Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by SamBridge

  1. The length and mass of a relativistic object don't change in its own frame.

    No one said it did. But, that doesn't discount what others measure from other frames. If someone says someone else's time slowed down even if that someone else didn't think so, they're both right. Same with anything else related to relativity. The difference is, compression due to force doesn't make the atomic structures appear to contract as well, which is why they get into close enough proximity to each other when compression force is applied in an inertial frame. It's almost right to say density doesn't completely change, but you're still wrong to say the relativistic effect isn't measured. It does have a calculated change, just not in the same way as it would if it were due to compression force.

  2. Oh it's far from resolved. I'm going to get into more depth after work.

    Well it's not ultimately resolved, but for the purposes of this forum, if there's no new information, then it might as well be. If you plan on returning to the topic later then I guess you're right, it isn't resolved.


    it doesn't get heavier or shorter and time passes at a 'normal' rate.

    That doesn't entirely matter to other frames, which is why relativity exists. If I'm traveling two miles per hour and I throw a ball ahead of me at 3 miles per hour, some other frame can say the ball is actually traveling around 5 miles per hour. But you also don't seem to realize that I'm agreeing that some component is kept constant in a way that differs from compression due to force in an inertial frame. Mathematically, it is at the very least, the same mass, in a seemingly smaller volume, and there is therefore a relativistic density increase according to the relativistic models, but, the atomic structures themselves also contract by the same factor as the exterior of the near-light ship, thus holding the same proportion of atomic spacial distribution to object volume. It's almost like density is staying the same, but you can still agree that from the outside frame that was previously initially at rest to the ship, the original rest mass of the object didn't decrease, but still appears to be squeezed into a smaller volume.

  4. I'd dare to say that the methodology is to blame.

    When observations are away from the predictions to 95%, you should go back to the black board, as Newton did.

    Of course, that's the hard way.

    The easy way is to rely on the existing theory.


    I believe the real profound issue is that scientists feel the duty to provide an explanation because there are afraid to leave the door open to all sorts of bogus "explanations".

    On the other hand this tactic has created a kind of dogma that holds back any tentative to provide a better explanation even from inside the scientific community.

    So Michel, beacon of hope, saving the day with...scientists are intellectually domineering cowards...

    Alternatively, there's many models beyond the older big bang model, but they all point to the same thing: an origin.

    And they all have the same problem: good model, but not enough evidence.

    There's plenty of diverse theories that are considered, but only a select few so precisely match up with our observations in different scenarios and those theories get worked on and modified even more and become even more accurate than they were.

    The only "bogus" theories are the ones that contradict a majority of known physics. Non-bogus theories build off of known physics in a more recycling based way.

  5. Negative energy is so far hasn't been observed, but it is necessary to explain sub-vacuum fluctuations, it's also part of how black holes evaporate and it is also a product of the way we model the ergospere of rotating black holes. So in other words, it is all hypothetical, but not impossible and it doesn't need to be thrown out.

    May want to look at this


  6. what I am talking is change of gravity fields strengths


    Yes, changes in fields propagate at the speed of light.


    that change of strengths pulling between the two objects is faster than C

    Which doesn't happen, a change in a field doesn't propagate faster than light, it propagates exactly at the speed of light.


    or else the orbits fail in short fashion according to Newton's Law.



    What way do you expect they would fail? Not that Newton's models were as accurate as Einsteinien models anyway. If the sun suddenly disappeared, Earth would continue to rotate around where the sun use to be for around 8 minutes since 8 minutes is how long it takes light to reach Earth and thus is how long it would take before Earth saw the sun's gravity disappear. After that, Earth would fly off in the direction it happened to be pointing in when it experienced the lack of gravity.


    and I do no understand where the last sentence is coming from...."everything would stop existing if we stopped to look at an individual moment in time ? Please explain...thanks hoola..


    If you claim a field is the result of a time dependent recalculation, then if time stopped, there would be no time for a recalculation, therefore you wouldn't measure the field as specially existing. But, that's not what actually happens, the spacial dimensions of a field are a different component of its spacetime interaction than the temporal dimension. So if time stopped or if it mathematically stopped when we looked at an individual moment in time, the spacial dimensions of a field still exist and still have a correlation of their strength to distance. Or like with throwing a ball. Velocity is dependent on time, you need time to pass to measure velocity, so if time froze, we wouldn't see the ball traveling distance over time but would still see its spacial dimensions.

  7. The only main thing that scientists have theorized about but for someone that no one has explained to me is how the creation and expansion of space happens the same from all relative directions and points while space is simultaneously being flat. Is there some explanation of 5 dimensional space that explains how space was create at all points where it already exists and it is merely the case that the local spacial metric of spacetime-creation that counted distance between objects is what has and is causing the continual expanding of the universe from all directions from all frames?

  8. A purposely incoherent sentence is only used within a particular context. In this context, I could provide you with the sentence "and but or if" which is acceptable because it's making a point.

    And the context was relating the equation to the original topic which overall was meant to show if whether or not it could validate the theory.


    All recursive functions are deterministic but they're not conscious. The part that is conscious is the knowledge. Knowledge gets prompted because of it's proximity to the point of interest. Here's an example.

    Unit = 'hello'
    'Hello' is recognized and the correlating bit is accessed instantaneously.
    Then, depending on significance, it gets a parameter.
    'Hello' prompts all equal bits.
    The connections which are in succession to the point of interest get prompted.
    Depending on the significance of those units, add the one that is most probable before being parametrized to generation.
    Skim through every unit in generation and put only those that are more significant than the previous unit into output.

    The result is that the output is actually pretty grammatical.

    You don't seem to really define knowledge, but what you're saying seems rational that you surmise that consciousness is rather the process of the succession of prompts, which does coincide with some looser biological analysis that try to derive consciousness is being dependent on progression of time as well as the less "physical" aspects in which consciousness can be modeled as a "collection of patterns", which, can mathematically be transported via quantum teleportion or into computerized objects, which I think they made a few movies about by now.


    But, there's still a few problems.

    As you said, the functions are deterministic, whereas reality, especially on the very small scale, is not 100% deterministic, which means the deterministic functions at best only have the capacity to indefinitely approximate the patterns based on how complex you want to keep making the algorithms. This contrasts with fundamental pillar of computational mind theory (or CMT for short) that all thinking and reasoning must be purely causally deterministic processes much like the old Newtonian view of the universe, which, QM shows cannot physically be the case. Though, it seems like you tried to incorporate a more probabilistic model near the end, but then again, to admit something is inherently random is to admit you can never derive a perfectly accurate model of future results.


    A given synaptic process is not necessarily universally able to be translated into the same semantic symbol across multiple organisms, i.e. even something as simple as "hello" doesn't have the same distribution of "significance" nor is it necessarily going to be represented with the same context from person to person which makes it difficult to prove a given algorithm with set parameters can work, seeing as how you'd have to coincidentally find the right person for it to perfectly work. If everyone shares the same culture, then its closer to the same context from person to person, but everyone grows up differently, has different physical structures and weigh social interactions differently. But, this still leaves some room that, instead of surmising the ability to think as being a physical causation itself, is rather the pattern that the synaptic processes form, and that all semantic symbols can be tracked as some type of synaptic pattern, supposedly even if happens to be a purely random process though off the top of my head I can't think of a way to confirm how. Whether or not this is fully done is up for some debate, but it's been done to some extent and neurologists have made progress on that front.


    A main goal of computational mind theory was to explain thinking without the possibility of anything intangible or "super-natural." or just plain to in terms of what can be physically observed. But, rational judgement as a series of semantic symbols must itself abide by the principals of the theory according to the theory itself, and therefore, the recognition that the theory is current creates the paradox that the theory is only appears correct because it was pre-determined in a mental process to be interpreted as correct, not that is mathematically proven correct, and this adds to the epistemology of the situation that anything that any interpretation of logicality is only the forced result of deterministic processes, and therefore, what is understood as logical is not necessary indicative of what is actually logical, which applies to CMT itself. Or in other words, according to the logical application of CMT, CMT shows that it, in of itself, may not be accurate.


    And with this algorithm, I still don't see the difference necessary to express the action of a conscious entity not being able to distinguish between when it confirms that it has choice and when it confirms it does not.


    So, there's a few holes to work out. I'd leave it as that it's not fair to say a mind can be physically modeled as a mathematical computer, but it's not fair to say everything about it is completely random and completely unpredictable. As I said, I think its best to settle on a compromise and take a more open minded approach and admit there's a few things we don't understand.

  9. But the point is the proof would be viable by all axioms of Mathematics, but yet there would be a counter example to it which means, as abj explained, the axioms would be ill founded and would need reconsideration.

    If they disagree, it implies they had different axioms somewhere down the line, or someone just made a human-mistake when writing things out. Both the proof and counter-proof would agree that 1+1=2 if they weren't talking about modular counting, but that doesn't mean 1+1 magically doesn't equal 2 anymore just because one of those conjectures is wrong.

  10. They gain energy, not mass.I'm not saying SR is nonsense, I'm saying your post is nonsense. You continually attribute things which were never said, so you can argue against them. You seem to have problems actually responding to points made.


    As I said, go to a particle accelerator, you can test for relative mass increase, and this is because E = Mo*c^2 / (1-c^2/v^2)^(1/2). Energy and mass are directly related, and they only differ by a factor that is related to the ratio between the object's velocity and the speed of light which is why the relative velocity based on kinetic energy affects an object's measured relative mass. You can even see this type of mass-energy equivalence all the time in particle experiments where the energy added to particles via lasers ends up creating more particles. Mass-energy equivalence, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence


    " mass–energy equivalence is the concept that the mass of an object or system is a measure of its energy content. For instance, adding 25 kilowatt-hours (90 megajoules) of any form of energy to any object increases its mass by 1 microgram, increasing its inertia and weight accordingly, even though no matter has been added."


    My last few posts only reflected what is accepted in SR, therefore if you reject the posts, you must reject SR, which means you contradict yourself when you say you reject those posts but not SR. Relative mass increase through velocity increase is accepted in SR, therefore if you accept SR, you must accept relative mass increase through velocity increase.


    If anything, it's just the context that has changed, not the validity of the mathematical equation, and for the most part, there's no getting around that, there's no getting around the fact that the correlation of relative mass has been tested to be extremely accurate, even if it can be explained in different contexts even though it still has its place in modern physics


    "the Higgs field...contains the relative mass in the form of energy. Once the field has endowed a formerly massless particle the particle slows down because it has become heavier."

    Which is the specifics of what I already mentioned.


    Former pillars of science don't just get "thrown away," they get recycled into current theories.

  11. Nonsense.

    Go to a particle accelerator right now and see for yourself. You will find muons decay more slowly when accelerated to near light speed by the amount predicted by SR, and they appear gain mass by the exact amount predicted by SR, and they appear to asymptotically approach light with a constantly applied force by the amount predicted by SR. It's standard SR and used in modern particle physics, you should look it up some time before saying its nonsense, the models of SR are some of the most accurately tested models to this date.

  12. Relativistic mass is an obsolete concept. Most of what you post is simply erroneous, showing a shallow, partial at best understanding of relativity.

    It's obviously not "obsolete" if it can accurately model the apparent change in mass for a wide variety of modern circumstances like its uses in a particle collider. You don't seem to realize the new age of particle physics is trying to reconcile the gaps between quantum mechanics and special relativity, not throw special relativity away, it's trying to show how a relative mass interaction with a higgs field is equal to Mo/(1-v^2/c^2)^(1/2) to further explain why something appears to increase in mass through acceleration via the higg's field. The relativistic equations are like pieces of the skeleton, patterns that we see and have confirmed but don't know exactly what body they come from, until we add the skin and muscle and discover a few other bones.

    You can go to a particle collider right now and experimentally confirm the "old" special relativity theories are very very accurate models, which even to this day are being tested and shown to still be accurate. Modern quantum physics merely tries to put those confirmed results into a different context as a way to more precisely explain how/why they appear.

  13. So with respect to biological computation, and assuming the other three recursive components are very accurate, how does that show there isn't a case of freedom in an event that someone recognizes a difference between their ability to analyze their conscious state, and a process that was "predetermined" to happen (which is a purposely incoherent sentence)? If there is a set outcome, or even statistical set outcomes that is a guarantee of a system, a conscious mind would never agree that they measured that component of the system as having control over it because it would appear to a given observer like a "subconscious" reaction that they had no control over, so where are you eliminating the difference between someone saying they measured themselves as having control vs no actual control for any given equation you come up with?

    Computational theory does claim that the accounts for cognitive processes are computational which can be very consistent with measurements, but that theory is also based on directly causality and a mathematical form of determinism, and, without the advocates of the theory considering the epistemology of applying their own system to the way they themselves measure the results to try and validate their system while ironically computational theory can show that semantic values affect the judgement for what is considered rational. Or in other words, everyone is going to have to compromise on how close we can model a mind as a mathematical computer. There's some truth to the idea, and there's some falsehoods to the assumptions.

  14. The fact that you can get that from my posts shows that you don't understand relativity. Or that your reading comprehension needs work.

    The fact that you think relativistic mass can't accurately describe this situation shows that you didn't even know of the basic concepts of special relativity. Is 2008

    not modern enough for you? Or is the entire physics course of Stanford outdated, and no one cares about special relativity to model near-light objects anymore?
  15. Just as a sort of random tangent I was curious about, what if someone recognized that their recognition was based on that formula? Is there ever some type of infinite loop in psychological mathematics comparable to putting two mirrors next to each other?

    Also, it seems like the formula is based on a recurring automation, but you say its statistical?

  16. Normal relativity appears in Newtonian mechanics, but special relativity doesn't, because Newtonian physics assumes information travels instantaneously to all observers and that there's no speed limit to anything. It's not so much that all of relativity is an illusion as much as that anyone is correct to report what they observe from their own frame, I can't speak for everyone when I say it's 4:00pm, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong when I say my clock reads 4:00pm.

  17. That is wayyy too informal though. What do you do when you get this- "that cow is white with black spots" and "there are back spots on that white cow".

    You get that a cow will has an unknown amount of x square units of a material that reflects a combination of all frequencies of optical light and an unknown amount of y square units of material that reflects of no optical frequency of light. Though spots on a cow and many natural structures are more accurate modeled by fractals. It's not informal in the strictest sense, it's just that you probably don't have any psychology tests lined up and this forum isn't a real laboratory.

  • 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.