Chasing the black holes of the ocean

Thomas Ray

Trying the link again.

John Merryman

Tom,

"Although he didn't think of it this way, Einstein's modiп¬Ѓcation was equivalent to adding a form of

energy with constant density and negative pressure."

In my admittedly simple and naive model, that "energy with constant density and negative pressure" is light. Though I would think gravity would be "negative pressure," so light would have positive pressure. It is the expansion to balance the contraction of gravity, which Einstein though would collapse space to a point. Which was why he added the CC.

Rushing off to work...

Regards, John M

John Merryman

Would it be possible to think of light as not just being massless, but having negative mass?

Thomas Ray

John, you're confusing radiation pressure -- which describes the interaction of electromagnetic waves with the surface of a particle -- and gravity, which describes the interaction of matter with spacetime.

If light were shown equivalent to gravity, Einstein's unified field theory would be standard physics today.

Best,

Tom

Thomas Ray

"Would it be possible to think of light as not just being massless, but having negative mass?"

Only if photons have zero momentum. The unreduced form of E = mc^2 is E^2 = m^2c^4 (pc)^2, which means that a particle with mass and zero momentum has negative mass.

Photons are massless and they do possess momentum.

John, why don't you believe me that it is easier to learn the math than to keep asking the worng questions?

Best,

Tom

John Merryman

Tom,

What really is mass?

Conventionally we think of it as substance, something anything called a "particle" would naturally have, but what the Higgs supposedly imparts is drag. Anti-drag would be "lift." Which is about what photons impart on those electrons they boost to higher energies.

What is math? As conceptual reductionism, it accelerates and magnifies our thought processes, but the caveat is it limits them to previously elucidated concepts and the direction which they are pointed. One way to refute an argument is reductio ad absurdum. To carry it out to the point where it becomes nonsensical. As I keep pointing out, the current models have started to devolve into absurdity, so the usual solution is not to continue, but to reset to some prior point, or otherwise examine all assumptions built into the model. While I may be wrong in my ideas as well, I would be in good company in that.

Regards,

John M

Thomas Ray

"What really is mass?

"Conventionally we think of it as substance, something anything called a 'particle' would naturally have ..."

No we don't. We conventionally think of it as equivalent to energy.

" ... but what the Higgs supposedly imparts is drag."

Huh? The Higgs field and the particle associated with it are simply predictions of the standard model of particle physics. The origin of mass-energy only completes the model.

"What is math? As conceptual reductionism, it accelerates and magnifies our thought processes ..."

When you show me one theorem you've proved, I'll listen to what you say about math. Your opinion as it is doesn't even come up to the level of hot air.

Best,

Tom

pjackson

John,

"As simple dimensionality, sans the physical matter and energy occupying it, it would lack any properties to bound or move. Which leaves it with the properties of infinite and absolute."

Why would it lack those properties? There is no theoretical bar. There is of course one on Tom's universe, where if it existed it couldn't 'move' so causes problems. If it's more like the oceans, then all theoretical bars are lifted and a good number of paradoxes are resolved.

Light does ~140,000 miles/sec in water wherever the water is. Flowing in a river heading east, flowing in one heading west, At rest in the space station, flowing past the Statue of liberty, or flowing down the Ganges.

Light always does c locally. If you can point out any problems you think that 'Discrete Field' model doesn't solve, or even 'causes', I'll point to and explain where your understanding is incomplete.

Peter

John Merryman

Tom,

Ok. Why don't I predict the universe "began" 13.8 billion lightyears ago, expanded out from? in a fraction of a "moment" until it was billions of lightyears across, then slows down to mere lightspeed(the speed of light being something gifted from that platonic realm of "pure math" to this expanding space). This creation continues to extend on the fourth temporal dimension back to that immaculate conception and on into the "future" as those other galaxies disappear over the horizon line of how far light can still be discerned. Then everyone would have to believe me, because it is = to what is the received wisdom.

Do we make bets on how long before current cosmology goes the way of string theory?

Peter,

Do you think all of space originated from some point, 13.8 billion years ago? If not, how do you perceive the universe, if not spatially infinite?

Regards,

John M

Thomas Ray

John, since you have a pretty good grasp of the cosmological horizon problem, why don't you try solving it instead of complaining about those who haven't?

"Do we make bets on how long before current cosmology goes the way of string theory?"

Since string theory is an extension of quantum field theory, which derives from general relativity, I don't think we have much to worry about.

Best,

Tom

Thomas Ray

And by the way, when are you going to suggest an experiment to back your claim, "Physically, it is that radiation expands and mass contracts, in a cosmic convection cycle."?

It's easy to make stuff up.

Best,

Tom

Thomas Ray

Sorry, I meant to say "special relativity," not general, in my previous post.

John Merryman

Tom,

It's difficult to post date predictions in an argument, but this idea first occurred to me in 1989 and one of the predictions I made at the time was the Hubble telescope would find evidence of cosmic activity that wouldn't fit in the time frame. Little did I appreciate the tenacity of faith in the model, given the extent to which divergence of observation from theory has simply provided career opportunities to formulate patches. Zeeya was kind enough to put up a post to list many of these "anomalies."

Not to mention the only evidence for both inflation and dark energy is the divergence of observation from theory.

May I ask a question of you; What amount of evidence would it take you to harbor a slight doubt as to the veracity of current cosmology? Or would it simply take a preponderance of cosmological opinion makers to voice strong doubt? I do sense strong reservations about inflation, especially since Paul Steinhardt did that SciAm cover story of a couple of years ago, raising his own doubts.

As I recall, those strings are points, extended along the time vector...

Regards,

John M

Thomas Ray

"What amount of evidence would it take you to harbor a slight doubt as to the veracity of current cosmology?"

None. Zero. Science is not about inductive conclusions made from evidence. Science is a rationalist enterprise, based on correspondence between theory and evidence from experiment. There is no theory of anomalies. There are, however, theories that correspond quite strongly to experimental results. That these "mainstream" results get harsh criticism from you and others on this forum is to me like the wacky political conservatives' attitude toward the "lamestream media."

Best,

Tom

James Putnam

Tom,

(Science is not about inductive conclusions made from evidence. Science is a rationalist enterprise, based on correspondence between theory and evidence from experiment. There is no theory of anomalies. There are, however, theories that correspond quite strongly to experimental results. That these "mainstream" results get harsh criticism from you and others on this forum is to me like the wacky political conservatives' attitude toward the "lamestream media."

Your definition of science cannot be acceptable except for theorists who's philosophy is that theorists should rule. Your critic of conservatism is unacceptable except for leftist who believe that leftists should rule.

Both opinions you shared reflect attitudes that are detrimental to both subjects.

Science is not theory. Theory is theory. Theory is the chalkboard version of science. Quite often unreal. It consists or guesses about substitutes for the unknown. Science is the investigation of the differenced between that which one imagines and that which empirical evidence attempts to communicates. There is no communication from empirical evidence about either space or time.

Hi Tom, :-) I haven't forgotten about the other thread. There is no real interest. It still amazes me that I have had to explain that there are defined properties and units, and, there are undefined properties and units. Now I need to explain what the difference means for physics? I would just write it up in a paper if the theorists were not also the reviewers. I think that I will eventually continue that other thread. It just feels like I am talking to an empty room.

James Putnam

Thomas Ray

James, published science is nothing but theory and experimental result. Period. A casual review of the peer reviewed literature is sufficient to inform anyone of that fact.

As for your politics, or anyone else's, I couldn't care less. My comment was directed at the wackiness of radical conservatives, which is also self evident.

Best,

Tom

John Merryman

Tom,

"Science is not about inductive conclusions made from evidence."

How are theories originally formulated?

How do you view the process by which plate tectonics came to be accepted?

How about heliocentrism?

I have this saying I tell kids on occasion, "Growing up is like grass pushing through the concrete. Then one day, you wake up and you're the concrete and there is this damn grass trying to push you out of the way." I guess someone has to be the concrete.

Regards,

John M

John Merryman

Tom,

"published science is nothing but theory and experimental result."

This is not a static relationship. How would you describe the dynamics of the process. Is theory derived from observation, if not, where does it come from?

Regards,

John M

Thomas Ray

"How are theories originally formulated?"

By guesses, unsatisfied curiosity, inspired observation. And training/practice in formulating a statement so that it can be falsified.

"How do you view the process by which plate tectonics came to be accepted?"

I am not knowledgeable in geology.

"How about heliocentrism?"

How about it?

"I guess someone has to be the concrete."

And someone has to mow the grass.

Best,

Tom

James Putnam

Tom,

I said "Learn what empirical evidence is communicating to us." Theorist often do not pursue that end. They look at evidence that objects behave in a certain manner, and, conclude the space and time have been warped. They look at empirical evidence that light alters its path when near matter and conclude that space and time have been warped. It is the meaning of the empirical evidence that is getting warped. There is no empirical evidence demonstrating the behavior of space or time. Matter affects light and light affects matter. Nothing there about space or time as causes. The wrong guesses by theorists remain as obstructions to understanding the nature of the universe.

James Putnam

« Previous Page Next Page »