Aethelwulf

For the second time in 5 posts I will quote this passage from your own post, penned by your own hand.

 

 

 

 

 

Are you calling me a liar?

But after that I clearly state that if there is an electromagnetic mass, then it is a ''contribution'' of some of that mass. You're hung up on something but it wasn't intended to be taken as my absolute word on something. Besides, you've quoted something I am saying that has been pretty much extracted from one of the citations I gave. Don't ask me which one. I'd need to look through them all again.

Thus, I said it in the OP a few times and I will say it to you again. If mass is an electromagnetic phenomenon, then its a contribution to some of the mass of the system.

Here read this, touches on many reasons why contributions of electromagnetic energy to mass is considered http://ivanik3.narod.ru/EMagnitizm/JornalPape/ParadocsCullwick/hnizdo_ajp_65_55_97.pdf

Yeah. I got that.

 

 

 

I never said you couldn't have an opinion. But by the same token, nobody has said that I have to agree with it. But it's not so much having an opinion, it's the audacity of the idea that we should change to accommodate someone who hasn't been here very long.

But it's not just about me. I might have been the boycott, but essentially since I have voiced my opinion, more than one other person has came forward expressing their dislike of the system.

A counter example is the contribution to the mass of a body due to thermal energy. That mass increase is due to kinetic energy, not electromagnetic energy.

I don't know much about thermal increases of mass, but it sounds an awful lot like a relativistic increase of mass which is often seen being down to kinetic energy. I wish to quote Taylor and Wheeler here:<br style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; background-color: rgb(248, 250, 252); "><br style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; background-color: rgb(248, 250, 252); ">''The concept of 'relativistic mass' is subject to misunderstanding. That's why we don't use it. First, it applies the name mass - belonging to the magnitude of a 4-vector - to a very different concept, the time component of a 4-vector. Second, it makes increase of energy of an object with velocity or momentum appear to be connected with some change in internal structure of the object. In reality, the increase of energy with velocity originates not in the object but in the geometric properties of space-time itself.''

So I ask you once again.

 

You have stated in so many words exactly and precisely that mass is an electrical phenomenon.

 

I disagree and ask you to prove your claim.

 

Please address the question asked not something else.

I said that there can be contribution of mass, I have never stated that it was entirely an electromagnetic phenomenon. I think you should read up on electromagnetic theories of mass

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_mass

Because you are distorting what i say.

Please explain the relationship of this statement to particles without electric charge.

Particles without an electric charge still have a magnetic charge. The neutron is electrically neutral but still possesses a magnetic charge as a magnetic moment.

I don't really know what you are getting at.

So while the Neutron for instance, may not have an electric charge, it is not fundamental. The stuff it is made of does.

"Go back and actually read it again."

 

Why the insulting comment?

 

"You asked me how you calculated the mass with the larmor equation."

 

Particularly as that is not what I asked.

 

Rather than continue a fruitless discussion here I have thought the best of the rest of your comments and provided the opportunity to start again in the mass thread and await your reply there.

Well you've started by asking a completely new question.

I'd expect to observe, some kind of unification to physics. If there is any kind of intellect behind the universe, it surely would be wrapped up into a set of simple equations which explains everything.

When I said come into the physics subforum and start asking questions, I didn't really have this kind of material in mind Arkiteck

Science doesn't work by proving theories. Observations either provide evidence to support a theory or they can prove a theory wrong. But no amount of evidence can prove a theory right.

Yes, exactly.

The fact remains you put forward a theory about mass that relied on electromagnetic effects due to charge and I asked how this worked for a non charged mass that is (as far as I know) unaffected by a magnetic field, to which you replied "why did I ask that question?"

No. Go back and actually read it again. I explained how a mass which is accelerated experiences an electromagnetic inertia. You asked me how you calculated the mass with the larmor equation.

See your problem here? See the problem you created me?

I likely read that thinking ''what's he on about?''

I have to ask, why the obsession with rep points?

More to the point, why even have em?

As I explained, there is no use for them outside of someone wanting to either denounce a character or like a post because of its content. Now, on most respectable forums I have ever seen, such a reputation system is not even needed because people are adult enough to tell someone whether they appreciated a post or whether they didn't like it or disagree with something. Take pmb's case above, someone will neg you for just saying ''you're wrong.''

Screw publication records. scienceforums.net reputation is clearly -

 

loooool

I'd like an argument, no you don't, yes I do, no thats a series of contradictions, no it isn't, yes it is, no its not.

 

 

Aethelwulf, I am sure that you want to put across some really good and interesting points, but fighting the forum mods, contributors and everyone else isn't going to do that. Why don't you just accept that sometimes people don't see things the way you do and move on. Sometimes a little humilty can move mountains and surely the reason that you are on here is that you want to contribute and learn. So far you are not achieving those aims.

 

I WANT TO LEARN FROM YOU, you can teach me, but tell me in a way I can hear you.

Outside of this thread, I have been teaching. You want to learn something, come into the physics subforum and my attentions is all yours sir.

(post a few questions though, or ask for a lesson in something, if you really want to learn from me.) Concentrating on this thread and my problems with the repping points here will not give a fair or reasonable understanding of how I can help you.

What part is giving you trouble?

 

 

 

Quite a bold suggestion from someone who has been here all of two weeks.

You must have lost the punchline. I pretty much quoted Ecoli in his reponse to me the other night, you know, the one you have tried to defend all day.

The fact is I understood you perfectly well, and nowhere in any of this have I really thought you where speaking a different language enough for me to think it was not your native tongue.

 

 

Quite a bold suggestion from someone who has been here all of two weeks.

Even better. As an outsider, you should respect my opinion. You know, those opinions you said everyone was allowed to have.

Your point about physics theories are well taken (though I'm not versed in them enough to comment specifically) but I do take issue with this specific bit:

 

Not being able to observe something should not mean a lack of evidence

 

Evidence, by definition, comes through observation (either directly or through instruments). From how I understand it, theoretical physics can be supported by how closely the model can fit the available evidence.

Yes this is true. We do indeed base our models as close to our reality will agree to them.This is indeed the way science works. However, and this is a big BUT, a theory is still a theory and a theory can never be proven with 100% accuracy.

You can have mathematical proofs, which may lead to mathematical certainties. Unfortunately, most of the time in physics, these kinds of certainties are extremely rare.

ya that sounds like it im just looking to do a bit more research into it and dont know where to start

Start searching ''non-locality'' and ''spooky action at a distance.'' Then search, ''quantum entanglement'' for a more direct course. I think prof. Susskind has classes on quantum entanglement as well on youtube if you are interested.

I think ecoli was more than hinting. It was a flat out declaration: your posts are incomprehensible to me. You know what? Any user is within their rights to say that they didn't understand your point. Language is imperfect and they way people use it in communication is further flawed. Ambiguity exists.

Sorry, I can't comprehend you.

Maybe It is only 21:00 hours at night, or maybe english isn't your native language, or maybe you are just plain and simple, incomprehensible.

I'll concede that point. There are areas of science that (at least to my knowledge, someone with more experience in the field may correct me) can't currently be tested with the technology we have. However, those theories still provide testable predictions, even if we currently cannot test those predictions. The theory itself is falsifiable, even if the means to refute or confirm it does not yet exist.

I'd agree with that, but God isn't something without predictions. I could easily argue that our equations describing the universe will result in some kind of analogue of something or someone behind its creation, just as much as recently, we found binary error correction codes in supersymmetry.

It's all very premature to think that a God, in my eyes, is completely unthinkable.

This I don't understand, perhaps you could rephrase it?

 

As to condescending, I don't see anything condescending about what I wrote.

I meant it to be a fair and balanced (if jocular) report on my involvement with your thread.

It contained what I consider to be useful information about this bystander's viewpoint.

 

I too have not been here long.

The way you made it sound, is that I was talking for the sake of it without any real science.

With that aside, what I really mean is I would have appreciated your continuation in that thread than rather ignoring me because I asked you what you meant.

I think the mods would quit en masse if somehow this were foisted upon us.

 

 

You add editorial review of negative reputation? No. I suspect there is more neg rep than reported posts, but even if it's the same, it's a large additional burden.

Then banish it. The negative rep has no other cause than to try and denounce someone.

It helps me in judging the quality and clarity of my posts.

 

 

 

Not at all, I judge each post on content, not who writes it.

 

 

If someone has a problem with your posts, I'd expect them to just call you out regardless of anyone negatively reppin them.

Back on topic - The m that appears in the force equation is defined as [math]m = m_0\frac{dt}{d\tau}[/math]. It is rightly called the passive gravitational mass of the particle. This is just the value m in [math]P^{\mu} = (mc, p_x, p_y, p_z)[/math]

That's fine, no probs with that in my eyes

Ah I think I finally see what you're saying.

 

You're still arguing from 'lack of evidence' here but you've made a key error. In probability theory, absence of evidence IS evidence (though not proof) of absence. While its true that there are real causes which refuse to admit evidence of that cause, the probability of observing evidence of that cause is far less likely if that cause doesn't exist. Therefore, continued lack of observation makes it less likely that the cause doesn't exist.

 

In formal terms:

 

if

P(G|E) > P(G) (if the probability of God existing is greater given the condition of observing Evidence - which is true)

then

P(G|~E) < P(G)

The probability that god exists given absence of evidence decreases that probability.

 

In probability there's this little thing called 'conservation of probability.' Since observing evidence must increase our prior belief/estimate about the hypothesis (God exists) observing no evidence must equally cause us to downgrade that belief. The confusion arises, I think, because observing strong, powerful evidence increases that probability estimate swiftly and drastically, while observing no evidence decreases that estimate slowly and in smaller increments.

''Ah I think I finally see what you're saying. ''

Good. Then maybe we will be able to move forward. I was close to asking a mod to close this thread.

Listen you are a smart man. I've seen your posts in the mathematics area, which tells me you are quite adept to the rigor of mathematics. My area is mathematics as well but I traditionally deal with the physical nature of science.

Your point here:

''In probability theory, absence of evidence IS evidence (though not proof) of absence.''

Is a good point but in a sense I have given you the required conditions why we cannot observe God. I likened it to the unobservable ''parallel universes'' which many top-leading physicists today want us to believe in.

In quantum mechanics, an observable is something we can measure often given with a Hermitian Matrix. I won't go through the math, I will assume off-hand you know what that is. There are some things in science which cannot be described as ''observables'' - things we can directly measure. Indeed, many things inside this universe cannot be measured, like the beginning of time for instance. (Time can't be observed, its not an observable, here I just mean the physical things that come along with the very first instant we call Big Bang.)

Not being able to observe something should not mean a lack of evidence, in physics, as we understand theoretical models. A really good example would be string theory. Many scientists will argue today that string theory isn't even a science because it cannot be falsified. But you know, there are plenty scientists, (some of the top scientists in current mainstream today) who will argue blue in the face that there is string theory nature to the universe. Do we say their lack of evidence is evidence against?

The answer is no, and the reason why is because one day we expect to have the kind of technology that will provide these answers. We have just came out of the dark ages and into the revolution of technology. On the scale of intelligence, we are just young and in the scale of testing theories, loads of possibilities are being opened. Maybe one day, we will have some kind of solution in our equations which might involve the idea that there could be ''something'' or ''someone'' behind creation. A good example of such revelations, was that a computer code (a binary code which was an error correcting code, the kind you have which works your computer screen) was found embedded within the supersymmetry equations of string theory. That's the kind of revelation I am talking about. I can't give you all the answers you have wanted in this thread, but I am certain not to be naive enough to say a God is improbable, especially with a lack of evdidnce.

It doesn't matter if you're discussing traditional theories or not. If matters not one whit if you're proposing that God is really Ralph from across the street - if you can't test it, it's not science, however hard you try and convince us it is.

Ironically, the post above while you where posting this, actually speaks about ''the non-science of unfalsifiable theories.'' My point in the post above, is that theories of this nature are waiting until the technology or scientific breakthrough makes them at least measurable or falsifiable.

Then how can you make a scientific claim purporting that he exists? I can make all the claims I like, but if I can't devise a way to test those claims, they're not science.

 

 

''And some of the greatest minds of mathematics believed in Allah. So what?

Belief is evidence of nothing, so why does it matter what some of the greatest minds in science believed?''

You must have missed the OP about rejecting traditional theories of God...

That's ok, most of my words fall on deaf ears anyway.

Well I for one obviously don't understand the reputation system as I didn't and still don't see how to tie a reputation to an individual post.

 

So it is a good job I am being cautious with it.

 

Considering this remark

 

 

 

How should I take this?

 

 

 

And that was addressed to someone who has already offered you support.

 

go well

Well go back to your example in one of my firsts posts here. You basically said I gave a long speach about something, then I said I wasn't sure about a comment and you ignored me. I would have much preferred, (if me and you) had gone through any misunderstandings. I appreciate any support off anyone. That doesn't give you the excuse to be condescending though about one of my better posts (just my own opinion).

. I am certainly not the sharpest tool in the box and value the opportunity to learn, this system helps me greatly.

 

 

How does it help you... is it because, it will influence you in the future who you will listen to?

If so, this is my point all along. I am one of the people here at this forum who can actually talk about science. Having a negative rep then, will influence you greatly against any teaching I might give you? If its not that, can you tell me how it helps you. Then explain how it really helps anyone?

I can't say I have heard of this. It sounds like a gravitational distortion but equally feels like entanglement.

Anything which is affected by gravity is said to have passive gravitational mass. Therefore a photon has passive gravitational mass. It's equal to its inertial mass by

 

[math]m = p/v = p/c = P^0/c[/math]

 

where P is the photon's 4-momentum. The source of gravity is given the name active gravitational mass, by definition, and is described by the stress-energy-momentum tensor T.

I was aware of this, which is why I think a new distinction needs to be made. A photon does not contain an intrinsic gravitational charge for instance, but it still can warp spacetimes surrounding it. But of course, I see your point.

If you can't provide an estimate for the probability that god exists, how can you possibly reject claims like this:

 

 

 

I interpret this to mean that you believe the existence of god is "probable" (since you rejected iNow's argument that his existence is improbable). Further, since you've detailed the scientific details of a hypothetical God, I take that to reinforce that you believe God's existence is probable. The very title of this thread is "Could there be a God?" But, when I ask you to be explicit and semi-quantitative about this very same question, all the sudden you are unable to answer?

 

I take this to mean that you are unable or unwilling to evaluate the likelihood of your own claims in the original post.

Because as I said, just because you can't observe God does not make it improbable. That's a cop-out. As for what I believe I have clearly told you what that is - is that a God is not outside of the realms of possibilities.

Some of the greatest minds in science believed in God.

I don't worry too much about - rep unless i get more than one on the same post, get four or five and you've said something stupid....

lol

It would be time to quit.