Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by jajrussel

  1. Apparently I’ve misunderstood what they meant by stationary, but still as I read about it, it is still confusing. It says ( the ether has to be remaining stationary with respect to the star as the earth moved through it. ) looking at their picture I can only assume this means what? I don’t know, because all my guesses say why would they think they could recreate a situation that seems implied by that statement?
  2. jajrussel


    Aether, I know it doesn’t exist. My question is about why we know it doesn’t exist. The Michelson-Morley experiment. Which actually as I read about it doesn’t really make sense to me because if c is c invariant what exactly were they looking for? But, Einstein’s c invariant was after M&M, okay that lines up. Hmm, but what other proofs were being looked for? why was Aether assumed stationary? If they expected it to be stationary, why were they assuming a variation of c would be found? I would assume that a stationary system would have to be non-reactive. the reason I ask is because I was watching a video about dark matter, and dark energy and the reasons they are believed to exist and the reasons why they are called dark. So, we can see the reasons we think they do exist. Then I’m wondering, why did they think Aether existed, originally? What were they looking for to prove Aether existed? What would be the difference between an Aether that doesn’t react with light and matter, accept gravitationally, and dark matter? Was the M&M experiment based solely on an expected variable c? Thank you.
  3. Okay. But I guess I’ll have to pay Dr. PhysicsA another visit because I made an assumption that energy divided by momentum would give a mass value. My other understanding was that a photon would only have zero mass at rest. This part is also confusing. I’ll have to go back and read it again, but I thought that the mention of spacetime being a coordinate system was meant to convince me that the very real effects you mention are not real. Markus, I’m not exactly sure how to put my understanding of GR into a few sentences. My understanding is that we live the life. We exist within the coordinate system. Plenty of people understand it better. They worked out laws of energy conservation that that I have been convinced by others work. 🙂 I’m not claiming to completely understand them, but I thought that the genius of Einstein’s general relativity was that there would be no actual need to formulate, other more general conservation laws. I’ll go out on a limb here and say that my understanding is that even if I see your clock as keeping time more slowly than mine that my understanding suggests that if each of us measures the amount of energy that our clock is using, then should we switch places taking our respective clocks with us. Any new measure should only vary by the norm that would be present had we not switched places. But, if I again look at your clock from my new perspective it is going to still be running slower than mine, because from my perspective you are moving, and the moving clock always presents as being slower. Hmm, I seem to have switched sides. So now, maybe I’m getting somewhere? The effect is real, we have to allow for it. Is this what everyone is saying? Or, is someone going to heap coals to my confusion by saying that the actual amount of energy used by each clock is dependent on its position, and my relationship to each clocks position, without bothering to explain that relativity actually adjusts the measure to the extent that should you join me our measures would be as nearly equal as two clocks in the same frame can be. And I apologize, I didn’t link the article. I wasn’t actually planning on thinking about it. But sometimes a statement stays with me, or maybe it was my thought of, “Oh well, so much for energy conservation”, linked with a desire to understand where does the energy go as each bit of matter deteriorates? If in fact expansion is linked to matter deterioration as the statement seemed to suggest. One thing I am sure of with near absolute certainty is that since I want it so bad, as soon as I Google it, Google is going to play dummer than dumb. Markus, at the risk of once again putting my ignorance on display. How does an expanding universe expand so fast that it rips atomic structures apart. I’m assuming that if that is a possible reason for the statement I remember being attributed to Penrose. Then there is a way it happens? I will try to find the article. Thank you 🙂 found it. https://futurism.com/the-byte/physicist-other-universes-before-big-bang The statement is right after the bolded statement ( Hard Reboot ) in the article. I have no idea why the print became so small. I tried to select it to increase the font size. Apparently I’m not allowed. I assume that the link will work. Note there seem to be a lot of advertisements in the article. Annoying advertisements that suggests that the original trending version was stripped down, but if you can stand the advertisements it is the same article. Note - It doesn’t really say much more than I stated to begin with either.
  4. Okay... Thank you. The reason I asked the question is because I read one of those trending articles, well, actually I skimmed through it because I was distracted in the article there was a quote attributed to a person named Penrose. That using my bad paraphrasing went something like, "the universe is expanding, and will continue to expand until the last bit of matter deteriorates." I thought, well so much for energy conservation. Then I starting trying to figure out where where does all the energy go? My question was what I came up with. Now I see that joigus has replied so I'll stop and see what he has said, again thank you.
  5. I was actually puzzling over the Janus post, and maybe yours helped to clarify, but I'm still puzzle because I thought that relativity was a physical phenomena that stated specifically that the effect is physical. One clock runs slower than another, due to gravity and or acceleration. I could possibly plot a curve, but no I wasn't speaking specific to geometry. I did use the term geodesic, but that was primarily because some like to define the path taken gravitationally between two objects as a geodesic. If relativity predictions are as correct and as real as it has been pointed out to me time after time, and probably a few dozen times in this forum, then I would assume any physical effect that presents is real, physically. Personally, I would prefer to believe that gravity is a force and that the dance between two massive objects as they move through space is simply point, and counter point due to that force. I am not the one who says that relative effects are real. I am the one who is accepting that they are, and if they are then maybe if an object of zero mass gains vertual mass through acceleration then possibly space if it is in fact expanding, might do the same. I mean no disrespect, but when you say that nothing is physically "bent", I am confused. Of course if Space doesn't warp, or expand, then I have no reason to be confused, but personally 🙂 I'm confused, maybe when you said that nothing is physically "bent" you weren't referring to space warping, and expanding. It's possible I took it out of context 🤔? Could you please clarify. And I do tend to get wordy. Knowing so I try not to, still it happens. To that extent I apologize.
  6. In terms of events I was trying to paraphrase a section of the OP, but personally I don't think we can see the future, we can only assume it, so in a sense I was making an assumption based on my best understanding of the OP under the conditions it allowed. Even then, my thought was wrong because I assumed angular positions possibly less than or possibly greater than 180 degrees. I assume, not even if my life depended on it. However, if there is an emoji for it I can grovel. 🙂 Personally, I think we can only assume past, present, and future. This is a great thread, but some of the post are more confusing than the OP, no offense intended Moontanman.🙂
  7. I should have read the whole thread first.
  8. Okay I haven't actually read the whole thread because I got caught up in trying to understand the post as presented. This is the confusing part. If at point C you are 5 years in star A's past and you are presumably between Point A and point B it is seemingly a paradox. But if you are seeing light five ly's in A's past and B is five years in A's future it seems more like an equal radius than a paradox. But, you start of by saying Then you say Is it 10 light years, or five? Hmm, seems more like a thought exercise, than a paradox... Personally, this depth of thought has placed me in danger of drowning in possibilities. So, I'm gonna stop, take a nap, then come back and read the whole thread and see if there is anything that explains my confusion. 🤔😊 Didn't even get the chance to take a nap, but now I assume that any light I observed from point C is technically five light years distant from point A. But that's another discussion. Or, is it. Might be back to the equal radius thought?
  9. The gravitational effect between two objects of mass seems apparent. Even uncomplicated until you start to think about it in detail, but gravity is said to warp Space which I assume can be attributed to mass. The assumption being that the effect is an attribute of mass. Generally there is no clear explanation of what Space is. It's this, it's that, know one really knows, yet it expands and warps. When a photon is affected by gravity we can say that it's velocity gives it just enough mass to be gravitationally effected. If Space is expanding it could be said that it has velocity. My understanding of term accuracy becomes convoluted at times, but Space is said to be expanding at an increasing rate, so I think velocity is the correct term. Is this velocity of Space, what allows gravitational warping of Space, much like a photon is effected because it has velocity, and wouldn't this account for most, if not all of the matter that is said to be missing in the universe? Another thought, is that the photon is simply following a geodesic of curved space but that simply brings us back to why space warps without an explanation.
  10. Okay this made me laugh. Actually, it is the second thing written by swansont that I have read today that made my laugh. The first thing was his article on how a question about when a decade ends was such a terrible question. Then I remembered that it was swansont's blog, and it is well known that he has no sense of humor, so I immediately started trying to remember which of my meds I had recently taken... I believe this is where according to Poe's Law I'm supposed to put the little side ways smiley face. The problem is I can't remember exactly how to make the side ways smiley face so I'm hoping this one will do. 😂 Note, I am only joking about the frantic meds search...🤔🧐😂
  11. Every bolded word is of your own doing. I simply read them and assumed that they were bolded with intent. I especially like this part Where you say please don't be, then embolden the word scared. Though it is annoying that you would imply that my being afraid was inspired by your desire to help certain people. My actual fear is that you might be in a position to teach, and it is based on my belief of religious freedom, and the realities that wrote it into the Constitution. From my perspective the sense of having to keep my mouth shut in order to belong is not limited to acceptance within a religious order. I can understand ones heart being filled with anger and hatred, but nothing justifies it being taught, and when you write and embolden specific words it does come across that your intent is to teach those who don't know any better, that they are wrong. You are right initially it was Spock, but I think Data was programmed to personify Spock, and it seems I remember Data with a slight tilt of the head, with an expression of perfect wonder, saying; "fascinating!" However, I could be wrong. 🤔🧐
  12. You were preaching friend with so much enthusiasm that it presented with every fear you spoke of. I don't mean to go all Star Trek Data on you but it was, fascinating. A perfect example of how anti-theism to extreme becomes the example most perfect of religion gone bad. It was scary, because I began to feel the fears you spoke of as if your intent was to teach by example. It was so, so real, and so unexpected. It is amazing if you cannot see what I speak of in your own arguments, and recognize that you were indeed preaching, using with absolute perfection every skill that most preachers can only imagine they own. Though I would imagine that in this forum it could be argued that nothing is absolute, and that the closest thing to perfection in science that can be achieved can only be presented to the smallest degree of uncertainty.
  13. So far I have come away from this conversation thinking that if religionist are not allowed to preach then atheist definitely should not be allowed to preach.
  14. Thanks. I’ll start checking this all out now. My mind needs the break.
  15. I had to delete the Apple notes app from my phone because it suddenly decided that I should be notified about one of the notes. I did everything I could think of to make sure I didn’t receive any notifications from that app. It didn’t work. Since the notification was appearing on my lock screen I went so far as to block all notifications from my lock screen. It didn’t work. A few days later there it was again. In frustration I tapped on it so I could examine the note to see if there was something specific to the note that I had done that was causing it to appear. Expecting, to be greeted with a request for my passcode or my finger print since I was after all in my lock screen, I was somewhat surprised when Apple notes opened allowing me to examine the note then after finding no explanation specific to the note, then allowed me continued access to my phone. I tried to let them know. I couldn’t figure out how. Has anyone else run into anything like this? I tried to Google it. I failed. I have no clue why, but Google’s failure, feels like my own. Apparently, it is years of applied conditioning initiated by the very first electronic device salesperson. If anyone has a clue as to why Google search on occasion seems to have very large gaping holes in its ability to access data that I’m sure it has within grasp. I’m willing to listen? In the meantime I have deleted the App, and certainly hope that, that notification doesn’t show up again in another few days.
  16. Love the illustration, and somewhat agree with parts of this statement. I’m assuming that the, either or reference, applies to the illustration, and that, either or, need not always apply. Quantum physics certainly is not classical physics, but how is duality specific to the classical world? If by quantum object you mean objects described by the standard model, I don’t understand why duality would not apply to any part of the standard model that presents as a particle? . It could be that I have simply misunderstood the statement? Thank you for the illustration. 🙂
  17. 🤔🧐 I would assume using the stated outcome that my particle gun was actually a ray gun and that in reality I was firing a ray of energy that presents as a wave until you interfere with the wave by observing it as a particle. Then I would have to assume that the ray only carried enough energy to create the one particle expected to present thus when detected the wave form formally collapses. I could make one more assumption that it would have to be a complete collapse of the wave, otherwise residual energy would either interfere with oncoming waves fired from the ray gun or be absorbed by them creating a sense of structure. I’m only making assumptions. Some thoughts get confusing for me, when they speak of accelerating particles like they are accelerating ping pong balls in a lottery tube, when my understanding is that it shouldn’t exactly work like that. Apparently, I’m playing catch up again. 🙁 The first sentence is positively obvious. The rest I don’t remember ever reading about. Thanks... I’ll google it, but I’ll be googling blind since I can’t even imagine what the process might be called. Maybe something like “single quantum particle detection processes” will do the trick. Maybe? Google has a way of giving my research skills a workout... 🤔🙂
  18. I read things then forget most of what I read. The same goes for videos. Then occasionally, something becomes trendy so an article is written where emphasis on the amazing is placed. These amazing emphasis stressed articles and videos are created, and presented. But in the background of what is my mind all those things I assumed forgotten start to poke and point out that I need to question, apparently everything. So, I try to make it make sense. What is amazing to me, is that some of the, said, trendy is old news. A rehash of what the thinking of the subject used to be. The things nagging started piecing things together and I had my eureka moment. Still I didn’t trust that I had it right and since it is not exactly a question I posted it in speculation, assuming someone will help to clarify. Again 🙏 ! Then I started the reinforcement process which for some subjects is an immediate rapid subject cram fest. So yesterday morning I posted this then by yesterday afternoon I found a YouTube video presented by Arvin Ash that basically said to me; “Alright Joseph, once again you are a day late and a dollar short.” I apparently have read about this in the past. Upon putting the pieces together, I still managed to get some of it wrong, but there is this, pre-surgery I would have been annoyed by the trendy rehash of old views, but would have been clueless as to why. 😊
  19. Okay, this makes sense. It eliminates the apparent same particle going through both slits simultaneously, and to a degree explains the reason for the magic recombination statement that I remember reading somewhere, and simultaneity isn’t necessary for a wave/s to pass through both slits since everything tends to move at odds to everything else, even if only slightly. The wave diagrams, generally provided present what is apparent simultaneity. Thank you...
  20. My first serious girlfriend would on occasion point out my unintentional tendency toward male chauvinism. With those memories in mind I am almost afraid to 😊 in what is likely be a mixed environment... Oh... what the hell! 😂😂😂
  21. Particle wave duality. I can’t remember where, book or video, probably video maybe both, but it was presented amazingly that a particle could pass through two slits at the same time. To me that would be amazing. So, I question it. It’s difficult for me to accept, as I understand the concept. Of course it could be my understanding. I read that for what seems the most part particles only exist for a short time. Also, amazingly presented as popping in and out of existence. Then there is my understanding of Heisenberg‘s uncertainty principle. Note, I am not questioning it. I am accepting it as true to a point, and that point is that you can’t measure both at the same time. To me that seems awkward if not amazing. So, I question it. Then there was the concept of ether. That was shown to be not true. I am not saying that it is, but the fact that it was shown to be not true seems amazing. No I’m not going to question it, except to ask that if the universe is full of continuous particles why was it so easily shown that the ether does not exist. Then there is solid to somewhat solid matter. Why do I exist? No, I am not asking a philosophical question. Why am I cohesive? Do all particles pop in and out of existence? I am aware that it doesn’t quite happen that way though I do not exactly understand how it does happen. In a sense I’m parroting another amazing rhetoric. I am however wondering given my somewhat limited understanding of quantum physics, if I am solid, or is anything else for that matter? My mind can be changed, even taught, but I am not going to simply accept what seems incomprehensible. So, I think about some apparently amazing presentations and think there must be some other explanation. With Heisenberg, the presentation, pick a book or video it really doesn’t matter, comes across as you can not measure both as related to an it. You can measure it’s momentum, you can measure it’s position, but when it comes down to (it) you can’t do both. Realistically, I accept particle wave duality, but have trouble accepting that a particle can travel through two slits at the same time, but I can accept that a wave can. I also understand from different diagrams that some don’t agree as to how a wave propagates. Which can really muddy up a thought. It seems to get more difficult, at least for me to mentally picture such thing, spherically. So, I prefer the presentation where you are looking down on presumably a wave capable medium that upon disruption attempts to propagate in the allowed directions. The produced wave/s go through both slits. I have trouble with analogies, but opposing waves can peak in various places. Like particles popping in and out of existence. The wave is an analogy of energy propagation through a/various fields of energy/energies. The medium, well for lack of a best definition, is simply vast. Back to Heisenberg and the inability to measure both of (it’s) momentum, or it’s position. I’m suggesting that is because it is not an it but rather two peaks created by the act of measuring. The wave peaks when it interacts with the measuring devices. In essence the wave peaks every time you take a measure. I don’t think the particle is amazingly going through both slits. What is seen is/are peaks of a propagating wave/s where it interacts with opposition. For a moment of time a particle is created and observed. Among other things the photon is not displaying a gravitational attraction or reaction to an intense gravitational field. The energy waves created by the distant star are going around. The observed photon does not exist until the wave/s interacts with the observer. I can’t think of any reason why these thoughts might be seen as an attempt to dismantle physics. To me they just seem to be a rational way for someone who is not an expert to grasp the reality of a few things often presented as amazing, but true! (Among other things the photon is not displaying a gravitational attraction or reaction to an intense gravitational field). This part I am still thinking about? I have another thought that requires gravity, that possibly comes from particles that pop in and out of existence due to opposing energy fields, but that is another thought.
  22. 😊 It appears you do want a philosophical conversation. Why would you consider anything that is, or is not corporeal, to be permanent, nothing stays the same. Why should it be any different for time? I suppose it could depend on the observers preference. It appears to me that original philosopher/scientist dealt with both. I don’t see myself as an expert of either... I recently casually watched a video where the opinion seemed to be that Minkowski threw a wrench into physics, that Einstein picked the wrench up, and time hasn’t been the same since. I suppose that anyone can have as many different definitions of time as Einstein’s views of relativity seem to allow for. In a sense time went from a somewhat rigid unit system dimensionally to one that exist for each individual on a sliding curve. As an individual time for me doesn’t change except that as an observer I can see that for you it does. We can now agree to disagree about observed differences. As an individual I kinda like the sliding curve applied to time though some might not approve of my application. It is now time for me to take my meds... technically, a little over an hour ago. 🙁
  23. Yep I think. I still have to almost constantly reinforce. words that sound alike Are almost a sure error if I’m not careful. Thank you sometimes it is the keyboard choosing what it thinks I mean, but thus run I remember writing Logarithms
  24. I think google has taken a page out of the politicians handbook For guidance. To some degree they will let JQ Public have their way by allowIng one to delete somewhat at will. But then the algorithms kick in. I suspect they sell them cause the Trending crap that hits the news feed can be horrendous if you don’t quickly rebuild an add base. I quickly open my list of favorites and start clicking in attempt to hold them off. Am not sure how well that works, but the fact that I notice if I forget to some degree speaks for itself. Did I ever mention that I tend toward paranoia. 🤫 I’m sure they are watching now and will respond in a way they deem appropriate. Now I have to think of some other counter measure.
  25. I tried Facebook for a while. Yes you can friend and follow and unfollow but as of late their ads have become intrusive. Not so much in the we have something sell way. It’s their label of what constitutes an add I have relatives that are somewhat outspoken to the right and to the left. There are people I went to school with. Hmm, well it’s freedom of speech. Everything was well until about a month ago these videos start popping up that I would describe as educational propaganda they are long they are boring they are hard left or hard right You can’t unfollow them all you can do is tell Facebook why you don’t like their add except the reasons are multiple choice. After three days of trying to figure out what happed to my feed I quit Facebook. That’s not freedom of speech. It’s gone the way of the country. You can’t turn them off. Yes they have the right to freedom of speech but, so do I. They found a way to intrude on my freedom using the very platform that gave it. In the form of an add. My feed was no longer made up of friends and family. It was strangers with an agenda. There are rules and enforcers at SFN, but I’m not being told what threads to read. Nor are my choices limited to what I know or don’t know. I’m allowed to be stupid even foolish. I can be worse but I made that mistake once and don’t ever want to do it again. The moderators didn’t even have to step in. There is a sense of civility at SFN that I can’t find on my TV, in my own country, or just about any country in the world any more. I expect any day that my Internet provider will tell me that it’s either their way or the highway. Can we ever truly have freedom of speech? We’ve had it. We forgot what it looks like. If we wake up tomorrow and it’s competently gone. It’s our fault. Your question ought to be can we get it back? By asking the question the way you did, the appearance is that you have been letting others tell you what freedom of speech is. Assuming, that they are right, what do you as an individual want to give up, so that we can truly have freedom of speech?
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.