All Photons Move at 300,000km/s.... But Don't?

paddoboy said:
In actual fact, I find it is you in an attempt to be hilariously funny and facetious as missing the point.
I'm not that keen on Greene. I find other science popularisers far more entertaining and convincing.
Click to expand...

I tend to skip reading anything with a preface like: "The following material is highly speculative and is not intended as science", because I know there are better places to read good fiction or science, but I prefer to pick one or the other rather than try and glean one or the other out of a 'mash up', because that's just confusing.

Good science / science fiction crossovers are just really hard to find since the passing of Asimov and Clarke. Perhaps that is what I am really looking for. Michau Kaku is good. So is Sean Carroll. They can usually be relied upon to stay within the boundaries, and point out any parts where they are stretching them to the breaking point. Thorne evidently cannot, and this gives the same sort of impression I get from Greene. Perhaps he doesn't know the limits.

The Last Mimsy wasn't a bad start to Greene's career, but I literally can't bear to watch any NOVA episode that has Greene in it. He mangles and distorts whatever little science he tries to present.
 
Last edited:
A seldom noticed or appreciated line of demarcation between science and pseudoscience or fantasy is that when a theory fails a reality check, you don't try to remedy that situation by building even more elaborate fictional hypotheses to support the part(s) that failed to conform to experimental verification. This is where Thorne's wormhole theory crosses the line. String theory fails this test as well, by the way. When protons fail to decay within the limits of age of the universe, you don't tweak a few of those fundamental parameters and pretend that if we wait long enough, it will happen. You get another theory.

What if Einstein, instead of taking the Michaelson-Moreley null result and an invariant speed of light, no absolute space or time as a given, had instead decided that even more elaborate methods were necessary to detect a hypothetical aether wind? Would the atomic age or the LHC ever have happened, without e=mc^2? I doubt it.

Wormholes are a fantasy built on the crumbling pretext of absolute space and time, paddoboy. Thorne's whole career is a fraud. Anyone who can't see it probably used Bernie Madoff as a financial advisor.

Science is a tool that can reveal great and wonderful things that are easily a match for any great work of fiction. Using science as an excuse for generating cheap fiction, like any other hustle or dodge, gets us exactly nowhere and little to show for the effort. "Scientists" of Thorne's calibre no doubt laugh all the way to the bank and somehow never suffer the consequences or reputation that befall someone like Madoff. Why is that?
 
Last edited:
danshawen said:
Thorne's whole career is a fraud. Anyone who can't see it probably used Bernie Madoff as a financial advisor.

Science is a tool that can reveal great and wonderful things that are easily a match for any great work of fiction. Using science as an excuse for generating cheap fiction, like any other hustle or dodge, gets us exactly nowhere and little to show for the effort. "Scientists" of Thorne's calibre no doubt laugh all the way to the bank and somehow never suffer the consequences or reputation that befall someone like Madoff. Why is that?
Click to expand...
Probably because you are not a good judge of such things.

X, who the majority only know by reputation, has a good professional reputation.
Y, who knows X only by his public works and reputation, doesn't like X.
Without further fact-based argument, Y is being irrational and cannot effectively communicate Y's opinion to Z.
 
rpenner said:
Probably because you are not a good judge of such things.

X, who the majority only know by reputation, has a good professional reputation.
Y, who knows X only by his public works and reputation, doesn't like X.
Without further fact-based argument, Y is being irrational and cannot effectively communicate Y's opinion to Z.
Click to expand...
I do value your opinion.
 
danshawen said:
Thorne's whole career is a fraud. Anyone who can't see it probably used Bernie Madoff as a financial advisor.

Science is a tool that can reveal great and wonderful things that are easily a match for any great work of fiction. Using science as an excuse for generating cheap fiction, like any other hustle or dodge, gets us exactly nowhere and little to show for the effort. "Scientists" of Thorne's calibre no doubt laugh all the way to the bank and somehow never suffer the consequences or reputation that befall someone like Madoff. Why is that?
Click to expand...

I'd be interested to know why you think Thorne's "whole career is a fraud". To be Feynman Prof of Theoretical Physics, at a place like Caltech, for a period of 18 years, you generally have to have impressed a great number of knowledgeable specialists, don't you? Do you think he hoodwinked them somehow? I see he's now 75 and I suppose like some people he may have kicked over the traces a bit in his old age, but why do you dismiss his earlier achievements so comprehensively?
 
James R said:
jcc:


Gravitation waves? Please explain.


What do you mean by "stronger"?


Which ones? The established ones, or the ones you made up yourself?


sciforums has a rule against plagiarism. Before posting again, please familiarise yourself with the site rules. This will help you to avoid future warnings and bans.


You do not seem to want to discuss science. When your questions are answered you ignore the answers. Your approach to "science questions" here seems to be far from a matter of genuine curiosity. Rather, it seems that you are here to waste everybody's time. Such is the hallmark of a troll. I suggest when you return from your ban you change your ways, or you will rapidly find that you do no spend much time here.
Click to expand...

atom has mass, when atom is vibrating, it produces gravitation waves.

if the atom vibrates faster, the frequency of the gravitation wave increases, therefore more energy transfer to the target.
 
paddoboy said:
But the question is what is your motive behind asking this question, considering how you have ignored the answers to all your past questions......
And why do you not accept the answers given from where you copy n pasted your question, here.......
https://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=2348
Click to expand...

here's the answer.
Viewed classically, they consist of nothing but electrical and magnetic fields propagating through space, so it's entirely appropriate to call them electromagnetic waves.

both fields have force carrier. what is it? photon?

is this a joke?
 
exchemist said:
I'd be interested to know why you think Thorne's "whole career is a fraud". To be Feynman Prof of Theoretical Physics, at a place like Caltech, for a period of 18 years, you generally have to have impressed a great number of knowledgeable specialists, don't you? Do you think he hoodwinked them somehow? I see he's now 75 and I suppose like some people he may have kicked over the traces a bit in his old age, but why do you dismiss his earlier achievements so comprehensively?
Click to expand...
Because if you can show me just ONE thing in this universe, any part of which is absolutely fixed in space and / or time, I will concede that Thone's scientific papers on the subject have an ounce of merit. If you cannot, then he has missed a rather consequential scientific principle, hasn't he?
 
jcc said:
here's the answer.
Viewed classically, they consist of nothing but electrical and magnetic fields propagating through space, so it's entirely appropriate to call them electromagnetic waves.

both fields have force carrier. what is it? photon?

is this a joke?
Click to expand...
Unification of electromagnetism happened in 1865. Do try and pay attention. With a unified electrodynamic field, special relativity shows that there are no separate electric and magnetic fields; how one decomposes the electromagnetic field into components is based on an arbitrary standard of rest. So with a single physical field, the electromagnetic field, where all disturbances propagate at the speed of light and are of the same class. So a single massless quantum field suffices to explain classical electric and magnetic effects in terms of quantum field theory. The excitations of that field are photons, yes.
 
danshawen said:
Because if you can show me just ONE thing in this universe, any part of which is absolutely fixed in space and / or time, I will concede that Thone's scientific papers on the subject have an ounce of merit. If you cannot, then he has missed a rather consequential scientific principle, hasn't he?
Click to expand...

Well I can't, obviously. But you seem to be accusing him of basing his entire career on assuming - fraudulently, apparently - that there is. That strikes me as a somewhat sweeping conclusion and something that would be very unlikely to have escaped the notice of his esteemed colleagues and rivals, over a career spanning 40 years or whatever it was.
 
exchemist said:
Well I can't, obviously. But you seem to be accusing him of basing his entire career on assuming - fraudulently, apparently - that there is. That strikes me as a somewhat sweeping conclusion and something that would be very unlikely to have escaped the notice of his esteemed colleagues and rivals, over a career spanning 40 years or whatever it was.
Click to expand...
Yes, I've seen all of Thorne's various awards and accolades, and close associations with basically everyone and anyone who would take the time to read or listen to his fantastical nonsense:

http://www.its.caltech.edu/~kip/scripts/biosketch.html

A complete list of c0-authored papers is here:

http://www.its.caltech.edu/~kip/scripts/publications.html

I would single out the ones that offend, but it would be a very long list.

And I should be very ashamed of myself if I had garnered all that fame the in the way that he apparently did. No doubt, he probably learned a thing or two about physics from those associations. Lots more than he taught any of them, I'll be bound.

The uncertainty in the post that is the beginning of this thread is testimony to how helpful Thorne's work on entanglement really was. Yes, all photons move (even entangled ones), yet they don't. That statement is exactly correct.
 
Last edited:
rpenner said:
Probably because you are not a good judge of such things.

X, who the majority only know by reputation, has a good professional reputation.
Y, who knows X only by his public works and reputation, doesn't like X.
Without further fact-based argument, Y is being irrational and cannot effectively communicate Y's opinion to Z.
Click to expand...
Using logic like that, you'd be a great high stakes mark for the likes of the next Bernie Madoff. He had a great reputation and business contacts/relationships, and for a long time. What more could you ask of an investor? A profit would be nice. Sooner or later, the lack of that catches up with you.

What more could you ask of someone with a career like Thorne? I could think of a few questions, which I already asked. I don't really expect an answer from someone like Thorne.
 
Last edited:
danshawen said:
Yes, I've seen all of Thorne's various awards and accolades, and close associations with basically everyone and anyone who would take the time to read or listen to his fantastical nonsense:

http://www.its.caltech.edu/~kip/scripts/biosketch.html

A complete list of c0-authored papers is here:

http://www.its.caltech.edu/~kip/scripts/publications.html

I would single out the ones that offend, but it would be a very long list.

And I should be very ashamed of myself if I had garnered all that fame the in the way that he apparently did. No doubt, he probably learned a thing or two about physics from those associations. Lots more than he taught any of them, I'll be bound.

The uncertainty in the post that is the beginning of this thread is testimony to how helpful Thorne's work on entanglement really was. Yes, all photons move (even entangled ones), yet they don't. That statement is exactly correct.
Click to expand...

Hmm, you're a strange fellow. I don't know quite what to make of you. But I'm afraid I simply do not buy the notion that a senior chair at Caltech is likely to have been occupied by a bogus charlatan. Not without a great deal of detailed evidence anyway.
 
danshawen said:
Is Kip Thorne a physicist or a crackpot? Oh Brian, you're so silly, just like Mr. Thorne.
Click to expand...
danshawen said:
Wormholes are a fantasy built on the crumbling pretext of absolute space and time, paddoboy. Thorne's whole career is a fraud.
danshawen said:
What more could you ask of someone with a career like Thorne? I could think of a few questions, which I already asked. I don't really expect an answer from someone like Thorne.
Click to expand...

Wow! :) What I see with your babbling rant is an extreme form of "tall poppy syndrome"
I mean Thorne is someone, while you remain, well, you know. :)
But disregarding your obsession for a minute, you have been already informed that time travel and wormholes are not forbidden by GR or the laws of physics, and in fact the equations of GR, give the theoretical methodology as to how it can be achieved. Secondly, and as you very well know, Thorne makes it clear that without observational evidence of wormholes, they do remain speculative.
All he does is provide some interesting scenarios as to how wormholes can be used if shown to be valid.

And of course as I said previously, his speculative scenarios re time travel and wormholes, still hold far more credibility than some of the nonsensical claims of many of our alternative hypothesis manglers.


Perhaps now after reviewing the above facts [ and ignoring your own nonsensical claims] you may now like to again give me another like? :rolleyes:;)
Click to expand...
 
danshawen said:
Thorne's whole career is a fraud. Anyone who can't see it probably used Bernie Madoff as a financial advisor.
Click to expand...

Wow! :) What I see with your babbling rant is an extreme form of "tall poppy syndrome"
I mean Thorne is someone, while you remain, well, you know. :)
But disregarding your obsession for a minute, you have been already informed that time travel and wormholes are not forbidden by GR or the laws of physics, and in fact the equations of GR, give the theoretical methodology as to how it can be achieved. Secondly, and as you very well know, Thorne makes it clear that without observational evidence of wormholes, they do remain speculative.
All he does is provide some interesting scenarios as to how wormholes can be used if shown to be valid.

And of course as I said previously, his speculative scenarios re time travel and wormholes, still hold far more credibility than some of the nonsensical claims of many of our alternative hypothesis manglers.


Perhaps now after reviewing the above facts [ and ignoring your own nonsensical claims] you may now like to again give me another like? :rolleyes:;)
 
jcc said:
here's the answer.
Viewed classically, they consist of nothing but electrical and magnetic fields propagating through space, so it's entirely appropriate to call them electromagnetic waves.

both fields have force carrier. what is it? photon?

is this a joke?
Click to expand...


No, it's science. The joke is on you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top