uncool

I'm curious, newts; do all of your objections to general relativity come from your objection to "time travel"? Because you keep coming back to that same point, over and over and over again; it is always at the end of all of your rants about physics being a religion. If general relativity didn't include anything about "time travel", would you actually have any other objection to it?

LET also assumes the constancy of one-way lightspeed. I have already addressed this, in the very post you were quoting; it seems that you are content to wallow in ignorance rather than respond to the point. I'd say that it seems to bring out the worst in you, but constant insult, deflection, defamation, and misrepresentation seem to be your preferred method of discourse. I have discussed what they are actually saying with you before; it seems that this, like so many other things, has not managed to pierce your delusions of grandeur. Not that silly, given that both his description and yours fit you quite well. You seem disinclined to spend any time analyzing any data that has a chance of falsifying your claims, from my past experience with you. =Uncool-

Relative to what? And what evidence do you have for this? Why? That is not how time dilation works. With time dilation, a person will still only experience the same amount of time (i.e. a human on a spaceship going 0.99c will still only live for 100 years, relative to their own frame of reference). Then your calculations are off by a factor of about 3.3 million. You have made assumptions that are either nonsense or simply wrong.

The problem is that the only thing in common with what you've said and relativity is that both deal with the speed of light and the phrase "time dilation". I'll elaborate in a minute. No, it isn't. The closest thing to it is that there is a time dilation factor of 5 when two objects have a relative velocity of approximately 0.98 c. Why would one postulate that? This is, quite simply, not even close to what the theory of relativity says; the theory of relativity explicitly doesn't deal with things moving (relative to each other) at speeds beyond the speed of light. This is literally nonsense; what does it mean for time to flow forward at a speed (as in, at a rate with units of distance/time)? This has nothing to do with physics now; "increased mental and physical capacity" is a biological thing. What two universes, and why is energy flowing between them? What is "space time matrix"? What reentry? Reentry into what? It is nonsense; nonsense can be as complicated or simple as you want. =Uncool-

Again, what question are you referring to, and which problems are you referring to?

I don't see how it relates to the topic, no. What question are you referring to? (Possibly "Is Relativity Wrong?") And what problems are you referring to? =Uncool-

Logical, yes. Simple, not so much. False. While the equations may be the same, that is not the same as not having any original math; Einstein's paper showed that SR is derivable from two simple, uncontroversial postulates. Congratulations, you managed to knock down your own strawman. Don't you feel mighty, o great slayer of straw? All inertial observers can assume that their reference frame is stationary, and it will make no difference in what the physics predicts. Which is precisely true in LET, too. Apparently you don't know what "unfalsifiable" means; using the correct de finition, you are saying that any falsification of SR is also a falsification of LET. Once again, please save it until you have some evidence of dogma. You have been shown to be both deceitful and ignorant on this topic before. Look to the beam in your eye before trying to remove the mote in others. Evidence, please. False, and a blatant lie at that. I find it funny when people make this claim. It couldn't be because you are a poor communicator? Further fun comes from the repeated misrepresentations of others' posts you have done. Once again, beam, mote. You have mistaken your map for the territory. Your conception of SR is neither right nor wrong, but your conception of SR is not the same as SR. You already did, and you continue to be wrong. Do you have a point in posting these?

Actually, when the masses are closer together, there is less potential energy. And no, it doesn't violate conservation of energy - the lost potential energy is made up for in kinetic energy. =Uncool-

If 257885161 is prime, then 2^257885161 - 1 won't be divisible by anything of the form 2^n - 1 for any n other than 1 and 257885161. =Uncool-

Well, for one thing, it's impossible directly, using some linear algebra over the field of 2 elements. Basically, assume that 63 of them are the distinct nonzero switches (i.e. 000001, 000010, ..., 111111); if it's cyclic, we should be able to figure out what the last element is. We'll check the 6th bit first; 31 of the switches don't change it, while 32 do, so in total, it hasn't been switched. The same reasoning works for each of the bits - so in the end, none of the bits have changed. That means that the 64th switch must be the 0 switch - 000000. In other words, you'll get two that are the same. This happens even if you don't require it to be cyclic. The next question, then, would be whether it's possible to do 62 of them, and have both the outcomes and the switches be different. =Uncool-

Windevoid, you don't seem to understand the differences between "unusual claims" and "crank ideas". One of those differences is the following: cranks often lack pretty much any understanding of the current scientific theory that they are trying to replace. You have shown this to be true; you have shown that you do not understand several aspects of special relativity in your other thread. Unusual ideas are often presented alongside the mainstream ideas, in order to showcase the differences between them; this requires the author to be conversant in such ideas. =Uncool-

What do you mean by "the lengths of the recordings, as measured by the receiving craft"? If you mean the time from reception start to reception end, as measured by the craft, then this is false, as I have shown already. If you mean the time from transmission start to transmission end, as measured by the craft, then this is true. My analysis above deals solely with reception time; I'll deal with transmission time now. Clearly, relative to the Earth (and the moon), transmission time is always an hour. Relative to the spaceship frame, we will multiply by gamma; transmission time is 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) hours, by using the Lorentz transform (this applies both to the transmission from the Earth and from the moon). =Uncool-

While you're here swansont, would you mind checking my work? =Uncool-

Alright then. Relative to both frames, we will determine the start and stop time for reception. We start with the Earth's frame of reference. We can assume without loss of generality that the spaceship starts at the same position as the Earth (i.e. when t = 0, x_ship = 0). Transmission starts at 0; the velocity of the ship will be v. This is now a simple math problem, which doesn't involve relativity at all, except to say that the speed of the transmission is c. We want to figure out when the end of the transmission reaches the spaceship. This is equivalent to looking at a transmission that happens 1 unit away from the Earth at time 0 (it will pass the Earth at time t = 1, meaning it does the same thing as the end of the transmission). Therefore, at time t = 0, x_ship = 0, x_trans = -1 (units are light-hours). Then at time t, x_ship = vt, while x_trans = ct - 1. We want to find when x_trans = x_ship, or vt = ct - 1, or 1 = (c - v)t, or t = 1/(c - v). (For those checking units, t = 1 hour * c/(c - v); 1 unit in space is a space-hour, which is where the c got dropped). So relative to the frame of the Earth, the ship receives the transmission for c/(c - v) hours. We now instead take a look from the frame of the spaceship. In this frame, we still have that the spaceship starts at the same position as the Earth (i.e. when t = 0, x_Earth = 0). Transmission starts at 0; the velocity of the Earth will be -v. However, we also need to figure out how long the Earth is taking to transmit. According to the Lorentz transform, the Earth transmits for 1 hour * gamma relative to the frame of the spaceship, where gamma = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2). At the end of this, the Earth is at -v * 1 hour/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2), and the time (relative to the spaceship) is 1 hour/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2). Therefore, the end of the transmission comes at 1 hour/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) + (v/c) * 1 hour/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) = (1 + v/c) * 1 hour * gamma = 1 hour * sqrt((1 + v/c)/(1 - v/c)) = 1 hour * (c/(c - v))/gamma I add in the equivalent answers to demonstrate one of the effects of relativity - the time dilation. Note that the answer relative to the frame of the spaceship is the same as that for the Earth, except for the factor of gamma; that's how the time dilation works. So according to the frame of the Earth, it takes 1 hour * c/(c - v) to receive the transmission; according to the frame of the spaceship, it takes 1 hour * c/(c - v)/gamma, and these two answers are consistent with the Lorentz transform. For an analysis about the moon transmission, replace each instance of v with -v. =Uncool-

No, you wouldn't, relative to either of the obvious frames of reference (in other words, what you've claimed is not what special relativity says, and so falsifying it wouldn't falsify special relativity). Do you want me to do the full analysis from the relativistic point of view to show this? =Uncool-

You may want to check if the theorem is supposed to apply to symmetric matrices; that is where this kind of congruence transformation usually happens (otherwise, usually C^(-1) A C is used). =Uncool-

Eugene, I apologize for not having appeared in the thread in the past week; I have been on vacation. I still have another week of vacation, so I can't promise anything much, but I will be examining the paper closely. For those following the thread, the link to the papers is here: and here: I would like to note that even in the introduction, the authors have written the following: "The possibility of delayed erasure generated a discussion in respect to it’s legitimacy, with the argument that it would be possible, in this way, to alter the past [11,12]. This argument is founded on an erroneous interpretation of the formalism of quantum mechanics [13,14]". In other words, the authors are saying that no, there is no "reaching backwards in time" - no retrocausation - and hence, they are disputing your conclusion, Eugene. At the moment, I heavily lean towards their side rather than yours. I will be looking into those references (11-14) as well. =Uncool-

Assuming that f(0) is 0, and assuming that f has no other roots inside the circle (that is, that f(z) is nonzero for any |z| <= 1), and finally, assuming that f is differentiable, then the circle will make a number of laps around the origin equal to the number of derivatives of f that are 0 at 0. For example, if we take the function f(z) = z, the 0th derivative is 0, but the first derivative is 1, so only 1 derivative is 0 - and we get one loop. If we take the function f(z) = z^2, the 0th derivative is 0, the first derivative is 0, and the second derivative is 1 - so we get two loops. More generally, we can allow multiple roots inside the circle; we then get the number of laps by summing up the number of derivatives that are 0 at each of those points. For example, if we take the function f(z) = z^2 - z/2, which is 0 at 0 and 1/2, we can see that only the 0th derivative is 0 at 0 (the first is -1/2), while at 1/2, the 0th derivative is 0, but the first is 1/2, so the total is 2, and the function makes 2 laps around the origin. =Uncool-

Superdeterminism is a characteristic of several interpretations; I think that the many-worlds interpretation can be seen as superdeterministic in some sense; in any case, the many-worlds interpretation is local and deterministic as well. I did say that the many-worlds interpretation denied determinism, which was wrong. The same is true under any kind of determinism. So TEW has the same failure - the outcomes are already determined by the universe, and need not make any sense. Again, depends on your definition of communication. What would happen if those experiments that you claim differentiate TEW and quantum mechanics agreed with the predictions of quantum mechanics and disagreed with those for TEW? Would you continue to support TEW against the experiments because of your philosophy? Or would you agree that your philosophy was wrong and drop TEW for quantum mechanics? I again have to ask you to show your interpretation of Bell's experiment. What happens with that setup? How is TEW not a local hidden variable theory? It wouldn't be "another reason"; it would be fleshing out your original reason. Earlier, you thought you only wanted to keep locality and determinism; quantum mechanics doesn't violate the combination of the two, but does violate those plus counterfactual definiteness, so your reason is better stated as wanting to keep the combination. In other words, you still only have the one reason, it's just one that now actually excludes quantum mechanics. I am mainly looking into the following sentence: "Because pairs of photons are entangled, giving one a diagonal polarization (rotating its plane of vibration 45 degrees) will cause a complementary polarization of its entangled pair member. " This seems very sketchy to me; it is where "instantaneous communication" seems to appear. My very, very rough guess is that when it says "will cause a complementary polarization of its entangled pair member", it means that the useful basis to look at the entangled pair member in is changed. I'll explain more later after I look into it further. =Uncool-

Uh. No, it doesn't. I highlighted the error - that the supposed "contradiction" was not a contradiction. I pointed out that the reasoning behind the claimed contradiction was that the three observers would see different numbers of the two types of muons at the same time, but that "at the same time" meant different things to the different observers, meaning that there was no such contradiction. Pointing out the logical error is highlighting the error. =Uncool-

I've already shown several to you. Remember superdeterminism? That's one local interpretation. There are also interpretations that are local, but deny determinism, such as the many-worlds interpretation. Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics No, it doesn't, and to claim so would be to severely misunderstand Bell's theorem. Bell's theorem says that it's impossible to construct a local, deterministic interpretation of quantum mechanics under certain assumptions, including that of counterfactual definiteness. Any of those three can be assumed to be false, Note that it explicitly doesn't say that there isn't such an interpretation - just that such an interpretation would be very difficult to understand. Superdeterminism. If you deny counterfactual definiteness, then it is possible to get a local, deterministic interpretation of qm. I'm looking into it. =Uncool-

esbo, have you read my post earlier in this thread?

One thing you learn from relativity is that you cannot have perfect rigidity. In other words, there is no such stick - any physical stick will compress when pushed from one end. =Uncool-

Not quite. You are mixing up the coherence length before the crystal with the coherence length after the crystal. Good, you seem to finally be getting what I'm saying; this is the first sign that you do. Not necessarily. What I think they were doing with this experiment was they were trying to dispute a certain interpretation of quantum mechanics - namely, that of wave packets as "being" the actual particle. The analyzer crystal basically changes the packet itself; if the particle "was" the packet, that would be changing the particle. The point of the experiment was to deliberately "measure the fridge temperature" after "boiling it", in order to show why the interpretation fails. But this is a very tentative interpretation of the reasons they are giving for the experiment, given that I am unable to read the entire paper. You would be wrong, then. There is plenty of quantum weirdness; I acknowledge it freely. I don't acknowledge that this is an example of it. Depending on your definition of "communication", no, it doesn't. As I have shown, there are local interpretations of quantum mechanics, which under most definitions of "communication" do not require instantaneous communication. Then you would again be wrong. You aren't very good as a mind reader; please stop trying. Again you assert your conclusion, and again I request that you stop. Unless you can find an expert on quantum physics who says that this experiment is about reaching backwards in time and into the NI, please stop asserting that that's what quantum mechanics says. =Uncool-

You haven't demonstrated that any of the results show that. You continue to claim it, but have yet to show it. =Uncool-