Senior Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by uncool

  1. General topology

    I'm guessing they mean the product in the infinite product of the real line. Have you tried applying the definitions of the two topologies?
  2. Size & Gravity - Is General Relativity Incorrect?

    No. Newton's laws are still accurate for liquids and gases; the only difference is that they have to be analyzed through densities (note: not necessarily mass densities). The laws are still accurate. Because the sun is much, much, much, much closer than anything else in the galaxy. It's not because the Sun is more dense. It's that everything else is really, really, stupendously far away - so Newton's law of gravitation says that the corresponding force is tiny compared to that of the Sun.
  3. Size & Gravity - Is General Relativity Incorrect?

    The forces are, by Newton's third law, equal (and opposite). The accelerations are inversely proportional to the mass, by Newton's second law - so, as an interstellar cloud will generally be more massive than a planet, the planet's movement will be more affected. If you believe otherwise, then you are rejecting Newton's laws. Let's take interstellar gas out of the picture for a moment (as that runs into definition issues - interstellar literally means "between stars"). Instead, let' focus on galaxies. Yes, I have heard of stars orbiting galaxies (or, more precisely, orbiting as part of a galaxy). The closest thing to your statement is that, say, the acceleration of the Earth is more affected by the Sun than by the galaxy. Is that what you are trying to talk about?
  4. Size & Gravity - Is General Relativity Incorrect?

    What, precisely, do you mean by this? I think this is central to your claims.
  5. Size & Gravity - Is General Relativity Incorrect?

    Two things. 1) There is no part that says that; it isn't even true in general. More specifically: there are systems of objects where one object is not attracted towards the center of mass, but instead towards a nearby mass. This is clearest, for example, in the Sun-Earth-Moon system; the moon is attracted to the Earth, not to the center of mass of the Earth and Sun. 2) In the case of an object being attracted to a massive (that is, having mass) sphere, that in't separate from Newtonian gravity. It's a direct consequence (via the shell theorem, as Mordred says). As such, do you reject Newtonian gravity?
  6. Size & Gravity - Is General Relativity Incorrect?

    My apologies - I mistook your enthusiasm for that of the newly-"initiated". Good on you for keeping up that enthusiasm! I would say that even in the OP, the thread should clearly have been at the level of Newton's laws, and simple integration. I think that there already as a problem just with intrinsic vs extrinsic properties, as I plan to explain.
  7. Size & Gravity - Is General Relativity Incorrect?

    Unified Field: how much of standard physics do you accept? Do you accept Newton's laws? Newtonian gravity (as a nonrelativistic approximation)?
  8. Size & Gravity - Is General Relativity Incorrect?

    Mordred - I'm guessing that you just recently learned a lot of relativity, and really liked it. Which is good, but it's not the level appropriate for this conversation. This should be possible to discuss just using Newton's laws and Newtonian gravity - and probably very little in the way of integration.
  9. Irrationality of √3

    Planck's "number" isn't really a number. It has units; your question is analogous to asking "Is 1 meter rational?"
  10. Non-locality

  11. Non-locality

    It is not that you must agree with the premises. It is that you must understand them in the first place. It is that if you wish to reject what experts are saying, you need to know what they are saying in the first place.
  12. Non-locality

    I wouldn't be happy yet. Here's the thing: your rejection of those assumptions is precisely where a mathematical understanding of the physics comes in. Understanding the difference between those two integrals is precisely where you must learn the mathematics behind both classical and quantum mechanics.
  13. Non-locality

    No, you hadn't, because there is a difference between rejecting the theorem and rejecting the application of its assumptions. I do not mean it as a critique. I mean it as an attempt to make your position clearer. Now that it is clear you reject the application of the assumptions of Bell's theorem - namely, the integrals - your position is far clearer.
  14. Non-locality

    It seems to me that you have not because you have not followed your own argument to its natural conclusion. Your argument seems to be entirely related to rejecting the conclusion of Bell's theorem to your experiment; if you accept the mathematical validity of Bell's theorem, then you must reject the application of the assumptions of Bell's theorem to your experiment.
  15. Non-locality

    I strongly disagree; this is an attempt at precision, something that you - of all people here - should welcome. It is an attempt to get at the heart of what you think the problem is - the precise place where you think philosophy and the current descriptions of quantum theory (including entanglement) disagree.
  16. Non-locality

    I see no general claims in that question. "something that runs counter to that" could mean a counterexample. To be more explicit: you seem to be saying that you think your example fails to be described mathematically by the systems described in Bell's theorem. Correct?
  17. Non-locality

    Then we are back to where I started. Namely: You seem to be asking for a justification for the assumption - why, philosophically, should a classical theory require such a mathematical description - and seem to think you have something that runs counter to that. Correct?
  18. Non-locality

    I never said that it did. In fact, that was the point of one of the first questions I asked you. Then we have gotten exactly to the point of the question I asked you. You seem to agree (or at least, are refusing to dispute) the mathematical correctness of the theorem - but instead, whether the mathematical assumptions of the theorem match physical reality (or alternatively, what is meant by a "classical (local) theory"). Which is exactly what I asked with my integral question.
  19. Non-locality

    I am not asking you to analyze its mathematical structure. I am asking you only whether you accept the mathematical proof in it. Either the proof is valid, or it is not; whether that proof is being applied to a specific example or not is irrelevant. So I ask you again: do you accept that the proof is valid? Edit: As a note, you are free to have an answer along the lines of "I don't know whether the proof is valid; I think there is a problem with the conclusion for this example, and I don't know whether that problem appears in the assumptions or in the proof."
  20. Non-locality

    So to be clear: do you accept the mathematical proof of Bell's theorem? Your problem is with the assumptions of the theorem, not with the proof itself?
  21. Non-locality

    That's not how theorems work. If there is a special case where the theorem doesn't work, then it's not a theorem (assuming the consistency of mathematics as a whole). There are two possibilities. Either 1) you doubt the proof of the theorem, or 2) you doubt that the hypotheses of the theorem apply. Do you know which one?
  22. Non-locality

    What, exactly, do you mean by "reject [Bell's theorem]"? Do you accept that the theorem - the mathematical theorem - has been proven? I was guessing that you were doubting the relationship between the mathematics and the physics, because if you accept both the mathematics and the relationship between the mathematics and the physics, then the only consistent possibility is to accept the physics.
  23. Non-locality

    To clarify a little bit: in the proof of Bell's no-go theorem, the following assumption is made: A classical (local hidden variable) theory is required to measure the expectation value of a random variable X according to [math]\int X(\lambda) p(\lambda) d \lambda[/math], according to some (hidden) probability measure p. On the other hand, a quantum theory is required to measure the expectation value of a random variable X according to [math]\int \langle \phi | X | \phi\rangle[/math], according to Bohr's rules. The theorem is then that there is a limit to the outcomes from any classical theory that doesn't appear for a quantum theory, as defined there, and therefore (since our experiments match Bohr's rules) that a quantum theory is necessary (or rather, a classical theory is insufficient). You seem to be asking for a justification for the assumption - why, philosophically, should a classical theory require such a mathematical description - and seem to think you have something that runs counter to that. Correct?
  24. Non-locality

    Here is part of the problem. You are making statements that could have multiple meanings in the theory, some of which are correct, some are not. Do you mean that both photons have a definite state (that is simply unknown), each time the experiment is run? Because if so, this is false, and in fact is exactly hat Bell's Theorem disproves.
  25. Non-locality

    How does this explain the correlations whatsoever?