Travelling faster than light...

[swansont]

Exactly' date=' what post or statement are you referring to as "Pulsoid Garbage"?

 

What statement do you consider as Pseudo-Science?

[/quote']

 

 

You admit in one of your links that it's a philosophy. If you want to discuss it, it should probably happen in pseudoscience, and most definitely in a separate thread than this one.

 

AFAIK incompleteness means there are true statements you can't prove. I don't see how that has any implications for the validity of SR.

[Proof of One]

You admit in one of your links that it's a philosophy.

Yes. And, I understand that there is little difference in Philosophy and Science. You may have noticed that I, also, state:

 

“Conceptualism's foundation is Pulsoid Theory.

 

There is one Universe.

It is perpetual, in equilibrium; and,

a manifestation of the . . . Unified Concept;

 

also,

 

Science, Theology, and Philosophy

are a single discipline, which proclaims the

perpetuity and nexus of Life; such is

 

. . . Conceptualism.”

 

If you want to discuss it, it should probably happen in pseudoscience, and most definitely in a separate thread than this one.

Your logic is difficult to follow. The title of this Thread, which I was discussing until the pejorative comments arose, is: “Travelling faster than light…”; Said Thread topic would seem, conventionally, as borderline metaphysics . . . pseudoscience..

 

As far as “pseudoscience” is concerned, what would more qualify than the ludicrous Big Bang and other Standard Models, all of which are entirely founded on the metaphysical forces that constitute the foundation of academic, Pomo Theoretical Physics?

 

AFAIK incompleteness means there are true statements you can't prove. I don't see how that has any implications for the validity of SR.

The logic of your comment escape me. Are you equating “true” and “can’t prove”?

 

It would seem that mathematical provability would have everything to do with SR; particularly, when the theory itself lacks prima facie logic.

[Klaynos]

As far as “pseudoscience” is concerned' date=' what would more qualify than the ludicrous Big Bang and other Standard Models, all of which are entirely founded on the metaphysical forces that constitute the foundation of academic, Pomo Theoretical Physics?

[/quote']

 

There is significant evidence for both the Big Bang and also for the Standard Model, the fact they have substantial evidence, and at least for the Standard Model more evidence than any other current theory and therefore is not metaphysical.

[Proof of One]

There is significant evidence for both the Big Bang and also for the Standard Model, the fact they have substantial evidence, and at least for the Standard Model more evidence than any other current theory and therefore is not metaphysical.

The “significant evidence” is not the concern of my post.

 

I stated that:

“the ludicrous Big Bang and other Standard Models… are entirely

founded on the metaphysical forces

that constitute the foundation of academic, Pomo Theoretical Physics?”

 

The metaphysics that I am concerned with is the definition of the “forces that constitute the foundation of academic, Pomo Theoretical Physics?”

 

Usually four forces are considered. Occasionally, three or five, depending on the cited source.

 

Regardless, concerning gravity, Feynman stated:

 

The theory of gravitation...(is) not understandable

from the laws of motion...it stands isolated from...

other theories.

 

Gravitation is...not understandable in terms of

other phenomena.

 

Richard P. Feynman [1918-1988]

"QED"

 

Light is described as either a particle or a wave, No description could possible be more dichotomous; the nonlocal photon effect is logically inexplicable, as is all nonlocal phenomena; thus, light qualifies as metaphysical.

 

The strong and weak forces are, admittedly, contrived with no theory other than their metaphysical aura.

 

Some consider Cosmic Inertia as a force that is opposite that of gravity. Cosmic Inertia replaces the Big Bang as the structural force that counters gravity rather than the Big Bang. The Big Bang, which banged only once, cannot explain the observed accelerating, galactic recession.

 

Concerning Standard Models: Where is the logic that explains how “all that energy” got into the atom?; or, What holds said energy within the atom?

 

To conclude that Pomo Theoretical Physics is other than metaphysics would seem the only logical conclusion that a learned person could arrive at. Something like: "The emperor has no clothes . . ."

 

The Big Bang paradigm was roundly ridiculed by Einstein and Sir Fred Hoyle, among many others. The paradigm was adopted, about eight years after Einstein’s death and about 33 years after its introduction, with less supporting evidence than any other Standard Model.

[swansont]

Your logic is difficult to follow. The title of this Thread, which I was discussing until the pejorative comments arose, is: “Travelling faster than light…”; Said Thread topic would seem, conventionally, as borderline metaphysics . . .[/b'] pseudoscience..

 

Yes, but the responses as to what constitutes FTL vs. FTC are based on accepted science.

 

As far as “pseudoscience” is concerned, what would more qualify than the ludicrous Big Bang and other Standard Models, all of which are entirely founded on the metaphysical forces that constitute the foundation of academic, Pomo Theoretical Physics?

 

My dictionary defines Pomo as A group of Native American peoples inhabiting an area of the Coast Ranges of northern California. I am fairly sure you are using a different definition.

 

Anyway, the point is that if you feel Big Bang, et. al, to be ludicrous is a discussion for a separate thread, and in a different section.

 

The logic of your comment escape me. Are you equating “true” and “can’t prove”?

 

It would seem that mathematical provability would have everything to do with SR; particularly' date=' when the theory itself lacks prima facie logic.[/quote']

 

What you say strongly suggests you don't have a clue what is meant by incompleteness. It doesn't mean that the mathematical statements that make up SR can't be proven. And not being "logical" to you is not a hurdle that it must overcome.

[Klaynos]

Proof of One, would you be so good at to give me YOUR deffinition of metaphysical?

[Proof of One]

Proof of One, would you be so good at to give me YOUR definition of metaphysical?

I must carefully limit my responses to your questions; as, there is a fine line when responding to direct questions that concerns remaining on the original topic.

 

Often, it is difficult not to veer into “no man’s land,” as judged by forum admin/moderators, while trying to make an "on-topic” point. After which, the responses, that require responses, continually lead “off-topic” with direct questions, or misstatements; for which, I am acquiring “warning points.”

 

Please, send private messages, until I can determine how, or where, to avoid upsetting the sensibilities of this forum’s admin/moderators.

 

Regarding your requested definition, I use metaphysics in the formal, general context as defined below:

 

“(used with a sing. verb) A priori speculation upon questions that are nanswerable to scientific observation, analysis, or experiment.”

 

Informally, I consider that metaphysics indicates that: a large amount of either religious or secular faith is required to believe a specified proposition.

[Proof of One]

Yes, but the responses as to what constitutes FTL vs. FTC are based on accepted science.

It is this “accepted science” that I question; and, which I often find ludicrous.

 

My dictionary defines Pomo as A group of Native American peoples inhabiting an area of the Coast Ranges of northern California.[/i'] I am fairly sure you are using a different definition.

Your assumption is correct. My dictionary defines Pomo, thus:

 

adj.

1. Postmodern.

2. Postmodernist.

In physics, I consider the Pomo era as roughly from Einstein’s death to the advent of the Hubble Space Telescope (HST).

 

Anyway, the point is that if you feel Big Bang, et. al, to be ludicrous is a discussion for a separate thread, and in a different section.

Agreed.

 

What you say strongly suggests you don't have a clue what is meant by incompleteness. It doesn't mean that the mathematical statements that make up SR can't be proven. And not being "logical" to you is not a hurdle that it must overcome.

You comment, “It doesn't mean that the mathematical statements that make up SR can't be proven.”

 

Such is the exact meaning that I am implying, as I derive such meaning from Gödel's Theorem.

 

I am questioning the logic of SR; not setting a standard for it to “overcome.”

[Locrian]

That word "prove" is being poorly used here. It should just be noted that Goedel's Theorem does not affect the validity of using mathematics to predict observables in any way. Until someone shows otherwise - which they won't, if you know anything about the theorem and physics - then it has no place in a conversation about physics.

[Proof of One]

That word "prove" is being poorly used here. It should just be noted that Goedel's Theorem does not affect the validity of using mathematics to predict observables in any way. Until someone shows otherwise - which they won't, if you know anything about the theorem and physics - then it has no place in a conversation about physics.

Of course, you would be correct if physics did not rely, so heavily, upon mathematics to establish its major premises.

 

Also, physics, often, uses said mathematics, that is affected by Gödel’s Theorem, to interpret the data that is observed.

 

I wonder if physics wouldn't still be at the stage it was at in Democritus' day if it were not for the development of calculus . . . which to this day, has great difficulty with "proof."

[Klaynos]

“(used with a sing. verb) A priori speculation upon questions that are nanswerable to scientific observation' date=' analysis, or experiment.” [/center']

 

Informally, I consider that metaphysics indicates that: a large amount of either religious or secular faith is required to believe a specified proposition.

 

Photon's wave partical duality is answerable to scientific observation, analysis and experiments. So is not metaphysics...

 

I'm going to go back to ignoring this thread now as ones like this normally just annoy me It's nothing personal I'm just being genrally annoyed alot recently...

[Dave]

Moved to pseudoscience. This thread is so far off-topic that it's not even funny.

[Proof of One]

Photon's wave partical duality is answerable to scientific observation, analysis and experiments. So is not metaphysics...

The duality “illusion” does “exist.” It is the interpretation of the observation and scientific method that is metaphysical. There is no such thing as a “particle of light” when the usual definition of a particle is understood.

 

I'm going to go back to ignoring this thread now as ones like this normally just annoy me It's nothing personal I'm just being genrally annoyed alot recently...

Nothing personal taken. Your insight has been enjoyable. And, your willingness to participate, is quite commendable.

[insane_alien]

whats a photon then if not a particle.

[Proof of One]

whats a photon then if not a particle.

Light is a wave. That wave has an internal structure/geometry that is composed of hyper-relativistic oscillations that account for the nonlocal photon effect.

[5614]

Light is a wave. That wave has an internal structure/geometry[/url'] that is composed of hyper-relativistic oscillations that account for the nonlocal photon effect.

And that in certain experiments displays properties of a particle.

 

Similarly we could say that light is only a particle, which moves in a wave like pattern.

[Proof of One]

And that in certain experiments displays properties of a particle.

 

Similarly we could say that light is only a particle' date=' which moves in a wave like pattern.[/quote']That would be a difficult proposition; as it would require light to have mass; as I define a particle.

[insane_alien]

i asked what a phton was not light. photons have been proven to exist. so what do make of that?

[Proof of One]

i asked what a phton was not light. photons have been proven to exist. so what do make of that?

I make of that, that an erroneous impression has been loosed on the impressionable minds of many.

[CPL.Luke]

alright, create an experiment to show that the photon has internal hyperrelativistic (what's that supposed to mean anyway) oscillations.

 

Wave particle duality exists because of the double slit experiment.

[Klaynos]

Ok I fire a SINGLE electron at a double slit, it appears to pass through BOTH slits. Electrons are particles, they have mass, how do you explain this wavelike effect?

 

I fire electrons at a metal plate, it generates a charge, an example of the photo electric effect, this can be show that it is only possible if what is hitting it is quantized particles, how is this possible if light is only a wave?

 

The problem is when talking about quantum physics the terms "wave" and "particle" are not understandable as they are on the macro scale.

[CPL.Luke]

I wish they would just teach the basics of a probability wave and be done with it, thats what it is. It's not "either a wave or a particle" and it isn't both. its a probability wave.

[Proof of One]

I wish they would just teach the basics of a probability wave and be done with it, thats what it is. It's not "either a wave or a particle" and it isn't both. its a probability wave.

I'm in agreement.

 

However, you must define probability.

 

I define probability as a resultant phenomenon from the illusion created by seminal motion's manifestation as ordained by the phenomenon of Triquametric motion.

[Proof of One]

Ok I fire a SINGLE electron at a double slit, it appears to pass through BOTH slits. Electrons are particles, they have mass, how do you explain this wavelike effect?

I understand electrons as a wave phenomenon that morphs at Critical Coalescence to demonstrate the properties of mass; primarily because of the internal resonance that is established at such point of coalescence.

 

I fire electrons at a metal plate, it generates a charge, an example of the photo electric effect, this can be show that it is only possible if what is hitting it is quantized particles, how is this possible if light is only a wave?

First you must understand that “quantized particles” are a metaphysical term in the mind of Pomo, theoretical physicists; and, that a “charge” is only the pulse of a wave; its “sign” is dependent upon whether it is a crest or trough within its system.

 

The problem is when talking about quantum physics the terms "wave" and "particle" are not understandable as they are on the macro scale.

I believe you have made my point regarding metaphysics.

[CPL.Luke]

no he hasn't, he's just saying that on the quantum scale things behave differently.

 

quantized particles is a redundant term, by being called a particle it is quantized. No its not a metaphysical term in physics. if your looking for a metaphysical nature to quantum mechanics then I would look to observation of the probability wave, thats something that everyone really has to come to terms with on their own other than feynman's dictum "shutup and calculate"

 

is there any basis for that pulsoid theory? A REAL BASIS?

 

if it doesn't, your entitled to your belief but we probably won't listen.