs in one dimension. That is, they travel along a straight line from one another. In other words, you can draw a stright line between ship-Earth-ship or photon-sun-photon. If it were different, it gets messier mathematically.
The Earth is approximately 93 million miles form the Sun. The speed of light (“C”) is about 186,000 miles per/sec. 93,000,000 divided by 186,000 = 500 seconds divided 60 = 8.333 minutes for light form the Sun to reach the Earth. Now, how can the light be reaching the Earth that quickly when there are also photons being emitted from the opposite side of the Sun and traveling in the opposite direction at the speed of light?Well, first off, you're using Newtonian mechanics to calculate things traveling at relativistic speeds.

Newtonian mechanics: u = v + v'
Special Relativistic mechanics: u = (v + v') / (1 + (v v') / c^2)

Second, the paradox that you're highlighting (that the speed of light is absolute but doesn't work in Newtonian mechanics) is the same one that led Einstein to come up with Special Relativity. Newtonian mechanics is a good approximation at low speeds, but gets worse and worse as speeds approach 1.0c.

So you are claiming that it takes Light Far longer than 8.333 minutes to reach the Earth from the Sun? Again, given approximation, nope.

Newton was close, but ultimately, all he came up with was a good approximation for a specific situation. If you take Special Relativitistic mechanics at low speeds, they agree with Newton, but Newton fails at high speed. He was close, but he was ultimately wrong.

Tricky

10th March 2003, 10:15 AM

Originally posted by Franko
Upchimp,

Look it is a simple question:

Two photons leave the sun heading in OPPOSITE directions. Assuming we both agree that the speed of light is approximately 300,000 km/sec how far from the Sun will each photon be in 10 seconds?

Now, how far will the two photons be from each other in 10 seconds?
With respect to the sun, they may have travelled 10 seconds, but with respect to each other they have not. This is what is meant by time dilation. We covered this in introductory physics back when I was in college.

Stimpson J. Cat

10th March 2003, 10:15 AM

Franko,

I’m simply asking some basic questions Stimpson. I don’t see why you are getting so worked up, but I am touched that you are so concerned about my reputation.

Upchurch answered your question. You ignored his answer, and proceeded to ask the question again. Like I said, you are making a fool out of yourself.

Dr. Stupid

Upchurch

10th March 2003, 10:16 AM

Originally posted by LucyR

Upchurch,

I have already demonstrated this in an earlier post in this thread. However, I agree that it probably doesn't hurt to go through it again. Sorry, Lucy. Didn't mean to step on your toes.

Franko

10th March 2003, 10:17 AM

Tricky: (A-Theist (not interested in TRUTH))
With respect to the sun, they may have travelled 10 seconds, but with respect to each other they have not. This is what is meant by time dilation. We covered this in introductory physics back when I was in college.

Is that your idea of an objective numerical answer mystic-boy?

Look it is a simple question:

Two photons leave the sun heading in OPPOSITE directions. Assuming we both agree that the speed of light is approximately 300,000 km/sec how far from the Sun will each photon be in 10 seconds?

Now, how far will the two photons be from each other in 10 seconds?

Upchurch

10th March 2003, 10:19 AM

Did you catch my approximation above?

Franko

10th March 2003, 10:19 AM

Stimpson: (panicky)
Upchurch answered your question. You ignored his answer, and proceeded to ask the question again. Like I said, you are making a fool out of yourself.

No, I gave an answer. I said that the photons would be 3,000,000 km from the Sun each, and they would be 6,000,000 apart from each other, but Not you or Upchimp or Trixy has actually bothered to try and answer the Question yourselves. You just keep intoning how “stupid” it is.

Just like a bunch of A-Theists … so predictable …

Upchurch

10th March 2003, 10:21 AM

Originally posted by Franko

but Not you or Upchurch or Trixy has actually bothered to try and answer the Question yourselves.

um....

Originally posted by Upchurch

Okay, length contraction is defined by:

l' = lo / gamma

Where,
l' is the contracted length
lo is the rest length
gamma = 1 / Sqrt( 1- v^2 / c^2 )

Note: when v = 0, gamma = 1 so l' = lo.

as v increases, gamma increases. as v approaches c, gamma approaches infinity.

So, as v approaches 1c then

l' = lo / inifinity

l' = 0
Not sure how else to point out my answer to the question any clearer.

THE RELATIVE DISTANCE FROM THE PHOTON'S REFERENCE FRAME IS ZERO KILOMETERS.

Did you see it that time?

Franko

10th March 2003, 10:22 AM

Upchimp,

Look it is a simple question:

Two photons leave the sun heading in OPPOSITE directions. Assuming we both agree that the speed of light is approximately 300,000 km/sec how far from the Sun will each photon be in 10 seconds?

Now, how far will the two photons be from each other in 10 seconds?

Upchurch

10th March 2003, 10:26 AM

Am I on his ignore list or what? Does anyone else not see my answer in capitalized bold letters?

Franko

10th March 2003, 10:26 AM

Upchimp (or Stimpson, or trix/Mrc)

Give me your answer in Kilometers or miles. You don't have to be exact, just the approximate distances should do.

Upchurch

10th March 2003, 10:29 AM

Originally posted by Franko
Give me your answer in Kilometers or miles. You don't have to be exact, just the approximate distances should do.
0 KILOMETERS IN THE PHOTON'S FRAME OF REFERENCE

(someone needs their eyesight checked)

Tricky

10th March 2003, 10:35 AM

Originally posted by Upchurch

0 KILOMETERS IN THE PHOTON'S FRAME OF REFERENCE

(someone needs their eyesight checked)
Sorry Franko. You get an "F" in physics, an "F" in math and an "F" in reading comprehension.

Franko

10th March 2003, 10:38 AM

Upchimp: (A-Theist)
So, even though each photon is traveling 1c relative to the sun, they are also traveling 1c relative to each other.

Franko: (Logical Deist)
So if the photons are traveling at 300,000 km/sec each, then in 10 seconds how far apart from the Sun will each photon be, and how far part from each other will each photon be?

I would say that in 10 seconds the two photons will each be 3,000,000 km from the Sun, and 6,000,000 km from each other. What EXACTLY are You claiming?

Upchimp: (A-Theist)
I just showed they are moving apart at half that speed above. Do you see an error in my math?

I agree that they would be an amount of km greater than zero from the sun, but I can't say what they would be from each other, as per above.

Franko:
The Earth is approximately 93 million miles form the Sun. The speed of light (“C”) is about 186,000 miles per/sec. 93,000,000 divided by 186,000 = 500 seconds divided 60 = 8.333 minutes for light form the Sun to reach the Earth. Now, how can the light be reaching the Earth that quickly when there are also photons being emitted from the opposite side of the Sun and traveling in the opposite direction at the speed of light?

Look, imagine that there is another Planet the same distance from the Sun as Earth on the opposite side of the solar system. The Two planets would be approximately 186 million miles apart (93 million x 2), but light from the Sun reaches them both in 8.33 minutes. Obviously the photons headed off to the two different planets are moving apart from each other at twice the speed of light.

Are you still claiming something different Upchurch?

Upchimp: (Evading the point)
Well, first off, you're using Newtonian mechanics to calculate things traveling at relativistic speeds.

Newtonian mechanics: u = v + v'
Special Relativistic mechanics: u = (v + v') / (1 + (v v') / c^2)

Second, the paradox that you're highlighting (that the speed of light is absolute but doesn't work in Newtonian mechanics) is the same one that led Einstein to come up with Special Relativity. Newtonian mechanics is a good approximation at low speeds, but gets worse and worse as speeds approach 1.0c.

Franko:
Look it is a simple question:

Two photons leave the sun heading in OPPOSITE directions. Assuming we both agree that the speed of light is approximately 300,000 km/sec how far from the Sun will each photon be in 10 seconds?

Now, how far will the two photons be from each other in 10 seconds?

Upchimp: (Dodging)
Did you catch my approximation above?

Franko:
No, I gave an answer. I said that the photons would be 3,000,000 km from the Sun each, and they would be 6,000,000 apart from each other, but Not you or Upchimp or Trixy has actually bothered to try and answer the Question yourselves. You just keep intoning how “stupid” it is.

Just like a bunch of A-Theists … so predictable …

Upchurch: (A-Theist)
Not sure how else to point out my answer to the question any clearer.

THE RELATIVE DISTANCE FROM THE PHOTON'S REFERENCE FRAME IS ZERO KILOMETERS.

Did you see it that time?

Franko:
Give me your answer in Kilometers or miles. You don't have to be exact, just the approximate distances should do.

Two photons leave the sun heading in OPPOSITE directions. Assuming we both agree that the speed of light is approximately 300,000 km/sec how far from the Sun will each photon be in 10 seconds?

Now, how far will the two photons be from each other in 10 seconds?

Upchimp --THE RELATIVE DISTANCE FROM THE PHOTON'S REFERENCE FRAME IS ZERO KILOMETERS.

So that means that in 10 seconds the photons will still be on the surface of the Sun? Why are you beating around the bush on such a simple question Upchimp? And you nitwits claim to comprehend the “Stochastic” “counter-intuitive nature of QM???

Upchurch

10th March 2003, 10:50 AM

Okay, one last try, being as specific as I can.

From the sun's reference frame, each photon is 3,000,000 km away from the sun, as per your calculation.

From the photon's reference frame, both the sun and the other photon are 0 km away from the the photon, as per my calculation.

The distance is relative to which reference frame it is observed from. This is what the "Relativity" means in "Special Relativity Theory".

PixyMisa

10th March 2003, 10:50 AM

Originally posted by Tricky
Sorry Franko. You get an "F" in physics, an "F" in math and an "F" in reading comprehension. I thought that Relativity had the LG Gold Star of approval, and it was just Quantum Mechanics that was an evil A-Theist conspiracy. What changed?

c4ts

10th March 2003, 10:55 AM

Originally posted by PixyMisa
I thought that Relativity had the LG Gold Star of approval, and it was just Quantum Mechanics that was an evil A-Theist conspiracy. What changed?

The Newtonian universe, apparently.

Upchurch

10th March 2003, 10:56 AM

Originally posted by PixyMisa
I thought that Relativity had the LD Gold Star of approval, and it was just Quantum Mechanics that was an evil A-Theist conspiracy. What changed? What I find interesting is that LD's point to Einstien's disbelief of QM but ignore his Theory of Relativity prefering 300+ year old Newtonian mechancis instead.

edited to add:

Maybe that's it. Maybe LD's feel towards modern science the way that the Amish feel towards modern technology?

edited again to fix typos. LG => LD. d'oh.

whitefork

10th March 2003, 11:01 AM

Upchurch said: Maybe that's it. Maybe LG's feel towards modern science the way that the Amish feel towards modern technology?
I think the Amish have the wheel and fire.

Upchurch

10th March 2003, 11:25 AM

Originally posted by whitefork

I think the Amish have the wheel and fire.
There was an Amish community near where I grew up. There was an extremely good Amish cabnet maker who got permission to use a diesel engine and system of belts to power his power tools. Plus, they had a phone in case of emergency. Also, they would give their non-Amish neighbors ice cream to put in their freezer and then come over on hot days to help them eat it.

There are theological restrictions and then there are theological restrictions. The Amish I know knew when it was okay to bend the rules to exist in the modern world. Aparently, so do the LD's

Franko

10th March 2003, 11:42 AM

Upchimp: (A-Theist)
From the sun's reference frame, each photon is 3,000,000 km away from the sun, as per your calculation.

From the photon's reference frame, both the sun and the other photon are 0 km away from the the photon, as per my calculation.

Right, but all you are really saying there is that the photons “themselves” don’t experience the passage of any Time as they Travel. (Is that supposed to be a surprising revelation?)

The distance is relative to which reference frame it is observed from. This is what the "Relativity" means in "Special Relativity Theory".

Ohh, I understand what it means just fine. Here’s the thing.

The Two ships are separating at 1.4 x C, and they are still able to communicate. You don’t see a contradiction there Upchimp? Here it is again …

Suppose that at some point in the future Humans are capable of building a spacecraft that can travel of 70% the speed of Light. But imagine that this is a spacecraft built to send Human colonists to another planet, so they build this craft from a large rocky asteroid captured from the solar system.

Now suppose that they build Two of these “spacecraft” – both capable of traveling 70% the speed of light …

… and they send them off in opposite directions. From the POV of the crew on either of these crafts they are standing on a “stationary planetary body” (like the Earth). But since BOTH ships are traveling away from the Earth at 70% the speed of light, wouldn’t they being traveling at 140% the speed of light away from each other? In other words from a person on one of the asteroids, wouldn’t it appear that the other asteroid was moving away from him at a speed beyond what is “allowable” by General Relativity?

Or think of it this way … suppose you have two flashlights, and you “glue” the back ends together so that the beams of lights are shining in opposite directions. From the “POV” of the photons in one beam, aren’t the photons in the opposite beam moving away at twice the speed of light?

I thought that according to GR Nothing could move faster than the speed of light relative to any other object? And if information can’t travel faster than the speed of light, then how come the one ship could relay a signal back to the earth, and then the earth could relay the signal on to the second ship? You just acknowledged that the ships would be separating faster than the speed of light, yet they are still able to communicate?

The Two ships are separating at 1.4 x C, and they are still able to communicate. You don’t see a contradiction there Upchimp?

whitefork

10th March 2003, 11:50 AM

They still have libraries in Baltimore?

Relativity: The Special and the General Theory by Albert Einstein

nice and short, by the man himself. Short, not too technical and deals with just these issues.

Franko

10th March 2003, 11:57 AM

Whitefork: (A-Theist nitwit)
They still have libraries in Baltimore?

Relativity: The Special and the General Theory by Albert Einstein

nice and short, by the man himself. Short, not too technical and deals with just these issues.

Either you can explain it, or you can’t “logic-boy”.

Are you trying to say that Einstein questions are off limit on this forum? You seem awfully touchy on this subject whitehead. If you don’t have anything to add to this discussion perhaps you should run along to BANTER?

Upchurch

10th March 2003, 11:58 AM

Originally posted by Franko

The Two ships are separating at 1.4 x C, and they are still able to communicate. You don’t see a contradiction there Upchurch? Here it is again …
No need to repeat yourself, I saw it the first time. I showed you that they are not seperating at 1.4c but at 0.94c. Do I need to say that in big bold capitalized letters as well in order for you to see it? I have no problem pulling out the size tags too.
But since BOTH ships are traveling away from the Earth at 70% the speed of light, wouldn’t they being traveling at 140% the speed of light away from each other?
According to classical Newtonian physics, sure. But classical Newtonian physics are wrong, especially at near light speeds.
I thought that according to GR Nothing could move faster than the speed of light relative to any other object?
Do you think Einstein was incorrect about GR, then?
You just acknowledged that the ships would be separating faster than the speed of light, yet they are still able to communicate? Franko, I have said no such thing. You're the one insisting that they are traveling faster than the speed of light using antique calculation methods. Why aren't you using Newtonian instead of Relativistic mechanics when it is clearly not applicable in this case?

whitefork

10th March 2003, 11:59 AM

Troll

You're not even worth ignoring. Go read a book if you can ever pry yourself away from you keyboard.

Latimer

10th March 2003, 12:07 PM

Originally posted by Franko

The Two ships are separating at 1.4 x C, and they are still able to communicate. You don’t see a contradiction there Upchimp?

Franko, you aren't listening.

From a point of view of Earth, each ship will be traveling away at .7c.

Yet, mindbendingly, they will *not* be traveling away from each other at 1.4c You are using Newtonian physics precisely where Newton breaks down.

As the math showed above, from the point of view of each ship, they will be travelling away from each other at about .94c. And they will *never* get to 1c, regardless of how much thrust and speed each uses. Both can be at 98 percent of the speed of light, heading in opposite directions, yet, to each other, they *still* won't be moving away from each other at 1c. The c-squared part of the equation prevents it.

It isn't easy to grasp. (How can you be going .7c and .94c at the same time?) But it's the way things work, and has been *very* verified. Hopefully I am explaining it correctly; and, all out there, *please* correct me if my model is incorrectly explaining it. (More numbers a good thing!)

Since it defies common sense and more 'down to earth' logic, does that mean Einstein is about to be thrown into the LG's QM scrap heap as well?

Keep smiling,

Jonathan
-Less Typing! More Home Improvement! (Whip Cracking Sound)-

Upchurch

10th March 2003, 12:11 PM

Originally posted by Franko

Either you can explain it, or you can’t “logic-boy”.

Are you trying to say that Einstein questions are off limit on this forum? You seem awfully touchy on this subject whitehead. If you don’t have anything to add to this discussion perhaps you should run along to BANTER?

In the man's own words (equation format modified for the forum, but notation maintained):
If w also has the direction of the axis of X, we get

V = (v + w) / (1 + (v w) / c^2)

It follows from this equation that from a composition of two velocities which are less than c, there always results a velocity less than c.

---A. Einstein, On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, Translated from "Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Korper," Annalen der Physik, 17, 1905.edited to add: there are more pertenent quotes I would like to use, but the notation is very not forum board friendly.

In the form I used earlier,
u = V
v = v
v' = w
c = c

Basically, the same formula I used above. If you want a first-source explination, read Einstein himself. I'm using his theories in my computation. Do you see an error?

MRC_Hans

10th March 2003, 12:11 PM

Originally posted by Franko

Actually wouldn’t it be more like, we have an asteroid, and we have another asteroid moving away at the rate of 1.4C, and we have a mini-space ship that only travels at 1.0C and somehow it is able to fly between the two asteroids? Actually it would be more like: You are unable to understand it.

I have even shown how it works at more comprehensible speeds (the two ships at sea). You still dont understand it. No need to be ashamed of that, lots of people dont. Just dont blame others for your lack of understanding.

Hans

Franko

10th March 2003, 12:18 PM

Upchimp: (A-Theist)
No need to repeat yourself, I saw it the first time. I showed you that they are not seperating at 1.4c but at 0.94c. Do I need to say that in big bold capitalized letters as well in order for you to see it? I have no problem pulling out the size tags too.

Right, so according to YOU streams of photons aren’t actually leaving the Sun at the speed of light, but at only HALF the speed of light. The reason they are only traveling 0.5 x C is because two rays traveling in opposite directions can’t exceed the (total) Speed of light, and since photons are constantly leaving the Sun in both directions they are all traveling at 0.5 x C.

But if that is True, then how comes it only takes the photons 8.33 minutes to get to Earth instead of 16.667 minutes???

Franko:
But since BOTH ships are traveling away from the Earth at 70% the speed of light, wouldn’t they being traveling at 140% the speed of light away from each other?

Upchurch:
According to classical Newtonian physics, sure. But classical Newtonian physics are wrong, especially at near light speeds.

Look … if the two ships are moving away from the Earth in opposite directions at 210,000 km/sec, then they are moving away from each other at 420,000 km/sec. If you want to claim that this is wrong, then explain why light traveling from the Sun travels at “full speed” and gets here in only 8 minutes. Or are you saying that this observation (8 minutes) is incorrect? Are you claiming that photons are not traveling off in the opposite direction from Earth at the same rate – analogous to the two spaceships in my example?

Franko:
You just acknowledged that the ships would be separating faster than the speed of light, yet they are still able to communicate?

Upchurch:
Franko, I have said no such thing. You're the one insisting that they are traveling faster than the speed of light using antique calculation methods. Why aren't you using Newtonian instead of Relativistic mechanics when it is clearly not applicable in this case?

Because I observe that light from the Sun reaches us in 8.33 minutes which gives light a speed of 300,000 km/sec. Since I know that a planet on the opposite side of the Sun would also receive the light in 8.333 minutes it is safe to assume that the two streams of photons are moving apart from each other at twice the speed of light.

Similarly, two spaceships launched from the Earth, traveling at a speed of 0.7 x C (210,000 km/sec) in opposite directions will be separating (as measured from Earth) at a rate of 420,000 km/sec FASTER THAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT. Never-the-less, I see nothing that would stop the one ship from radioing back to Earth (which it can still do traveling only 0.7 x C), and then the Earth relaying that signal on to the second ship (which it can do since that ship is also at 0.7 x C). In other words, we’d have two ships moving apart at a speed greater than the speed of light (1.4 x C), yet they would still be able to communicate with each other (at the speed of light (1.0 x C)). Something smells fishy …

Franko

10th March 2003, 12:28 PM

Latimer,

How you doing, my Man?

From a point of view of Earth, each ship will be traveling away at .7c.

Yet, mindbendingly, they will *not* be traveling away from each other at 1.4c You are using Newtonian physics precisely where Newton breaks down.

Okay, Latimer, I understand what you are saying.

Lets pretend that there is just one ship heading away from the Earth at 0.7 x C (210,000 km/sec). In 10 seconds it gets 2.1 million kilometers farther away from the Earth correct?

Okay, now suppose that on an alien planet far away from Earth some aliens just happen to be launching their own spaceship, and by random chance it happens to be traveling in the precise opposite direction of our ship at 210,000 km/sec. We don’t know about their ship, and they don’t know about ours.

Isn’t our ship, and their ship moving away from each other at 420,000 km/sec?

In 1 minute you could take their distances, and divide by Time, and you would get their speed ... correct?

As the math showed above, from the point of view of each ship, they will be travelling away from each other at about .94c. And they will *never* get to 1c, regardless of how much thrust and speed each uses. Both can be at 98 percent of the speed of light, heading in opposite directions, yet, to each other, they *still* won't be moving away from each other at 1c. The c-squared part of the equation prevents it.

If that is True, then how is it that photons from the Sun reach us in only 8.333 minutes instead of 16.667 minutes? Aren’t photons streaming off the Sun in BOTH directions, and according to your interpretation of GR/SR shouldn’t that mean that the relative speed between the two photons in opposite directions is only 1.0 x C total?

It isn't easy to grasp. (How can you be going .7c and .94c at the same time?) But it's the way things work, and has been *very* verified. Hopefully I am explaining it correctly; and, all out there, *please* correct me if my model is incorrectly explaining it. (More numbers a good thing!)

Since it defies common sense and more 'down to earth' logic, does that mean Einstein is about to be thrown into the LG's QM scrap heap as well?

Einstein didn’t “kill” Newton, he just modified his algorithm.

Upchurch

10th March 2003, 12:54 PM

It really bugs you, doesn't it?

One of the men you preport to admire and respect said something that is hard to conceptualize in context of the everyday world. Worse, it looks like he was absolutely correct.

How does one rationalize something as bizare as something having one speed no matter how one is traveling? Condider a man in a spaceship. He turns on the spaceship's headlights. From the spaceship's frame of reference, the light beams shoot out in front of the ship at 1.0c. But from a guy sitting on the ground watching ths ship go buy at 0.7c, the headlights are still going out at only 1.0c. Doesn't make sense, does it?

But it does make sense. Einstein looked at the situation and he figured it out. It wasn't easy. If it had been someone else would have figured it out long before.

If you respect the man, like you say, learn what it is that he actual said and did. I'm not the one that's saying that the ships move apart at 0.94c, Einstein is. I'm just applying his work to the situation.

Latimer

10th March 2003, 12:57 PM

Originally posted by Franko
Latimer,

How you doing, my Man?

Home improving (and I *suck* at it.) What doesn't kill me makes me stronger, right? :) :)

Okay, Latimer, I understand what you are saying.

Lets pretend that there is just one ship heading away from the Earth at 0.7 x C (210,000 km/sec). In 10 seconds it gets 2.1 million kilometers farther away from the Earth correct?

Okay, now suppose that on an alien planet far away from Earth some aliens just happen to be launching their own spaceship, and by random chance it happens to be traveling in the precise opposite direction of our ship at 210,000 km/sec. We don’t know about their ship, and they don’t know about ours.

Isn’t our ship, and their ship moving away from each other at 420,000 km/sec?

Nope. The frame of reference applies to those two ships. Even though each is moving away from their planet at .7c, when they become aware of each other, they would still be relatively moving at .94c.

Remarkable, isn't it?

And, once again to the crowd, if I am incorrectly explaining it, PLEASE correct me.

In 1 minute you could take their distances, and divide by Time, and you would get their speed ... correct?

Nope. Because their velocities are near-relativistic, their distance would depend on their frames of reference. Even though they are moving from their planets at .7c, they would *still* be moving away from each other at .94c. They would measure their distance from each other and it would reflect the .94c velocity, *not* the 1.4c velocity.

It is, like I said above, quite mind-bending.

If that is True, then how is it that photons from the Sun reach us in only 8.333 minutes instead of 16.667 minutes? Aren’t photons streaming off the Sun in BOTH directions, and according to your interpretation of GR/SR shouldn’t that mean that the relative speed between the two photons in opposite directions is only 1.0 x C total?

Actually, it even gets worse than that. Photons travel at the speed of light, yet, if you were magically riding on a photon traveling from the sun to the Earth, and then somehow measured a photon being released on the opposuite side of the sun, from your point of view, it would *still* travel at *precisely* 1c. And its distance from you would remain as such. 8 minutes later you'd splash into the Earth; and the photon you were observing would still be moving away from you as if it were going 1c and you were 'standing still.'.

Do remember, when we are looking at things, too, that the Earth and our Solar System are whipping around with some good relativistic speed of its own: we have no *fixed* point of reference either. But no matter our frames of reference; if you start slower than c, you'll never get to c, and no one will perceive you at getting to c, either. Twisty, twisty, this Universe of ours. :)

Einstein didn’t “kill” Newton, he just modified his algorithm.

Rather significantly. :) Probably a good thing Newton 'left' before such a modification took place; I understand he was quite cranky about his math... :)

Keep smiling,

-The Hammer is NOT used on your own hand. That lesson has been taught to me TWICE in the last 48 hours...-

Franko

10th March 2003, 01:17 PM

Latimer:
Nope. Because their velocities are near-relativistic, their distance would depend on their frames of reference. Even though they are moving from their planets at .7c, they would *still* be moving away from each other at .94c. They would measure their distance from each other and it would reflect the .94c velocity, *not* the 1.4c velocity.

It is, like I said above, quite mind-bending.

Okay, lets walk through it sloooow …

You have two ships flying away from the Earth at 210,000 km/sec (0.7 x C). Starting at time-0, if you wait 10 seconds, and measure their distance from the Earth, each ship is 2.1 million miles farther away, and 4.2 million miles farther from the other. Correct? Or are you claiming that even though the ships are getting farther from the Earth at one rate they are getting farther from each other at another different rate?

Now neither of the ships would be able to perceive each other directly, would they? So they couldn’t make a direct measurement … ?

Franko:
how is it that photons from the Sun reach us in only 8.333 minutes instead of 16.667 minutes? Aren’t photons streaming off the Sun in BOTH directions, and according to your interpretation of GR/SR shouldn’t that mean that the relative speed between the two photons in opposite directions is only 1.0 x C total?

Latimer:
Actually, it even gets worse than that. Photons travel at the speed of light, yet, if you were magically riding on a photon traveling from the sun to the Earth, and then somehow measured a photon being released on the opposuite side of the sun, from your point of view, it would *still* travel at *precisely* 1c. And its distance from you would remain as such. 8 minutes later you'd splash into the Earth; and the photon you were observing would still be moving away from you as if it were going 1c and you were 'standing still.'.

According to Einstein Time essentially stands still if you happen to be traveling at the speed of light. In other words, if you shoot a photon off towards a planet that is 100 light years away, then even though the photon takes 100 years to get there from Your POV, from the POV of the photon (if you could have ridden along), the photon arrives there instantaneously. From the photon’s ‘POV” no time has passed. But just because no Time passes doesn’t mean that no distance was traveled.

Do remember, when we are looking at things, too, that the Earth and our Solar System are whipping around with some good relativistic speed of its own: we have no *fixed* point of reference either. But no matter our frames of reference; if you start slower than c, you'll never get to c, and no one will perceive you at getting to c, either. Twisty, twisty, this Universe of ours.

If we have no *fixed* point of reference … then how do you know that we (the entire universe) isn’t already traveling at the speed of light?

Speed, velocity and movement only have relevance when in relation to a point of reference. In other words, imagine you were floating alone in a complete void with no fixed points of reference. How would you know if you were “stationary”, or moving along at 100,000 mph?

You wouldn’t know. The only possible way for you to tell would be if there was at least one fixed point of reference. That way you could perceive your motion by observing your positions change relative to the fixed point.

Upchurch

10th March 2003, 01:19 PM

Originally posted by Latimer

Nope. Because their velocities are near-relativistic, their distance would depend on their frames of reference.
In fact, at 0.7c, the distance between the two ships, from the point of view of the Earth, would be roughly 54.8% the distance seen by the two ships.

(I think I have that right. I may have that turned around...)

Upchurch

10th March 2003, 01:26 PM

Aside: Please be aware that SR is not defined for objects traveling at the speed of light (1.0c), only for objects below the speed of light. All this talk about what a photon "sees" is just conjecture based on an extrapolation of SR. In other words, it's a guess based on a limit.

Franko

10th March 2003, 01:34 PM

Upchimp: (A-Theist)
It really bugs you, doesn't it?

One of the men you preport to admire and respect said something that is hard to conceptualize in context of the everyday world. Worse, it looks like he was absolutely correct.

How is Your inability to explain what You believe, My problem?

It looks like you understand relativity about as well as you understand Determinism and “free will”.

How does one rationalize something as bizare as something having one speed no matter how one is traveling? Condider a man in a spaceship. He turns on the spaceship's headlights. From the spaceship's frame of reference, the light beams shoot out in front of the ship at 1.0c. But from a guy sitting on the ground watching ths ship go buy at 0.7c, the headlights are still going out at only 1.0c. Doesn't make sense, does it?

Or imagine that you have some people living on a small little planet. They launch a rocket into space which can travel 0.5 x C. Now … suppose that the little planets is actually one of the asteroid ships, and suppose that they launch the rocket away from Earth (the same direction they were traveling) The rocket would only be flying away –relative to the asteroid – at 0.5 x C, but relative to the Earth wouldn’t that little rocket be moving at 1.2 x C? In other words wouldn’t the mini rocket being moving away from the Earth at 210,000 km/sec + 150,000 km/sec (360,000 km/sec [greater than C])? If not, why not? For all we know the Earth itself is already moving at 0.7 x C? Without a common point of reference, I am not sure what “speed/velocity” even means?

Upchurch:
But it does make sense. Einstein looked at the situation and he figured it out. It wasn't easy. If it had been someone else would have figured it out long before.

Yeah, but like the wheel it seems so simple after you see it. You wonder why no one realized it sooner?

Upchurch:
If you respect the man, like you say, learn what it is that he actual said and did. I'm not the one that's saying that the ships move apart at 0.94c, Einstein is. I'm just applying his work to the situation.

And I am saying that if you have one ship moving away from the Earth at 210,000 km/sec then in 10 seconds the ship will be 2.1 million km farther away. If you have two of these ships and they are moving in opposite directions at this speed then after 10 seconds they will be 4.2 million km apart as measured from Earth.

If I am on the Earth and I am tracking the two ships positions and I measure two ships moving apart at 420,000 km/sec then either they are moving faster than the speed of light, or they are not.

You seem to be implying that it is physically impossible for ANY two objects (even photons) to move away from each other at a rate greater than 300,000 km/sec. Essentially you are claiming that the speed of light is only half what everyone thinks it is. I guess someone should tell Hawking there are going to be a lot more “black holes” then he thought.

Stimpson J. Cat

10th March 2003, 01:54 PM

Franko,

You are making my head hurt. Your ignorance of basic relativity is understandable, but your inability to understand it, even when it is carefully explained to you, is just sad. And the fact that you would presume to tell somebody who has studied the subject extensively, and has a degree in Physics, that he is wrong about it, is just mind-numbingly stupid.

You are wrong. It is that simple. If you have three objects, A, B, and C, then it is possible for the relative velocity of any two of them to be more than c, from the point of view of the third. But the relative velocity of any two of them, as measured from either of their own reference frames, will always be less than c. That is what Special Relativity says. Deal with it.

Dr. Stupid

Latimer

10th March 2003, 02:02 PM

Originally posted by Franko

Okay, lets walk through it sloooow …

You have two ships flying away from the Earth at 210,000 km/sec (0.7 x C). Starting at time-0, if you wait 10 seconds, and measure their distance from the Earth, each ship is 2.1 million miles farther away, and 4.2 million miles farther from the other. Correct? Or are you claiming that even though the ships are getting farther from the Earth at one rate they are getting farther from each other at another different rate?

That's it, exactly. Although they are leaving the Earth at one rate, relative to the frame of reference of the Earth, they are getting farther away from each other at a different rate, relative to the frame of reference of each other. And we have experimental verification of this.

In your example, although they would each be moving away from the Earth at .7c, they would be moving away from each other at .94c.

It's even worse than THAT. Because the ten seconds they thrust isn't constant either. 10 seconds on Earth would NOT equal ten seconds on each rocket. Time isn't the constant here. Light is.

Now neither of the ships would be able to perceive each other directly, would they? So they couldn’t make a direct measurement … ?

And NOW you are hitting some Quantunm theory after all. Since, theoretically, their ability to *perceive* the other ship (the information about where it is) travels at the speed of light, you'll see it where it WAS when the light gets to you. So, again, at relativistic velocities, things get very funky.

According to Einstein Time essentially stands still if you happen to be traveling at the speed of light. In other words, if you shoot a photon off towards a planet that is 100 light years away, then even though the photon takes 100 years to get there from Your POV, from the POV of the photon (if you could have ridden along), the photon arrives there instantaneously. From the photon’s ‘POV” no time has passed. But just because no Time passes doesn’t mean that no distance was traveled.

Very good. But, as you can see, time is the flexible ingredient. Did no time pass at all, or did 100 years pass? The answer is both! It was dependent on the frame of reference. So, again, even time is not the constant. The *only* constant is the speed of light.

If we have no *fixed* point of reference … then how do you know that we (the entire universe) isn’t already traveling at the speed of light?

Well, actually, it *is.* Or, at least a very good chunk of the speed of light. We can see those velocities in the light everywhere we observe.

Speed, velocity and movement only have relevance when in relation to a point of reference. In other words, imagine you were floating alone in a complete void with no fixed points of reference. How would you know if you were “stationary”, or moving along at 100,000 mph?

You wouldn't. Worse than that: How could you perceive *time* moving either? How would you measure it? That's what relativity is all about; that you are always measuring relative to something else. We can measure in our daily lives because of a very wide frame of reference we all live in. Yet Voyager, which has been travelling for years at high velodcity, is now in a *slightly* different frame of reference. Atomic clocks on board, specifically matched with atomic clocks here to several decimal places, are now slightly out of whack with each other because of Voyager's velocity relative to Earth. The *only* constant seems to be the speed of light.

Again, isn't it tweaky?!?!

You wouldn’t know. The only possible way for you to tell would be if there was at least one fixed point of reference. That way you could perceive your motion by observing your positions change relative to the fixed point.

Yes. And the scary thing is what Einstein discovered: There is no fixed point to measure! Time dilates, mass changes, energy converts. The only fixed *thing* seems to be the speed of light; regardless of your frame of reference.

HOPEFULLY I got all that right.

Keep smiling,

Franko

10th March 2003, 02:05 PM

Stimpson: (A-Theist)
You are making my head hurt. Your ignorance of basic relativity is understandable, but your inability to understand it, even when it is carefully explained to you, is just sad. And the fact that you would presume to tell somebody who has studied the subject extensively, and has a degree in Physics, that he is wrong about it, is just mind-numbingly stupid.

Yes, yes Stimpy, I realize that it is “bad form” to tell a priest that he doesn’t know what he is talking about, but you must remember I am NOT a follower of your religion. Your Dogma is not so sacred to me.

You are wrong. It is that simple.

Well, at least it would be if Solipsism were true. (but don’t give up hope yet!)

If you have three objects, A, B, and C, then it is possible for the relative velocity of any two of them to be more than c, from the point of view of the third. But the relative velocity of any two of them, as measured from either of their own reference frames, will always be less than c. That is what Special Relativity says. Deal with it.

A = First Asteroid ship
B = Second Asteroid ship
C = Earth

Right, so from the POV of someone one Earth (C) they would see the two ships (A & B) moving away from the Earth (C) at 210,000 km/sec, and moving away from each other at 420,000 km/sec. In the meantime, the two ships separating at a rate FASTER THAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT (420,000 kms), would STILL be able to communicate AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT (300,000 kms).

Seems a bit odd … that’s all … seems to contradict what you are actually claiming.

Tricky

10th March 2003, 02:10 PM

Originally posted by Franko

Yes, yes Stimpy, I realize that it is “bad form” to tell a priest that he doesn’t know what he is talking about, but you must remember I am NOT a follower of your religion. Your Dogma is not so sacred to me.

Well, at least it would be if Solipsism were true. (but don’t give up hope yet!)

A = First Asteroid ship
B = Second Asteroid ship
C = Earth

Right, so from the POV of someone one Earth (C) they would see the two ships (A & B) moving away from the Earth (C) at 210,000 km/sec, and moving away from each other at 420,000 km/sec. In the meantime, the two ships separating at a rate FASTER THAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT (420,000 kms), would STILL be able to communicate AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT (300,000 kms).

Seems a bit odd … that’s all … seems to contradict what you are actually claiming.
It does seem counterintuitive. Maybe that's why Newton, genius that he was, couldn't figure it out.

As I see it (and I am by no means in the league of some of these guys), two ships can never be moving apart at the speed of light, although technically they could approach the speed of light. However, light always moves at the speed of light, so communication is possible since the light is always faster that the relative motion of the ships.

Upchurch

10th March 2003, 02:15 PM

Originally posted by Franko

It looks like you understand relativity about as well as you understand Determinism and “free will”. Never expected a compliment out of you, Franko. Thanks.

Let's do some math!

Problem 1:Or imagine that you have some people living on a small little planet. They launch a rocket into space which can travel 0.5 x C. [v1 = 0.5c, from the asteroid] Now … suppose that the little planets is actually one of the asteroid ships, and suppose that they launch the rocket away from Earth (the same direction they were traveling) [v2 = 0.7c, I'm guessing?, from the Earth] The rocket would only be flying away –relative to the asteroid – at 0.5 x C, but relative to the Earth wouldn’t that little rocket be moving at 1.2 x C?
u = (v1 + v2) / (1 + (v1 v2) / c^2)
u = (0.5c + 0.7c) / (1 + (0.5c 0.7c) / c^2)
u = (1.2c) / (2.2)
u = 0.55c (approximately)

Significantly less than 1.2c, actually.
In other words wouldn’t the mini rocket being moving away from the Earth at 210,000 km/sec + 150,000 km/sec (360,000 km/sec [greater than C])?
c ~ 3 x 10^5 km/s
u = 0.55c = 1.65 x 10^5 km/s

u < c
If not, why not?
Because of the calculations given above.
For all we know the Earth itself is already moving at 0.7 x C?Relative to the asteroid, as mentioned, v2 = 0.7c. That's accounted for in the calculation.Without a common point of reference, I am not sure what “speed/velocity” even means?No problem. both v1 (the speed of the rocket) and v2 (the speed of the Earth) is relative to asteroid.

Note: part of Relativity is that, in inertial reference frames, it's equally valid to say that the Earth is moving away from the asteroid as it is to say that the asteroid is moving away from the Earth. Same with the rocket and the Asteroid. And the rocket in the Earth.

To sum up, velocity between the following reference frames:
Earth/asteroid = 0.7c
asteroid/rocket = 0.5c
rocket/Earth = 0.55c

Problem 2:And I am saying that if you have one ship moving away from the Earth at 210,000 km/sec [v2 = 0.7c] then in 10 seconds [t1 = 10 s, from what reference frame?] the ship will be 2.1 million km [l1 = 2.1 x 10^6 km, from what reference frame?] farther away. If you have two of these ships and they are moving in opposite directions at this speed then after 10 seconds they will be 4.2 million km apart as measured from Earth.

If I am on the Earth and I am tracking the two ships positions and I measure two ships moving apart at 420,000 km/sec [v3 = 4.2 x 10^5 km/s, from the Earth] then either they are moving faster than the speed of light, or they are not.
Not enough information. You haven't said from what inertial reference frames that t1 and l1 were measured. From the Earth? The ship?

Also, v3 is theoretically impossible for a macroscopic ship with mass.

You seem to be implying that it is physically impossible for ANY two objects (even photons) to move away from each other at a rate greater than 300,000 km/sec.Imply nothing, I'll flat out tell you that it is physically impossible for any two objects with mass to move away or towards each other at a velocity equaly or grater than 3 x 10^5 km/s. Further, I'll flat out tell you that it is physically impossible for any two photons to move towards or away from each other with any other velocity other than 3 x 10^5 km/s.
Essentially you are claiming that the speed of light is only half what everyone thinks it is. I guess someone should tell Hawking there are going to be a lot more “black holes” then he thought. Have you read through any of my calcualtions? I'm clearly not saying anything of the sort. Please, review my calculations again and tell me where I posit or conclude that light moves at anything other than 3 x 10^8 m/s.

ScottDYelich

10th March 2003, 02:27 PM

Originally posted by Franko

Right, so according to YOU streams of photons aren?t actually leaving the Sun at the speed of light, but at only HALF the speed of light. The reason they are only traveling 0.5 x C is because two rays traveling in opposite directions can?t exceed the (total) Speed of light, and since photons are constantly leaving the Sun in both directions they are all traveling at 0.5 x C.

But if that is True, then how comes it only takes the photons 8.33 minutes to get to Earth instead of 16.667 minutes???

Look ? if the two ships are moving away from the Earth in opposite directions at 210,000 km/sec, then they are moving away from each other at 420,000 km/sec. If you want to claim that this is wrong, then explain why light traveling from the Sun travels at ?full speed? and gets here in only 8 minutes. Or are you saying that this observation (8 minutes) is incorrect? Are you claiming that photons are not traveling off in the opposite direction from Earth at the same rate - analogous to the two spaceships in my example?

Because I observe that light from the Sun reaches us in 8.33 minutes which gives light a speed of 300,000 km/sec. Since I know that a planet on the opposite side of the Sun would also receive the light in 8.333 minutes it is safe to assume that the two streams of photons are moving apart from each other at twice the speed of light.

Similarly, two spaceships launched from the Earth, traveling at a speed of 0.7 x C (210,000 km/sec) in opposite directions will be separating (as measured from Earth) at a rate of 420,000 km/sec FASTER THAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT. Never-the-less, I see nothing that would stop the one ship from radioing back to Earth (which it can still do traveling only 0.7 x C), and then the Earth relaying that signal on to the second ship (which it can do since that ship is also at 0.7 x C). In other words, we?d have two ships moving apart at a speed greater than the speed of light (1.4 x C), yet they would still be able to communicate with each other (at the speed of light (1.0 x C)). Something smells fishy ?

franko... puh-leeeeeze....

I can't take it anymore. I'm laughing so hard my stomach aches.

Yes, something smells fishy... but I the smell is slightly stronger in your relative perspective.

Scott

Franko

10th March 2003, 02:35 PM

Latimer:
That's it, exactly. Although they are leaving the Earth at one rate, relative to the frame of reference of the Earth, they are getting farther away from each other at a different rate, relative to the frame of reference of each other. And we have experimental verification of this.

In your example, although they would each be moving away from the Earth at .7c, they would be moving away from each other at .94c.

There’s a problem with that.

Look … from Earth, I measure that each ship is moving away from me at 210,000 kms, and since they are moving in opposite directions then it is pretty easy to figure out that they are moving away from each other at twice that rate.

10 seconds after I make my measurement I see that the two ships have gotten 4.2 million km farther apart.

But not according to you (and Upchurch). According to your interpretation even though from the Earth I perceive that the two ships are 4.2 million km farther apart you seem to be saying that they will only be 2.8 km farther apart (300,000 kms x 0.94c = 282,000 kms). In other words, You are saying that even though I observe each ship traveling away at 0.7 they are really only traveling .047 (0.94/2).

But by that same Logic photons leaving the Sun should be taking twice as long to get to the Earth then what they actually do. In other words, your explanation is contrary to observed reality!

It's even worse than THAT. Because the ten seconds they thrust isn't constant either. 10 seconds on Earth would NOT equal ten seconds on each rocket. Time isn't the constant here. Light is.

Forget the time dilation effects on the ships. Assume you re doing all of your observations from Earth where there is no relativistic effects. If you know both ships speed, then you can calculate the rate at which they are moving away from you – km per sec.

My problem is that you are trying to say that the ships are moving away from the Earth at one speed, but away from each other at a different speed. What you are claiming is logically contradictory, and there is no evidence to support it.

And NOW you are hitting some Quantunm theory after all. Since, theoretically, their ability to *perceive* the other ship (the information about where it is) travels at the speed of light, you'll see it where it WAS when the light gets to you. So, again, at relativistic velocities, things get very funky.

Right! Theoretically if an objective was moving away from you faster than the speed of light it would simply vanish. The light from the object couldn’t reach you because the object itself would be moving FASTER than the light streaming back towards you.

But that is the very point I was raising with this example. Even though the two ships would clearly be moving away from the Earth faster than the speed of light (from an observer on Earth’s POV), it would seem the two ships would still be able to communicate with each other but only by relaying the signal through Earth first.

Franko:
According to Einstein Time essentially stands still if you happen to be traveling at the speed of light. In other words, if you shoot a photon off towards a planet that is 100 light years away, then even though the photon takes 100 years to get there from Your POV, from the POV of the photon (if you could have ridden along), the photon arrives there instantaneously. From the photon’s ‘POV” no time has passed. But just because no Time passes doesn’t mean that no distance was traveled.

Latimer:
Very good. But, as you can see, time is the flexible ingredient. Did no time pass at all, or did 100 years pass? The answer is both! It was dependent on the frame of reference. So, again, even time is not the constant. The *only* constant is the speed of light.

Yeah, but like I said, even though no time would pass relative to an observer traveling at the speed of light, he would have still covered DISTANCE. And DISTANCE is really what we are talking about.

I am saying that if you have one ship moving away from the Earth at 210,000 km/sec then in 10 seconds the ship will be 2.1 million km farther away. If you have two of these ships and they are moving in opposite directions at this speed then after 10 seconds they will be 4.2 million km apart as measured from Earth.

If I am on the Earth and I am tracking the two ships positions and I measure two ships moving apart at 420,000 km/sec then either they are moving faster than the speed of light, or they are not.

You seem to be implying that it is physically impossible for ANY two objects (even photons) to move away from each other at a rate greater than 300,000 km/sec. Meaning photons leaving the sun on opposite sides would only travel at a TOTAL combined speed of 1.0xC. Essentially you are claiming that the speed of light is only half what everyone thinks it is. I guess someone should tell Hawking there are going to be a lot more “black holes” then he thought.

Upchurch

10th March 2003, 02:40 PM

Originally posted by Franko

Never-the-less, I see nothing that would stop the one ship from radioing back to Earth (which it can still do traveling only 0.7 x C), and then the Earth relaying that signal on to the second ship (which it can do since that ship is also at 0.7 x C). In other words, we’d have two ships moving apart at a speed greater than the speed of light (1.4 x C), yet they would still be able to communicate with each other (at the speed of light (1.0 x C)). Something smells fishy …
Let's think about this for a second. You can't understand how the signal could reach from one ship to another because of a compined velocity of 1.4c (as you claim), but you can see the signal transversing that same distance using Earth as an intermediary because each leg is only increasing at 0.7c?

So, what if we sent to messages out. One is sent ship to ship and the other is via Earth. Presumably the ship to ship message would reach Earth at the same time the via Earth message got there. Further, let's assume that Earth can relay the message immediately. So, the ship to ship message and the via Earth message leave the Earth at the same time and make the final leg out to the other ship. They seem to be traveling neck and neck the whole way. Why is it that you think the ship to ship message won't make it but the via Earth message will?

ScottDYelich

10th March 2003, 02:40 PM

Originally posted by Latimer

Again, isn't it tweaky?!?!

Keep smiling, [/B]

simple experiment... for franko.

two clocks... set the same.
one stays on the surface of the planet,
one goes up in the space shuttle (or in a
hot air balloon) ...

when they come back together, they will have
(ever so slightly) different times.

FRANKO-- they are made of atoms, atoms obey TLOP.
yet, they are different! who made that decision
to make them different!!!!!!!!!!!

:-)

Scott

Franko

10th March 2003, 02:46 PM

Franko:
Or imagine that you have some people living on a small little planet. They launch a rocket into space which can travel 0.5 x C. [v1 = 0.5c, from the asteroid] Now … suppose that the little planets is actually one of the asteroid ships, and suppose that they launch the rocket away from Earth (the same direction they were traveling) [v2 = 0.7c, I'm guessing?, from the Earth] The rocket would only be flying away –relative to the asteroid – at 0.5 x C, but relative to the Earth wouldn’t that little rocket be moving at 1.2 x C?

Upchurch:
u = (v1 + v2) / (1 + (v1 v2) / c^2)
u = (0.5c + 0.7c) / (1 + (0.5c 0.7c) / c^2)
u = (1.2c) / (2.2)
u = 0.55c (approximately)

Significantly less than 1.2c, actually.

So for any alien civilization trying to launch a spaceship their max speed is limited by the relative motion of their planet in relationship to Earth???

Suppose that there was some calamity on the Asteroid ship, and all of the adults were killed off. But since it is a self-sufficient colony ship built for a long journey in 100 years the little planet is repopulated, but now, none of the inhabitants even remembers the Earth. As far as they know, they are people just like us, living on their own little planet in the big Universe. They have no idea what or where the “Earth” is.

So you are saying that these people are going to launch their rocket, and it’s going to be a complete mystery why it isn’t going the speed that it is supposed to go?

From those people’s POV (on the asteroid ship) are they still traveling at 0.7 x C? Why aren’t they just another planet like the Earth? … or should I say, how do you know that the Earth isn’t already moving 0.7 x C in relationship to some other unknown planet, thus limiting our maximum speed?

Upchurch

10th March 2003, 03:00 PM

Originally posted by Franko

So for any alien civilization trying to launch a spaceship their max speed is limited by the relative motion of their planet in relationship to Earth???
Nope. Assuming that they are coming to Earth, their maximum speed is limited by the speed of light. If they are going anywhere else, how fast we see them getting there is limited by their relative motion to the Earth.

Suppose that there was some calamity on the Asteroid ship, and all of the adults were killed off. But since it is a self-sufficient colony ship built for a long journey in 100 years the little planet is repopulated, but now, none of the inhabitants even remembers the Earth. As far as they know, they are people just like us, living on their own little planet in the big Universe. They have no idea what or where the “Earth” is. How sad. They should have invested in some books or movies.
So you are saying that these people are going to launch their rocket, and it’s going to be a complete mystery why it isn’t going the speed that it is supposed to go?From their frame of reference, they're only limited by the speed of light (and how fast the rocket can go, of course)
From those people’s POV (on the asteroid ship) are they still traveling at 0.7 x C?They are depending on what they're measuring that against. Why aren’t they just another planet like the Earth? … or should I say, how do you know that the Earth isn’t already moving 0.7 x C in relationship to some other unknown planet, thus limiting our maximum speed? uh-oh. I see a light coming on. You're getting closer to understanding.

See, the big thing with Relativity is that there is no absolute reference frame. If one ways that they are traveling at a certain speed, they are saying it in reference to another object. When I'm driving my car and I'm traveling 25 mph, that's in relation to the road. When a pilot is fly a plane and going 800 mph, that's in relation to the Earth below it. In the examples given above, the velocities were almost always given in relation to another object (or if they were, I asked.) So, if an object is moving away from the Earth at 0.7c, it is just as valid to say that the Earth is moving away from the objet at 0.7c. There is no way to distinguish which object is actually moving. In fact, the question is meaningless. The only thing that can be said is that the Earth and object are changing distance between them. How quickly depends on whose point of view you're asking from.

Franko

10th March 2003, 06:16 PM

Okay, Upchurch – just a brief momentary tangent …

Suppose We have the same scenario, except lets say that we have Two planets directly opposite each other with Earth in the center, and the two planets are Both Exactly 7 Light years away. One to the "East" and one to the "West".

B-------------A-------------C

A= Earth, B = Planet 1 (7 LY away), C = planet 2 (7 LY away)

So now … when we launch our two spaceships traveling at 0.7 x the speed of Light (C) … how long until they should reach the two planets in opposite directions? (from the POV of an observer on Earth). Just round to the closest number of years.

evildave

10th March 2003, 08:26 PM

Ten years.

Except from Earth, the event of reaching the planets will actually be closer to 17 years away, given the lag in signal (propagating at the speed of light) reaching the Earth from the space craft reaching their respective destinations.

Further complicating matters, we're not counting the time to accelerate to their top speed, nor time to decelerate. The theoretical "top speed" would only be for the cruising (no acceleration) portion of the trip. Factor in acceleration at tolerable G loads.

That is, if you're going to pay attention to physics at all, and not assume silly things, like "instant acceleration".

But hey, we're dealing with Franko.

LucyR

10th March 2003, 09:00 PM

Originally posted by evildave

Except from Earth, the event of reaching the planets will actually be closer to 17 years away, given the lag in signal (propagating at the speed of light) reaching the Earth from the space craft reaching their respective destinations.

No. The implicit assumption (at least I hope this is Franco's thinking) is that an observer on Planet B has a clock which is perfectly synchronized with clocks belonging to observers on Earth and Planet A. They can compare notes at their leisure to determine the trip time.

Further complicating matters, we're not counting the time to accelerate to their top speed, nor time to decelerate. The theoretical "top speed" would only be for the cruising (no acceleration) portion of the trip. Factor in acceleration at tolerable G loads.

I hope Franco's reply would be: 'I modify my question as follows: let's assume a ship traveling at constant velocity passes Earth and at some later time passes Planet A. At the same time as the ship passes Earth another ship passes in the opposite direction on its way to Planet B. What would be the trip time as determined by observers in the common reference frame of Earth, and Planets A and B?'

evildave

10th March 2003, 09:26 PM

If, for instance the signal was sent when the rockets were at their cruising speed, halfway to their respective destinations, the signal would not reach the opposite rocket in a timely manner, even if re-broadcast from the earth. It had to go all of the 3.5 light years to get to the earth, then 3.5 light years to get to where the receiving rocket WAS when the sender broadcast the original message (that's seven years, so far), and additional time to reach the target rocket at its new position SEVEN years after the signal was sent (already settled in at the other planet). Even if the Earth was used to rebroadcast, it would not reach the other rocket before it reached its destination from that point.

The big doppler shift of the signals involved should be yet another big clue as to what's happening to them.

All of this ignoring (of course) the insignificant details that things don't tend to move in perfectly straight lines in space (there's always some gravity around), and that all of the stars would have shifted many millions of miles in the intervening time, and that the planets would have gone around their respective stars several times while we played around with radios that had a broad enough bandwidth to discriminate a signal that was phase-shifting like these would.

Another fun bit of thought is: if one space ship left 20 years ago, turned around, accelerated, and began broadcasting at .7c, and the other one turned on their radio to receive it while flying (more or less) toward the first one at 0.7c, with a net closing rate of 1.4c, the second ship would receive the original (doppler distorted) signal backwards.

LucyR

10th March 2003, 09:44 PM

evildave,

With respect, I do not believe that anything you have said in your most recent post is relevant.

If I understand Franco correctly the issue he is having trouble with is the failure of simultaneity, which is a consequence of a universe in which the speed of light is absolute and space and time are relative. This is of course contrary to the Newtonian paradigm in which the opposite is true, and which lay people take for granted. Teaching him the concepts of special relativity will be made immeasurably more difficult if you insist on dishing up multiple red herrings.

evildave

10th March 2003, 10:01 PM

Lucy, with respect, I believe you give Franko far too much credit. And the least you can do is spell his name right, if you're going to jump to his defense and try to educate him.

Several of his preceeding posts had something very much to do with sending signals between the space ships. I'm just giving out some more fun ones to do with signals, and how they behave when antennae are travelling relative to them.

We can also point out that the stars will be sort of purplish when viewed from the front window of the space ships, and redish with viewed from the rear window.

Not that you'd want to view anything through a front-facing window at these speeds.

c4ts

10th March 2003, 10:20 PM

Clearly, the earth is flat, and the heavens revolves around it in a prerfect sphere. Einstein, and all those other fools who say otherwise, can take a hike. For, if the heavens did not rotate around the Earth, then why do they shift their positions every night as the sun rises and falls. Maybe they are launched on rockets and fall to the ground from the sky? Haha! No, that is IMPOSSIBLE! You can't launch stars on rocket ships! Look how the moon and sun get BIGGER when they reach the horizon! That's VAPORS from the EARTH making them look bigger, like a superfreak bacterioid under a microscope! They can't possibly be getting any CLOSER! They would have to be launched in a funny baloon shaped horshoe, and we all know rockets follow parabolas, not horshoes, not baloons!

I don't care about no sugar fried honeybuns mathematics, Einstein and his communist nazi parade are WRONG. Period. End of story. Case closed. THE HEAVENS REVOLVE AROUND THE DISK OF THE EARTH BECAUSE THEY ARE SPHERICAL! All you commie nazis can go back to your mud huts in Iraq.

LucyR

10th March 2003, 10:39 PM

evildave,

Well, I could be wrong but he seems to have the idea that the concept of relativity, as defined by Einstein, is an atheist plot designed to pull the wool over his eyes. His questions are couched in such a way as to suggest that he's trying to force the atheist posters on this board to admit it. If we're nasty to him it'll only reinforce his prejudice.

What I would like to do is start with the empirical observation that c is constant independent of reference frame, and carry on from there. We can explain to him the history of the theory: the failure of the Michelson-Morley experiment, and the observation that the form of the Maxwell equations is not invariant when transforming between reference frames in the Newtonian universe, and the significance thereof. We can present the Lorentz transformation, and describe time dilation and length contraction, and also obtain the expression for the composition of velocities. We can even derive E = mc^2! Perhaps that'll impress him.

My point is that it should be possible to convince him of the validity of SR, if we take things step by step.

PS thanks for correcting my spelling - that was silly of me.

MRC_Hans

10th March 2003, 10:51 PM

LucyR: That is very nice of you and you might try to address it that way. But I'm afraid the core of the problem is that Franko does not want to understand. His agenda is not to gain new understanding, but to gain yeat another opportunity to yell at people. He feels he is making "A-THeists" look foolish when they attempt to explain and fail, because he refuses to understand. And in a way he is right.

Hans

c4ts

10th March 2003, 10:56 PM

But if you did that, you will find out that they were WRONG! For it says in the Almagest

In addition to the above, it would also be useful to discuss the problems of at which, in general, it is possible for eliptic syzgies to occur, so that, once we have determined a single example of a syzygy, we need not apply the limits to every succeeding syzygy in turn, but only those which are seperated by an interval of months at which it is possible for an eclipse to occur.

Ptolemy, 6:5

LucyR

10th March 2003, 10:58 PM

Hans,

Well, I've just had a cup of coffee and feel very positive about things. It won't last.

The thing is I hadn't thought about SR for a long time, and I had forgotten how cool it was. I just wanted the opportunity to talk about it, dammit!

MRC_Hans

11th March 2003, 03:42 AM

Well, talk away, heheh. One thing I forget the explanation for is this:

Suppose you are in a spaceship moving at a considerable fraction of C (say, 50%). Now, if you shine a light forward or backwards, you will not notice anything strange about the light, it will seem to leave at C and have normal color? But to an external observer, the light shone forward will be blue-shifted and have a separation rate (from the spaceship) of 0,5C, whereas the light shone backwards will be red-shifted and have a seperation rate of 1,5C?

Could you (or another rocket scientist) explain that to me in reasonably simple terms? (No I'm not gonna keep telling you that you are wrong :rolleyes: )

Hans

The Fool

11th March 2003, 04:59 AM

Franko, whats the game here? Normally you would have declared yourself imaginary and run away by now.

So whats your problem with this speed limit of C? Is your clockwork world falling apart? It seems to me that your problems may come from facts contradicting your religious dogma. Gravitons have massive in your religious dogma. So if they propagate at light speed you certainly do have to generate some fog and mirrors to retain your massive graviton. Einstein sits at the right hand of your Goddess, Isn't that what you say? In that case she is probably elbowing him in the ribs to stop him laughing.

Get over it frank, relative velocities are just a concept, You can fire imaginary objects in any damn direction you like but C is still the speed limit. A photon emitted from any object traveling at any speed up to C will always be able to reach the other object traveling in any other direction traveling at any speed up to C. You could always put a stationary dot in between them that neither of them are traveling from at greater than C...The photon simply travels to the dot then from the dot to the other object...Dammit, you don't even need the Dot! I just thought it would help you get your head around the problem....get over it.

ok, you can claim you don't exist now....

Upchurch

11th March 2003, 06:08 AM

Originally posted by Franko

Suppose We have the same scenario, except lets say that we have Two planets directly opposite each other with Earth in the center, and the two planets are Both Exactly 7 Light years away. One to the "East" and one to the "West".

B-------------A-------------C

A= Earth, B = Planet 1 (7 LY away), C = planet 2 (7 LY away)

So now … when we launch our two spaceships traveling at 0.7 x the speed of Light (C) … how long until they should reach the two planets in opposite directions? (from the POV of an observer on Earth). Just round to the closest number of years. Because of the symmetry of the problem, there is only need to calculate the time for one ship. Say, the AB ship. Assuming instantaneous acceleration and everything from the Earth reference frame:

t = d / v

Where,
t = time for the trip
d = the distance traveled = 7 light years (ly)
v = the velocity = 0.7c

t = 7 ly / 0.7c
t = 10 years

So, both ships AB and AC will arive at their respective planets in 10 years from the perspective of the Earth. Further, due to relativity (i.e. there is no distinction between the ship moving or the planets moving), the trip will take 10 years for each ship, as well.

Going further to analyze the problem completely, as previously calculated, ship AB and ship AC are traveling apart at 0.94c. Calculating gamma:

gamma = 1 / Sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2)
gamma = 1 / Sqrt(1 - (0.94c)^2 / c^2)
gamma = 1 / Sqrt(1 - 0.8836)
gamma = 1 / (0.3412)
gamma = 2.93

By length contraction, l' = lo / gamma, ship AB sees ship AC traveling a distance of

l' = 7 ly / 2.93
l' = 2.39 ly

So, from AB's perspective, ship AC makes the trip in t = l' / u, or

t = 2.93 ly / 0.94c
t = 3.12 years

In summary:
From Earth's perspective, each ship took 10 years.
From each ship's perspective, their own trip took 10 years and the other ship took 3.12 years.

MRC_Hans

11th March 2003, 07:01 AM

In summary:
From Earth's perspective, each ship took 10 years.
From each ship's perspective, their own trip took 10 years and the other ship took 3.12 years. Mmm, I think you must be in error here: Surely, travelling at 0.7C, each ship would experience a considerable time dilution, so they would not feel they had taken 10 years. More likely 3.12. And obviously, if they had some way of knowing when the other ship arrived, they would find that it arrived at the same time as themselves (might be calculated retrospectively).

This also explains the apparent puzzle of the separation rate. While the stationary observer can calculate it to 1.4C, from the POV of each ship, space is compressed (or time is diluted, tw osides of the same thing), so they would have a separation rate of only 0.94C (according to Tricky's calculations).

Hans

Franko

11th March 2003, 07:17 AM

evildave:
Ten years.

Hey! Congrats evildave you officially have more balls that Upchimp. It would have taken me at least 12 posts to get a straight answer out of him.

Except from Earth, the event of reaching the planets will actually be closer to 17 years away, given the lag in signal (propagating at the speed of light) reaching the Earth from the space craft reaching their respective destinations.

Yeah, but remember we are trying to keep things simple so we can see what is really going on. That is how Logic, Philosophy, and Science ALL work. You reduce the complexity and focus your perception on one single puzzle at a time. Otherwise, you’ll never see squat.

Further complicating matters, we're not counting the time to accelerate to their top speed, nor time to decelerate. The theoretical "top speed" would only be for the cruising (no acceleration) portion of the trip. Factor in acceleration at tolerable G loads.

Ohhh, yes we could think of all kinds of nonsense to make the example MORE complex, and that is exactly what you would do if you didn’t want to find anything out more than what you already know. Maybe they were traveling at 0.69642028754 x the speed of light instead of just 0.7 x C? Maybe instead of both planets being exactly 7 light years away one was 7.8986386 light years away, and the other was 15.875328976.

Does that really make the example BETTER for you evildave?

That is, if you're going to pay attention to physics at all, and not assume silly things, like "instant acceleration".

But hey, we're dealing with Franko.

Ahhh, so in other words, you Hate simple examples where it is easy to see the point?

MRC_Hans

11th March 2003, 07:23 AM

Psst, Frank: It seems that even the simple example is too complicated for you to see the point?

Hans :rolleyes:

Upchurch

11th March 2003, 07:38 AM

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Mmm, I think you must be in error here: Surely, travelling at 0.7C, each ship would experience a considerable time dilution, so they would not feel they had taken 10 years.Actually, I did make a mistake, but it's not the one you're pointing out. It's not the ship that experiences its own time dialation. It's other objects viewing the ship that sees it experiencing time dilation.

What I made the mistake in was that, for the ship, the distance between planets A and B is not 7 ly. It should actually be:

gamma = 1 / Sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2)
gamma = 1 / Sqrt(0.51)
gamma = 1.40

l' = 7ly / 1.40
l' = 5ly

t = 5ly / 0.7c
t = 7.14 years.

From each ship's perspective, the trip takes 7.14 years (beause it's traveling a shorter distance).
From Earth's perspective, the trip takes 10 years.

Sorry about that. My lack of recent practice is showing.

Franko

11th March 2003, 07:42 AM

Upchurch:
t = 7 ly / 0.7c
t = 10 years

So, both ships AB and AC will arive at their respective planets in 10 years from the perspective of the Earth. Further, due to relativity (i.e. there is no distinction between the ship moving or the planets moving), the trip will take 10 years for each ship, as well.

Okay, so you have two ships moving apart from each other at the rate of 420,000 km/sec when the max speed limit according to Einstein is 300,000 km/sec.

Both ships are traveling away from each other in opposite directions at 70% the speed of light (c).

Now, agreed … when the one ship looks back at the other he sees that the other ship doesn’t actually appear to be going 140% C, but instead is only going 94% x C (I didn’t check your calculations, but I’m assuming your correct).

Okay, so here’s the thing. Lets say that the two ships aren’t headed EXACTLY away from each other. Instead of 180 degrees, lets say that they are 178 degrees. The Earth is in the middle (A), and then you have the two ships (B & C) on either ends. You could connect them all with lines and form a triangle. Ship C wants to figure out where Ship B is going, so he looks over at B, and sees that B is moving away from him at 94% C (300,000 kms x 0.94 = 282,000 kms). Then C looks back at Earth and sees that he is still moving away from the Earth at 70% the speed of light.

So why can’t Ship C, run the calculations as if he were on Earth, and he knows that ship C (his ship) is headed away from the Earth at 70% C, and he knows that from C’s POV B appears to be moving away at 94% C, so couldn’t he simply triangulate and calculate that from the Earth’s POV he (ship C) and ship B are actually moving apart from each other at the rate of 420,000 kms instead of at the rate of 282,000 kms?

Upchurch

11th March 2003, 08:02 AM

I assume you have quite caught up with the posts, but you've already made three contradictory statements:
Originally posted by Franko

Okay, so you have two ships moving apart from each other at the rate of 420,000 km/sec when the max speed limit according to Einstein is 300,000 km/sec.
u1 = 1.4c
Both ships are traveling away from each other in opposite directions at 70% the speed of light (c).
u2 = 0.7c
Now, agreed … when the one ship looks back at the other he sees that the other ship doesn’t actually appear to be going 140% C, but instead is only going 94% x C (I didn’t check your calculations, but I’m assuming your correct).
u3 = 0.94c

u1 was arrived at by using an incorrect composition of speeds. u2 is mislabeled. They aren't traveling away from each other at 0.7c, they're traveling away from Earth at 0.7c. u3 is correct given the information above.
Okay, so here’s the thing. Lets say that the two ships aren’t headed EXACTLY away from each other. Instead of 180 degrees, lets say that they are 178 degrees. The Earth is in the middle (A), and then you have the two ships (B & C) on either ends. You could connect them all with lines and form a triangle. Ship C wants to figure out where Ship B is going, so he looks over at B, and sees that B is moving away from him at 94% C (300,000 kms x 0.94 = 282,000 kms). Then C looks back at Earth and sees that he is still moving away from the Earth at 70% the speed of light.
This problem can't be solved using SR. In order for Ships B and C to maintain a velocity of 0.94c along the line connecting them, they must be accelerating along their lines of travel (the line that connects each ship and Earth). Once you introduce acceleration, you lose inertial reference frames.
So why can’t Ship C, run the calculations as if he were on Earth, and he knows that ship C (his ship) is headed away from the Earth at 70% C, and he knows that from C’s POV B appears to be moving away at 94% C, so couldn’t he simply triangulate and calculate that from the Earth’s POV he (ship C) and ship B are actually moving apart from each other at the rate of 420,000 kms instead of at the rate of 282,000 kms? Again, if the problem insists on holding B & C's relative velocities constant at 0.94c, this problem cannot be solved using SR, due to the acceleration needed to meet the 0.94c restriction.

I don't have the mathematical tools easily at hand to answer this question. In fact, the math needed for General Relativity calculations is f***ing hard and I was struggling with it when I was on top of my game.

Franko

11th March 2003, 08:41 AM

Upchurch:
I assume you have quite caught up with the posts, but you've already made three contradictory statements:

You clearly stated that the two ships would reach their destinations in 10 years relative to the Earth. That CLEARLY works out to a rate of separation of 420,000 kms when viewed from Earth. If the one ship (C) sees that it is moving away from the Earth at a rate of 210,000 kms, and if it sees that that other ship (B) appears to be moving away at 94% the speed of light, then why can’t ship C simply triangulate the relative position and speed of ship B from the Earth, and work out the True rate of separation?

Your explanation went off on a lot of tangents but it didn’t address the point.

Also …

Or imagine that you have some people living on a small little planet. They launch a rocket into space which can travel 0.5 x C. Now … suppose that the little planets is actually one of the asteroid ships, and suppose that they launch the rocket away from Earth (the same direction they were traveling) The rocket would only be flying away –relative to the asteroid – at 0.5 x C, but relative to the Earth wouldn’t that little rocket be moving at 1.2 x C? In other words wouldn’t the mini rocket being moving away from the Earth at 210,000 km/sec + 150,000 km/sec (360,000 km/sec [greater than C])? If not, why not? For all we know the Earth itself is already moving at 0.7 x C? Without a common point of reference, I am not sure what “speed/velocity” even means?

In other words, isn’t Relativity always applied to two points of reference and no more? When you calculate the maximum speed an object can travel isn’t it ALWAYS relative to some other Single object (point in space)? So why can’t one of the asteroid ships launch it’s own rocket as I suggest above.

Look, if you were going to launch a rocket from Earth, there is no other “frame of reference” you have to consider … is there? So why do the inhabitants of the little asteroid have to consider the Earth as an extra frame of reference? Shouldn’t their little rocket appear to travel off at 50% the speed of light from their POV with the Earth receding in the opposite direction at 70% the speed of light? How is that any different than the Earth simultaneously launching two rockets in opposite directions?