Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


0 Neutral
  1. Well, this challange isn't very fair... After all, Darby, you can't design an aeroplane either, can you? (And even if you can, the average engineer cannot - at least not by himself). Einstein, feel free to choose your method of proof. It doesn't even have to be a working piece of technology. After all, the real Einstein wasn't required to build a nuclear bomb in order to prove relativity, was he? His demonstration was something as simple as predicting the effect of the sun's gravity on starlight during an eclipse. If you present us with this kind of evidence, I'll be satisfied. Of-course, there is no penality for achieving something bigger. If you want to build an actual working device, go for it. And if you prefer to tackle the incredibly difficult problem of time travel over building an aeroplane, that's your choice. But whatever you have in mind, just do it. Because boasting about things that you haven't done yet is a little silly.
  2. Huh? Attack? What on earth are you talking about? I simply said that you have ignored my most important points. How is that an attack? It's the simple truth. Good, because I wasn't trying to impress you. I was trying to have an honest conversation with you. But you aren't making it easy for me, Einstein. Anyway, I want to tell you that I got absolutely nothing against you. Just because we disagree on some things, doesn't mean I don't respect you as a human being. And if you ever want to have an open and honest discussion with me about any topic in the world, I'm listening. Have a nice and wonderful day, my friend.
  3. Well, Einstein, until you actually have a working time machine at your disposal, this is kind of a moot point, isn't it? Right now, the score of this challange is 0:0. So if we want to know whose theory is more useful, we'll need some other yardstick. Now, the conventional approach to engineering has pretty much all of modern technology - from airplanes to computers to organ transplants to interplanetary probes - to show for itself. What have you got? Don't get me wrong here. I'm not claiming your visualizations are necessarily wrong. Maybe you are really on to something. But ideas alone are not enough to revolutionize physics. You also have to make them work.
  4. Actually, It can go both ways. And it is only natural that you prefer one direction over the other, since you believe math isn't a good predictive tool. If a person believes math to be useless, there's little point in basing a visualization on it, right? But remember that my claim wasn't about how it is "supposed" to be done. I was talking specifically about the real Einstein, and how he came up with his visualizations. And he followed the exact path I've told you. You can disagree with what he did, if you wish, but you cannot claim that he didn't work in this way, because he did. Yes, but he would never have gone as far as he did without the math. For one thing, he would never have discovered E=mc² without the math. And there are many other effects predicted by the equations of relativity that seem to defy any sort of "visualization", yet they were confirmed by experiments. I'm not so sure that this is necessary. The orthodox approach gave us nuclear power, lasers, computers, genetic engineering, men walking on the moon... And the rate of progress continues to be mind-boggling. So why not antigravity? And you still haven't answered my most important points. You keep steering the discussion away from the crux of the matter, which is a tactic I find niether respectful nor honest.
  5. Fair enough. I still wonder, though, why did you spend all of your limited time replying to the people who've been bickering and teasing you for months, rather than have a discussion with the guy who's actually interested to listen what you have to say. But I suppose it's your choice. I really can't hold that against you, because it isn't my business. So let us go on with the discussion, shall we? Wait a minute... What do you mean by "it worked very well for him"? First of all, Einstein relied heavily on mathematics. And you know what? He hated it! He actually had to ask his colleagues for help in converting his raw ideas of general relativity into a working mathematical model. Also, most of Einstein's "visualizations" were anything but intuitive. Indeed, the reason he is regarded as such a genius, is that he was able to go beyond "common sense" and reach the correct conclusions even when they seem "absurd". Do you know what Einstein's two postulates of relativity are? One - that the laws of physics are the same in all reference frames. And Two - that the speed of light is constant, no matter how fast the source is moving. The first postulate may be common-sensical, but the second certainly isn't. If I run away from you at 99% the speed-of-light and shine a flashlight at you, the light still reaches you at the speed of light. Does that sounds common sensical to you? Of-course not! It's outright absurd! Yet Einstein chose it as one of the cornerstones of relativity, and you know why? Because it was a direct logical consequence of Maxwell's Equations. See, when Einstein had to choose between common sense and mathematics, he chose mathematics. All his visualizations came LATER. His wonderful thought experiments already started from the assumption that Maxwell's Equations do work. And guess what? Einstein was right. Even though his theory was based on zero experimental data (Einstein wasn't aware of the Michaelson-Morely Experiment), he correctly predicted the effects of time dilation. He correctly deduced E=mc², which is the principle underlying the atomic bomb and nuclear powerplants. Einstein's work is an excellent demonstration of the power of mathematics. Well... Yes and no. Yes, sometimes trial and error is needed in order to find what the correct mathematical model is. But once you have your model, it can be used for a vast array of different situations. For example, take Schordinger's equation. The equation itself easily fits on a T-shirt, yet you can use it to predict the outcome of ANY chemical reaction. You can use it to calculate the energy levels of helium, or the boiling point of water, or the number of calories in a ounce of sugar. One simple equation rules all of chemistry. That is what I mean, when I'm saying "math works". Now, if you look at Schrodinger's equation closely, you'll see that it is really nothing more than an abstract construct. Schrodinger himself admitted that much. It's nothing more than a recepie to get the correct results. But what a recepie! It's like having a cookbook which can tell you how to make every dreamable dish you can think of. Well, maybe the key is the answer to that question. Do you have an answer?
  6. The really interesting question is: Can you design ANY engine without such equations? Well... perhaps a simple engine for a simple machine can be designed with intuition alone. But if you wish to design something really interesting, such as a Boeing 747 aircraft, these equations become indispensible. And you still call them "useless"? Why? Can you do better than that? Does your theory explains how to build bridges, automobiles, aircrafts and computers? I'm sorry, but if usefulness is the yardstick you choose to decide between competing theories, than you're at a clear disadvantage. Your theory may be the most beautiful and intuitive thing in the world, but the bottom line is that it doesn't work. You may be able to use to for building a simple technological toy (as you already did) but that's where your theory reaches its limit.
  7. Since identifying the flashing number is an act of perception, I don't really see what your problem is. In life-threatening situations, your reflexes are keener. Your brain and senses operate faster. I suppose this is exactly the reason that people in such situation precieve time as being slowed down. Besides, what alternative explanation would you suggest? If time itself speeded up, the effect would be easily detected. Think of how a person's voice sounds when played back at double speed. Do people in life threatening situations sound like that? Do their voices sound an octave higher, as you would expect if time really speeded up by a factor of two? And what about the color of their skin? Color, as you know very well, depends on the frequency of the light reflected from the body. A person in a field that speeds time would appear blue. Do people in life threatening situations look bluish? Then there is the question of the person's accesories and clothing. Are they affected by the slowdown effect too? If the guy wears a watch, would it speed up? And what if he swallowed that watch (assuming that it would continue to tick inside him)? By the way, in actual relativistic situations, you do see these effects. A clock in a gravitational field will not only slow down, but also become redder. These redshifts were actually measured, both in earthbound scenarios (where the effect is, of-course, tiny) and in high-gravity environemnt in outer space. The observed redshift is exactly what relativity predicts it to be.
  8. What do you mean "The earth is not flat"?! Of-course it is! It's the universe around it that's curved. And the really funny thing is, that you can't disprove what I just said in any way. Choose the right coordinate system, and add a few new fundamental forces to the equation, and voila! You have a flat earth. Of-course this isn't what the flat-earthers have in mind, but you gotta admit that the idea is interesting. Ah... the power of mathematics (I hope Einstein is reading this)
  9. Re: Other Gyro Facts Nope. It's the other way around. Ever been in a loop-de-loop roller coaster? When the cart is in the loop and the passangers are upside-down, why don't they fall off? Because circular motion creates a force that pulls you OUTWARD. In the roller-coaster, "outwards" means "toward the rails". That's why you don't fall down. And in the spinning earth, "outwards" means "up". The only reason we don't fly out into space, is that the earth's gravity is about 250 times stronger then this centrifugal force. And if the earth spun 16 times faster (16 being the square root of 250), this force would have balanced gravity completey and we would be weightless. By the way, this is exactly why astronauts in the space shuttle are weightless. They orbit the earth every 90 minutes or so - at the exact rotation speed required for the two forces to balance one another. There would be more gravity at the poles, because the poles don't rotate at all! If you are standing at the pole, you are just rotating around yourself. The radius of the circle you cover is zero. Hence there will be no centrifugal force at all. Indeed, at the poles you would weigh about half a pound more than you would weigh on the equator.
  10. I've explained enough. Now it is Einstein's turn to answer my questions. So far, he ignored nearly all of my points, which isn't being very respectful. So I really see no reason to raise even more points which will, again, be ignored. Sorry. But I'm not going to continue talking to brick wall. And if the guy prefers going in circles and bickering over an honest discussion, he is all yours :) Enjoy.
  11. God doesn't have arms. Problem solved :)
  12. Sorry for the ambiguity. I meant as a predictive tool. So you say math isn't a good predictive tool? Then how come scientists and engineers are using it for centuries to get the right result? How do astronomers predict eclipses? How does the autopilot of a plane stays on course? How does a GPS satellite give you your accurate position within a few feet, even though it has to take into account the rotation of the earth (as well as relativistic effects)? And even the case of the gyroscope. Gyroscopes have many applications, and the people who design them follow the conventional mathematical approach (including the cross product). And it works. Perhaps there is some deeper layer of reality hidden underneath these calculations, but how can you deny their predictive value? You are right, Einstein. It is a fictitious mathematical construct. And the name "cross product" is quite misleading, because it isn't really a "product" of anything. It's nothing more than shorthand for a combination that engineers find useful. But you see, the key word here is "useful". The cross product does works. Odd? Definitely. Indeed, the fact that such abstract constructs give such accurate results is a dead-on miracle. But they do. Every time you go up a plane, you trust your life in the cross product. You may very well be right. The question is: What's hidden behind the mask? I'd love to know the answer to that. Especially in the case of the more abstract math of quantum physics. All those Lagrangians and Feyman Diagrams and Gauge Symmetries... Bah! There gotta be some underlying simple truth behind it all. Something we've missed. See, I agree with you completely on this point. I simply don't think that finding the answer is going to be as easy as you think it is. I wouldn't even know where to begin looking for it.
  13. Indeed, you can't. But space, in reality, is far from "nothingness". It has a structure of its own. And when physicists speak of "bending space", they are referring to making changes in this structure.
  14. Yup. All the 5 senses are, in essense, wave (or particle) detectors. Indeed, every measuring instrument you can dream of, will be - in essense - a wave detector. But note how, in the daily-life world, the 5 senses compliment one another. Your eyes give you a completely different input than your ears. Both may be sensing vibrations, but they are giving you very different information about the world around you. So if we want to emulate the success of the 5 senses in the subatomic world, we should look for the same kind of idea: Look for ways to measure as many different aspects of the system in question, so we can learn as much as we can about it. And ideed, that is exactly what particle physicists do. Every particle accelerator has lots and lots of detectors. Some look for photons. Others look for charged particles such as electrons. Still others look for particles in a specific energy range, or a specific combination of particles. These detectors are our eyes, ears, nose, mouth and fingers. A casual observer might think that all these devices do exactly the same thing. But in the eyes of a trained professional, each type of detector serves as a completely different "sense".
  15. A drawing! Now, why didn't I think of that. Well, Einstein, I gotta hand it to you: Drawings can, indeed, circumnavigate the need to use algebra. It's still math, though. Geometry is part of mathematics, no less then algebra is. As for the specific discussion regarding the gyroscope, I'll have to think about it. Since my major is high energy physics rather than engineering, my understanding of magnets and gyroscopes is a quite rusty. But we digress. The topic here isn't the gyroscope (luckily for me :oops:). The question we are discussing here is whether math works or not. You've yet to respond to any of the posts I've made on that topic. And what about your statement about the cross product? Do you still maintain that it's "dung"? Or did you just say that to annoy RMT, while not really meaning it?
  • Create New...