Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 92

Thread: Dogmatism to the side: Science to the front...

  1. #61
    Gus: '''you can contact me on >''

    ''garethlee.meredith@tiscali.co.uk.''

    >>>> Is this what you wanted?

  2. #62
    reiku is like a deluded mutt begging to be mugged
    why the fuck would i want to contact you?

    the blood sweat and tears
    the sex drugs and rock and roll
    the shit and piss
    laid out in sci
    out in the fucking open
    for the historical record
    for humanity

    ban the frikking msg sys in sci

  3. #63
    baby
    i want everything about you

  4. #64
    Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love BenTheMan's Avatar
    Posts
    8,966
    So now you are stating that pair production in the vacuum is pseudoscience.
    I am stating exactly that pair production from the vacuum doesn't mean there is a Dirac sea. One can also produce quark-anti-quark pairs from the vacuum. Should there also be a quark sea as well?

    While the Dirac sea is a good interpretation for some things, it is outdated and has been more or less given up on after about 1950, when Feynman, Schwinger, and Tomonaga taught us how to quantize classical electrodynamics.

    I think you have it backwards, Ben. I see no evidence to support string theory. You 'believe' in string theory with no evidence to support the theory and with no predictions to confirm or falsify the theory. You are closer to occupying the same moral ground as the intelligent designers, etc.
    Surely not. I think there is much you should learn before you have this conversation with me.

    Oh, and this is particularly amusing:

    You must be residing in a fantasy land. I reject any theory that does not display solid logic and have good experimental backing.
    How about Hawking-Unruh radiation?
    Show me an experiment where you detect Hawking radiation

  5. #65
    Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love BenTheMan's Avatar
    Posts
    8,966
    Quote Originally Posted by Gustav View Post
    ok
    cutiing edge physics in pseudo
    homework help in phys

    well done, dumbfuck sci
    I doubt that you are in a position to judge what is ``cutting edge physics''.

    But, I have been wrong about things before...

  6. #66
    The Devil is in the details
    Posts
    3,181
    BenTheMan,
    I am stating exactly that pair production from the vacuum doesn't mean there is a Dirac sea. One can also produce quark-anti-quark pairs from the vacuum. Should there also be a quark sea as well?
    I never argued that the Dirac sea was a complete and accurate description of the vacuum. Einstein, Dirac and others recognized that the 'Dirac sea', which is a hypothesis that predicted the existence of the positron, was a signature of an underlying aether in the vacuum. I said that it was not possible to detect our motion through the aether, by means of Earth surface-based experiments, any more easily than we could detect our motion through the Dirac sea or the Dark Energy in the vacuum. I think the observed and measured effects that some attempt to describe as Dark Energy, zero point energy, the Dirac sea, vacuum foam or whatever are all signatures of an aether-like background in spacetime. I really don't care if it is called 'aether', Dark Energy, vacuum energy, Dirac sea or whatever. They are all just bits and pieces of the larger puzzle, IMO.
    Show me an experiment where you detect Hawking radiation
    Ahh, I did not state Hawking radiation, I said Hawking-Unruh radiation. I am still skeptical of both forms of Hawking radiation. Here is a little cut & paste and link regarding Hawking-Unruh radiation:
    At present, Unruh radiation for uniformly accelerated motion exists only as a theoretical
    concept, not yet confirmed in the laboratory. Experimental evidence for Hawking-Unruh
    effects does exist for uniform circular motion, as mentioned in the Introduction.
    http://physics.princeton.edu/~mcdona...l/unruhrad.pdf

  7. #67
    "...He asks you where you've been, you tell him who you've seen.
    And you talk about anything."

  8. #68
    Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love BenTheMan's Avatar
    Posts
    8,966
    I said that it was not possible to detect our motion through the aether, by means of Earth surface-based experiments, any more easily than we could detect our motion through the Dirac sea or the Dark Energy in the vacuum.
    So you can't detect it? Then how do you measure it?

    I think the observed and measured effects that some attempt to describe as Dark Energy, zero point energy, the Dirac sea, vacuum foam or whatever are all signatures of an aether-like background in spacetime. I really don't care if it is called 'aether', Dark Energy, vacuum energy, Dirac sea or whatever. They are all just bits and pieces of the larger puzzle, IMO.
    So then the argument is reduced to symantics. This scentence has no content. you say things like ``I think'', instead of ``I can show you quantitatively...''. If your aether is the same as a Dirac sea, then surely it is wrong---I have pointed out to Reiku on several occasions that treating the Dirac Sea as a zero point field leads to the worst theoretical prediction in all of physics.

    I am still skeptical of both forms of Hawking radiation. Here is a little cut & paste and link regarding Hawking-Unruh radiation:
    The argument that the guy makes is here:

    The Hawking-Unruh temperature ¯nds application in accelerator physics as the reason that electrons in a storage ring do not reach 100% polarization despite emitting polarized synchrotron radiation [4]. Indeed, the various limiting features of performance of a storage ring that arise due to quantum °uctuations of the synchrotron radiation [5] can be understood quickly in terms of eq. (2) [6, 7].
    I am skeptical of this, but it is interesting nonetheless. Thank you for pointing this out. I think that Hawking radiation is correct because it is a robust result---every approach to quantum gravity (strings, loops, path integrals) gets the same answer, which is quite interesting.

  9. #69
    The Devil is in the details
    Posts
    3,181
    BenTheMan,
    So you can't detect it? Then how do you measure it?
    Don't be such an ass. I said we can observe and measure the effects. We can observe and measure the effects of gravity, but we have never detected a graviton or a gravitational wave, have we? We know gravity exists, but we still don't know exactly what it is.
    If your aether is the same as a Dirac sea, then surely it is wrong
    Read my post again, Ben, and try to be honest in your arguments. I never stated the Dirac sea was the same as the aether.

  10. #70
    Don't solve, guys, what the Aether cannot be, but what it can be. Can it behave like very dense matter, for example the interior of black hole? No? Why not?
    How such very dense matter is supposed to appear? The people are using to solve many different abstract problems, but they're ignoring the most trivial questions.
    Last edited by zephir; 12-17-07 at 12:04 AM.

  11. #71
    ben is a troll
    plazma does all of us a disservice by allowing this shit to continue as it has

    ja
    dumbfuck sci

    oh
    i know shit about physics but i know who does and doesnt

  12. #72
    benthetroll's mantra is...if it cannot be measured it aint physics

  13. #73
    Such way of discussion isn't very constructive, because no party involved in discussion doesn't supply some relevant arguments. The Aether concept is sort of abstraction: you needn't to believe, whether it is real or not. But what we know, the light is spreading in waves, right? It has finite wavelength, so you can imagine, the light wave is spreading in elastic enevironment, whose mass density is the third power of Planck constant (if we consider it just three-dimensional). The density of such matter corresponds the density of black hole, if we consider as black hole a mass inside its own Schwarzschild radius. If the average density of a region is rho, then very roughly we could say the Schwarzchild radius of a spherical region in asymptotically flat spacetime (and neglecting gravitational binding energy, etc) of radius r is about (8 pi rho)(r^3)/3.

    Therefore, regardless of the density, if we consider a spherical region (in flat space) of radius r greater than sqrt[3/(8 pi rho)] then the region would be called a black hole. For a mass of 2.5 x 1053 kg, i.e. a 2 and a 5 followed by 52 zeroes kg, the Schwarzschild radius is about 17 billion light years. This huge mass is an estimate for the total mass of the observable matter inside of our universe. Also, given that the age of the universe is 15 billion years or so, 17 billion light years is pretty close to the size of the universe. This estimate basically says, the volume of space collapsed inside observable matter is of (nearly) the same size, like the volume of vacuum around it.

    I explained many times, how the very dense matter should behave and why it cannot be detected so easily, if it's of such immense density, because the absolute part of energy will spread via transversal waves. You cannot detect the absolute reference frame of inertial environment by it's transversal waves by the same way, like you cannot detect the existence of underwater just by using of surface waves. What you should find is the subtle longitudal portion of energy waves. Therefore the existence of absolute reference frame would depend on the detection of gravitational waves. Unfortunatelly, no sign of such waves were detected so far, so we should choose some indirect approach.

    One such approach is the detection of anisotropy of the microwave background of Universe(CMB) . If this anisotropy is caused just by anisotropy of Universe expansion, then such anisotropy should manifest itself even in visible part of spectrum. Unfortunatelly, no such anisotropy was detected already (in fact, some anisotropy was observed for local galaxy cluster, but it's considered as controversial and it doesn't correspond those of CMB both in amplitude, both in direction vector). Therefore the observed Doppler shift of CMB could be assigned to the Aether reference frame, instead. Why?

    Because from Aether theory follows, just the longwavelength transversal waves will exhibit the Lorentz symmetry violation. Even the long-wavelength waves at the water surface are affected by the underwater motion, while the short-wavelength not. This is why, we can say, the observed anisotropy isn't caused by anisotropy of Universe expansion and/or local motion of gallactic cluster, but it's trully the consequence of inertial background of Universe.
    Last edited by zephir; 12-17-07 at 04:34 AM.

  14. #74
    Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love BenTheMan's Avatar
    Posts
    8,966
    ben is a troll
    Do I need to point out the irony?

    benthetroll's mantra is...if it cannot be measured it aint physics
    And...? Is this a bad thing?

    Read my post again, Ben, and try to be honest in your arguments. I never stated the Dirac sea was the same as the aether.
    And I would ask you to read MY post again. If the aether you are talking about (which so far you haven't been able to describe to me at all) is the Dirac Sea, as you aluded to here:

    I think the observed and measured effects that some attempt to describe as Dark Energy, zero point energy, the Dirac sea, vacuum foam or whatever are all signatures of an aether-like background in spacetime.
    Then I am telling you that it is wrong.

    So far, I can only see a semantic argument---you call something an aether, I call it a cosmological constant, or dark energy. You still haven't explained where it comes from or why it's there---you just called it something different.

  15. #75
    Quote Originally Posted by BenTheMan View Post
    you call something an aether, I call it a cosmological constant, or dark energy
    ...or virtual photons, or quantum foam or zero point energy. Too much denominations to single phenomena, don't you think? How do you want to explain for example the dispersion of gamma radiation detected by MAGIC experiment? The dilatation of iridium meter prototype?

    You'll need to consider another and another assumptions and theories and to pile another and another attributes to your "cosmological constant". Despite the fact, the cosmological constant isn't equivalent to dark energy by any way. The cosmological constant was introduced to compensate/"explain" the stacionary Universe model by observed inflation. While the dark energy was introduced to compensate/"explain" the increasing rate of Universe expansion. The cosmological constant follows from the expansion of Universe, while the dark energy follows from acceleration of Universe expansion. In certain extent, the dark energy is related to first derivation of cosmological constant. Therefore, these two quantities aren't directly comparable - check the dimensional analysis. If the Universe would expand by constant speed, the cosmological constant will be nonzero, while the dark energy will remain exactly zero.

    On the other hand, the black hole model of Universe of AWT covers all the above by single consistent Aether concept, which can be used even for explanation of quantum foam concept, dispersion of gamma and microwave radiation by vacuum, zero point energy, and many other fundamental phenomena, unexaplained yet by existing theories in consistent way. This is the reason, why I'm reintroducing the Aether into physics again: for unification and reconcilation of all existing concepts and theories with observations - not just of few cosmological ones.
    Last edited by zephir; 12-17-07 at 10:27 AM.

  16. #76
    Quote Originally Posted by 2inquisitive View Post
    BenTheMan,

    I never argued that the Dirac sea was a complete and accurate description of the vacuum. Einstein, Dirac and others recognized that the 'Dirac sea', which is a hypothesis that predicted the existence of the positron, was a signature of an underlying aether in the vacuum. I said that it was not possible to detect our motion through the aether, by means of Earth surface-based experiments, any more easily than we could detect our motion through the Dirac sea or the Dark Energy in the vacuum. I think the observed and measured effects that some attempt to describe as Dark Energy, zero point energy, the Dirac sea, vacuum foam or whatever are all signatures of an aether-like background in spacetime. I really don't care if it is called 'aether', Dark Energy, vacuum energy, Dirac sea or whatever. They are all just bits and pieces of the larger puzzle, IMO.

    Ahh, I did not state Hawking radiation, I said Hawking-Unruh radiation. I am still skeptical of both forms of Hawking radiation. Here is a little cut & paste and link regarding Hawking-Unruh radiation:

    http://physics.princeton.edu/~mcdona...l/unruhrad.pdf
    Sorry for tip-toeing in here, But...

    There is a way to test this.

    Imagine a bullet which is of course mass and energy. If you shoot it from a gun, it SHOULD drag the Quantum Aether with it... If so, then string theory could answer for the vibrating qualities found in this Aether, and proove that all known theories are indeed potentially correct.

    A. Einstein

    ''Imagination is more important than knowledge.''


  17. #77
    Has the Casimir effect been discussed yet? Frame-dragging around a rotating BH?
    What does anyone think about the first one?

    Also, we perceive time as linear (here on planet Earth, anyway), but where is the line it 'moves' along?
    I view time as something monotonic, but 3-d, like spatiality. In fact, time is orthogonal to any change in distance (separation). It ain't one-dimensional, except when we 'view' it this way to analyse motion (you can 'slice' a single spatial/time 'direction' to do this), but it is monotonic in a given inertial field.

  18. #78
    Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love BenTheMan's Avatar
    Posts
    8,966
    Has the Casimir effect been discussed yet? Frame-dragging around a rotating BH?
    What does anyone think about the first one?
    Well, I was skeptical of the Casimir force the first time I heard it. But then I learned how to derive it, and read papers where some people measured it. Now I am less skeptical.

    Also, we perceive time as linear (here on planet Earth, anyway), but where is the line it 'moves' along?
    I view time as something monotonic, but 3-d, like spatiality. In fact, time is orthogonal to any change in distance (separation). It aint' one-dimensional, but it is monotonic in a given inertial field.
    Ahh good. I will let yall entertain yourselves here with such wild speculations

  19. #79
    "Time is linear" implies that it moves along a line.
    Where is the line it "moves" along? Can you point it out?

    Also, some science-wits appear to believe that an observation is like a snapshot; something static that we then 'look at'.
    These people (who simply cannot understand that there is absolutely nothing 'fixed' or 'static' anywhere), also claim that an experiment is not an observation, and an example of 'observational only' -i.e. "non-experimental" science, wtf that means, is Astronomy.
    Got banned for disagreeing with them and calling them a bunch of idiots who have no claim whatsoever to being "scientists". Or even logical.

    P.S. Posted this in the wrong bloody thread, first , er, time.

  20. #80
    Wild? Wild is the world, and so is physics. Being a physicist, you should know this, surely?

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. By BenTheMan in forum Formal debates
    Last Post: 11-30-07, 01:53 PM
    Replies: 18
  2. By Mickmeister in forum General Science & Technology
    Last Post: 08-24-07, 02:14 PM
    Replies: 78
  3. By coberst in forum General Philosophy
    Last Post: 07-13-07, 02:12 AM
    Replies: 54
  4. By kwhilborn in forum Pseudoscience Archive
    Last Post: 05-12-07, 10:49 PM
    Replies: 0
  5. By Randy53215 in forum General Science & Technology
    Last Post: 01-19-07, 05:58 PM
    Replies: 3

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •