Re: Anyone can apply for a warrant over allegations of a serious offence

On 28 Dec, 12:17, Nigel Oldfield <wmcriticalestop...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Ah ... you think Heisenberg was a dolt too ;)

Only insofar as I'm emphasising a different side of the coin.
Personally I'm with Einstein: God does not roll dice. But the
practical limitation on being able to measure at the sub-atomic level
means that God may as well roll dice.

All intellectual masturbation, to an empiricist, such as myself.

Lol. I don't think it hurts to have a theory that has aspects which,
consistent with the tenets of the theory, cannot be practically
measured with available technology.



'QM' is often a quandary and probably not yet complete.

Indeed. Btw I think I've just realised why E=mc^2. c^2 is the total
velocity of energy in (three-dimensional) space. That would be elegant
- it plots a spherical shape on a 3d graph. And it would give gravity
a maximum speed of c^2, which is within the upper limit, but
comfortably up there (i.e. within 3% of speculative limits I've seen
of 2x10^10 times c).

Where have you 'seen' this?

The alleged speed of gravity I got from:
http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/speed_of_gravity.asp

The rest of it is purely my intellectual vomiting.



And if it turns out neither of those can be questioned come hell or
highwater, then instead I'm going to question the workings of atomic
clocks (so I hope you know something about them).

Well I do, but you can read up on it all.

Hmm. Obviously the question in my mind is how ordinary, intuitive
engineering principles can cause an atomic clock to slow down. I've
read quite a few pages about atomic clocks, but without spending hours
and hours on the subject I haven't been able to find a simple,
diagramatical explanation of how an atomic clock works.

They do not 'slow down'.

As I say, my understanding is that they do. Under acceleration, atomic
clocks slow down.

No, only to the final observer of both clocks, the clocks are
operating quite correctly, within their frames (neither 'fast' nor
'slow').

Yes, that is what I was referring to. Obviously the clock does not
slow down as measured from within it's frame, but only because
everything within the frame slows down including any human observer.



What is a Cesium Atomic Clock?http://www.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/eng/services/inms/time-services/faq-time.ht...

As for 'simple', that is about ability ;)

Haha. I've no shortage of ability when it comes to technical subjects.

The twins paradox has never been 'proven', only time dilation has..

No I actually have a theory to explain it Nigel, and it's consistent
with relativity. It's based on the fact that the frame of reference
must encompass both the Earth and the space-rocket.

It does for the given observer in that frame. This is why both clocks
are quite correct.

Once you do that,
you realise that the reason why the astronaut lags in time is because
he *does* in fact accelerate more than the Earth.

The astronaut does not 'lag' at all, only operates within his
timeframe.

What are you saying then? That the astronaut will still be the same
age as the homebody when the astronaut returns to Earth?

I have no idea what *****would***** happen. No one does.

No, but experiments seem to suggest the existence of such an effect.



And as the rocket travels further from the Earth, eventually
the mass of the whole solar system is the backplate for the force of
the rocket engines.

Attraction is measurably negligible at those distances.

I'm not talking about attraction. I'm saying the combustion of rocket
fuel exerts a great deal of force on the rocket, but ultimately very
little on the background. The homebody on Earth does then suffer less
acceleration than the astronaut - and that is why time slows down/
lengths contract more for the astronaut.

Where are the maths/experiments for this, i.e acc vs time dilation?

Someone else I was talking to pointed me to this:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0411/0411233v1.pdf
I don't have the mathematical knowledge to understand it, but perhaps
you might.



All in all, when the
frame of reference encompasses both Earth and rocket and everything in
between, you find that, as a result of cobustion of the rocket fuel,
the Earth has suffered g-forces to some indiscernibly small degree,
while the space rocket has suffered huge g-forces. And as Einstein
said, the force of gravity is indistinguishable from the force of
acceleration.

They are the same thing in free fall. Not sure what your rockets have
to do with it.

That's why the astronaut twin comes back younger,

Unproven.

Not so. See:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox

"In physics, the twin paradox is a ****thought experiment**** in
special relativity ......"

Nigel, the very first paragraph has a reference to an experiment done
with atomic clocks, where a moving clock sent around the world on an
airplane has come back "younger" than the clock that stayed still.



And
that's why the atomic clocks on an airplane come back time-lagged,
because the acceleration generated by the jet engines is suffered
disproportionately by the plane and its passengers. Seemples!

These 'accelerations' are negligible to affect the clocks in this
manner and we know a given clock (i.e a correctly functioning and
calibrated one) is invariant.

Not according to the sources I've read. See the Wikipedia article.

Please quote exactly.

I quote from the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article: "The effect
has been verified experimentally using precise measurements of clocks
flown in airplanes.[1][2]"



Every explanation I've seen resorts to "a change of reference frame"
when the astronaut turns around, and of course I find that absurd and
counter-intuitive,

Oh dear, there lies the problem.

I think you'll find my engineering intuitions are very sharp indeed.
Trust me, when *I* say a theory that describes practical reality is
counter-intuitive, it means it's very likely to be a nonsense.

Oh dear. Your macro, classical, 'intuitions' have little value or
applicability in these domains

I'll bet you they don't. The idea of an intuition for the physical
world having no application in understanding the physical world, I
find an absurd suggestion.

Like I said about the double-slit experiment, physicists appear to
have wrapped themselves in a knot over this "action at a distance"
business, instead of a common sense approach (or at least, what *I*
consider a common sense approach) that light is best understood as a
field of energy potential, and you necessarily cannot measure such a
field without consuming some of its energy - and if the field is
already at the lowest potential, just enough to cause an effect in 1
atom, then you can't measure the field with atom-based measuring
equipment without consuming all of the energy that was to be measured.
None of this is spectacular, and none of it defies cause and effect as
we know it.



than the Earth,
when in fact what has actually happened is that when all is said and
done the astronaut has travelled further in distance than the Earth
(the Earth having moved some fraction of an inch in all,

Really? That is how much the Earth has moved in that time. Relative to
where?

Again, just measure the g-forces. *Clearly* the airplane is undergoing
more acceleration than the Earth. And like I said, this is *not*
incompatible with relativity - not on its proper reading, anyway.

These are peripheral issues, not required to explain the observations
and having no theoretical groundings, as you have admitted.

What do you mean having no theoretical groundings?



Incidentally, I know what the next big scare is after global warming.
The Earth being blown off it's axis by rampant space travel.

Hardly, the rocket does not move because of the Earth below it, it
moves according to the the Laws of Motion, which are Earth
independent.

I'm afraid that's simply not true. Rocket engines, at least as I
understand them, produce thrust by combusting gases and the expansion
of those gases (properly directed) then propel the engine forward.

Indeed, Laws of Motion.

Indeed, so you surely realise that those combustion gases eventually
collide with the Earth. Obviously, when the rocket is on the
launchpad, all of the gases collide with the Earth and its atmosphere,
but obviously that decreases to an indiscernible amount the further
the rocket moves away from the Earth.



In
space, the engine relies on the inertia of the rocket fuel as a
"backplate" against which to push the rocket. The combustion gases
ultimately accelerate in the opposite direction to the rocket.
Ultimately, every rocket launch blasts the Earth off it's axis by a
small amount.

It would still do the same thing (just faster), if the Earth was
absent, The only thing the Earth does, is provide a negative,
gravitational force, which requires more fuel to overcome. The effect
on the Earth approaches zero, due to the respective sizes of the
forces involved (plus, rockets escape from all around the sphere;) ).

Indeed. I accept that for all practical intents and purposes, the
effect on the Earth is nil. But that's different from recognising the
theoretical effect.



!!! It is the basic tenet of SR.

And how many people will punch you in the face while lecturing you
about the tenets of liberalism.

Concordance, my friend, Concordance.

Baa, my friend, baa! ;).

It is the bedrock of Science.

I don't know Nigel. I'm sure I like science as much as you do, but I
have far less faith in those who practice it.



But it does not, theoretically (2nd Law of TD) or empirically.

It does. Have you never seen a glass factory?

Do you understand Free energy and Entropy in a closed system?

Not in the way you do. Entropy is subjective.

No, it is measurably objective and increases in all systems, given
time.

Not so. Unless of course, you want to explain how entropy is
objective.



The notion of "free
energy" means, in physics terms, energy that humans can usefully
employ for their own ends. It is not an objective concept.

No, Free Energy is measurable and objective (See Gibbs).

No it isn't. The definition of "free energy" is subjective. Indeed,
the concept of "work" is subjective. Just because, for example, you
can point to a coal power station going like the clappers, and a pile
of useless ash resulting, does not prove that energy in the whole
universe has increased. Indeed, it has merely changed form, and we do
not yet know how over eons the fundamental forces of the universe
would cause a transformation of that energy back into "useful" form.



A glass is not spontaneously reforming, a new glass is being created,
with a consequential increase in entropy, in the system.

I don't deny that entropy (bearing in mind what I said above) is
increased. But the glass factory is just as "spontaneous" as the
dropping.

No, the factory, itself, in the creation of the new glass, also
increases entropy during the formation of the class, in toto.

I never said it didn't. The point is that the definition of entropy
then becomes so wide as to describe every observable event - a
tautology, in fact, because by definition "free energy" is *always*
being reduced. In fact I don't even recognise the concept of "free
energy" in a physical sense. The fact that only a certain form of
energy potential is useful for humans, does not mean there is no
fundamental force of nature that is able to change the form of energy
in the opposite direction.



The fact that humans find it considerably harder to put
Humpty Dumpty back together again does not mean you're thereby
describing a physical law.

The difficulty is moot ... the point is, that entropy has increased
twice, by breaking the glass and recreating it, overall.

According to chemistry, yes. The point I'm making is that "entropy" is
a meaningless descriptor in physics. As I say, there is no reason why
the forces of the universe cannot act to decrease entropy as
traditionally measured. If energy is always conserved, then the
universe could conceivably be on a constant cycle of big-bang then big-
crunch then big-bang again, and if the universe is a closed system
then by definition the cycle will never stop, because the energy will
always be conserved (unlike in everyday reality where energy is
constantly lost to the aether or transformed into a useless form).



But
since we're talking about the Laws of Nature for All TIme, we must
accept that the 2nd law includes a subjective element of "usefulness",
and that in fact the law of energy conservation is the real cast iron
law here - which supersedes the 2nd law, in the same way classical
mechanics retains everyday relevance although it has been superseded
in theoretical terms.

Where is this 'supersedence' described and how?

The supersedence of the 2nd law is the law of conservation. If energy
is never lost from a disordered system, then by definition that system
can never become ordered. Consider those "kinetic balls" toys. How
would that mechanism ever stop if the energy in the momentum of the
balls could not be lost or transformed into any other form? The answer
is that it wouldn't stop, ever. The balls would swing indefinitely.



Moreover, even if the universe itself is such a closed
system, our lack of proper comprehension of it means we cannot yet
determine that entropy is increasing

I am sure I did so as an undergraduate.

Then prepare to pulp any remaining copies of the proof.

Hardly, it is so concordant as to be, almost, The Truth.

Lol. There's nothing I question about chemistry on a day-to-day level.
Indeed, humans will probably have devolved back into reptiles eons
before the known universe regenerates. What I am questioning is the
applicability of empirically-determined chemical "laws" to
understanding the nature of the universe.



- it may well remain steady,
which is consistent with the 2nd law.

??????

The 2nd law says that entropy in a closed system can stay steady.

"The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the universal
principle of entropy, ********stating that the entropy of an isolated
system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over
time**********, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium, and that
the entropy change dS of a system undergoing any infinitesimal
reversible process is given by δq / T, where δq is the heat supplied
to the system and T is the absolute temperature of the system."

Of course, if you shift the equilibrium by breaking or making the
glass, well ....

Well there you go. ;)



Indeed, the law of conservation,
as properly construed with the 2nd law, says precisely that: entropy
within a closed system never increases or decreases, and energy merely
changes form.

No, you are mixing the laws. Entropy always increases in a closed
system (and an open one, probably). Energy changes form until heat
death is achieved.

These laws have been superseded. An atom, considered as a closed
system, never loses energy, entropy never increases. And even 1000
atoms considered as a closed system never lose energy; this is the
law.

Ah QM ... Reference please.

I don't have one. It's pure (educated) assertion. But totally
consistent with intuition. Even in chemistry, energy always has to go
somewhere. And if there is nowhere for the energy to go, then it will
not go anywhere.



And in
fact I realised quite a few years later that the arguments that I was
making against religion were actually no different in substance from
the arguments that he was making against science.

The Scientific Method, Concordance, etc etc .... now ask him what he
had?

Faith and millions of followers.

A great, big, bag of nothing.

Lol.



But that's the bottom line. Religious believers simply hold a
different set of axioms, different to those that we scientists hold..

See above.

A frickin smörgåsbord of evidence and proof (some postulates) versus
very little evidence and proof (predominantly postulates).

Proof denies faith. ;)

Proof eliminates Faith. God is nearly dead.

He may have been put to bed, but he will never stop kicking beneath
the sheets for as long as phenomena in the universe defy human
explanation.



But, you are correct, in that, if such people fail to accept the
scientific method, then they have no meaningful foundation to try to
apply it (notwithstanding few actually knowing enough science).

Precisely. But even if they were educated in science (and after all,
many prominent creationists have doctorates in physical sciences),

Arf.

it's still very easy to say that nature is the work of God. Even
things like Heisenberg uncertainty seem to leave room for armchair
belief in God, free will, etc.

We can say what we like, that is not Science.

I don't think anyone says that religion is science. But I'm content to
say that science is religion - or at least, it is ideology, and for
every way in which it is different from past ideology, it is the same
in a thousand ways.



And in aggregate, there's actually no difference between theologians
and scientists, except the vintage of their axioms. And that's
relativity for you, as it applies to psychology.

No difference??? You are incorrect, for all the reasons given above.

No, I said "no difference in aggregate". What I mean is that you
actually get a few people like Jesus who hold firm to their
principles. The rest are sheep and parrots. And it's a bit like that
with Einstein.

Aggregate? You mean, in like, laying concrete?

Principles, Schminciples.

Lol.



The differences are vast and irrefutable, as we may see from the
evidence available.

I disagree. But then, I always was the true relativist out of us. ;)
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Anyone can apply for a warrant over allegations of a serious offence
    ... in terms of a field of energy that only has enough energy potential to ... must encompass both the Earth and the space-rocket. ... Rocket fuel is combusted ... describing a physical law. ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: GR frequency shift formula
    ... Both rate and energy are coordinate-dependent ... I didn't get a satisfactory GR formula for the Earth ... conclude that clocks tick at the same rate and "photons" gain or lose ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The Lorentz transformation.
    ... clocks just measure motion, not time, and ... responsive to energy transactions by our most fundamental physics. ... vary with locations in space) gives the law of conservation ... The faster planet is storing more energy. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics - Irrelevant to Origins
    ... Thermodynamics has any bearing on the subject of origins. ... This second law discussion is popping up all over the web at the ... Since the earth is ... adding energy to the system. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • WHAT IS THE INERTIA?
    ... FORCES AND THE LAW OF THE CONSRVATION OF THE ENERGY ... coordinate system rigidly attached to the center of the earth. ... principle of the relativity is valid and is not a need of modifying ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)