Posted by: graemebird | March 13, 2008

Einsteins Legacy/Mr Elliots Uncle.

Sometimes when I was very little, instead of going across the road after primary school, to the Bird/Macquarie citadel……. I’d walk towards the way out of town along Church Road, and I’d come to an old house where an old lady would teach me how to play the piano a little bit.

That old lady was a pretty chubby and hobbitlike old lady and she had a pretty chubby and hobbitlike husband and they lived in a dark and hobbitlike house on the side of a hill but they did have a piano.

Now kids can be cruel. And when you get them together in some numbers they can be even more cruel. And the husband of my piano teacher was the butt of many jokes amongst us neanderthal-like kiddies.

Old people.

I had no use for them at that age. Maybe i was five or six. I think I could play “Lightly Row” with my chubby little fingers. But we never did respect that husband of the piano teacher and we talked about him as if he was some crazy old coot.

Then one day this other old man came to town.

This other old man was a big fat old man and his name was Selwyn Toogood. And Selwyn came with a camera crew and he had this television show called THE MONEY OR THE BAG.

Now I don’t think Mr Elliot won anything on the show THE MONEY OR THE BAG.

He got selected as I remember. Because he whipped everyone else in the initial culling. He whipped them and got all these general knowledge questions right. But I think thereafter that the story was that he would likely have wiped everything , and sorted it out and won prizes with a little luck.

But he missed out on account of some mixup. Perhaps some ’senior moment’ when all is said and done. I don’t know. But I think he missed out on the chance to kick ass. Which it transpired he had a great chance of doing.

I was astonished. This old guy who we had been dissing had been a man of substantial intelligence or at least general knowledge. But then it was mentioned to me that he was the nephew of a famous scientist.

Now this scientist had been dead at least three decades before Mrs Elliot had ever given me a piano lesson.

But one day Mr Elliots uncle may have greater prominence in the kiddies minds, when they think of great scientists, than Albert Einstein now does.

Because the academy was inadequate to Einsteins genius. And we now know that what he turned in was a work-in-progress.

Its a great tragedy really. Because clearly if the people and culture around Einstein had been up to the task, they would have recognised his system as a first draft, and recognised the Lorentz system as a worthy contender, and the development of this science could have continued without getting bloody ridiculous.

But its my contention that it was all doomed in the socialist era in any case.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

There is likely to be a great deal of bitterness and accusations about Einsteins legacy now that his system has proven to be defunct.

I’m not going to be a part of that because I think he did a great job at a young age and was lead astray by the avalaunche of publicity and spontaneous conversions to his system.

But its pretty inevitable, in the fullness of time, that Mr Elliots uncle will be assumed to be the greater scientist. Even now we can see that Mr Elliots uncle was the greatest experimental scientist at least since Sir Isaac Newton.

Advertisements

Responses

  1. Sorry to be pedantic, but I believe the TV program was called ‘It’s in the Bag’. Also yourr entire argument is disjointed, convuluted & irrelevant!:

    You reminise from Pianos to the Hobbit & then refer to Einstein. What exactly are you saying?

    Yeah, so what if he was the nephew of Earnest Rutherford. Are we to believe that obesity is a left wing conspiracy then? On that basis I’m guessing that you are a multi-talented, ivory tinkling, sharp tongued, fleet footed Adonis. Sorry I digress, but what exactly was the relationship between Einstein & Rutherford? Are you saying that, Rutherford’s remuneration was via his nephew’s wife’s honour of instructing some ungrateful fat kid? That can’t be right – you’ve lost me!

  2. No thats right. Thanks for reminding me. I may edit that one day.

    I wasn’t aware that I’d really made an argument on this post. I just had it there at Catallaxy and so I thought I’d post it here.

  3. Rutherford taught and inspired that whole generation of physicists in that early twentieth centurys golden age. “Its in the bag” Goodness me how the memory plays tricks on you.

    Do you remember Mr Elliot? Have I got it right that he was Rutherfords nephew? If I can get Selwyn Toogoods programs name wrong I suppose I could have cocked up the rest of the story.

  4. Oh no, you were right about him being Rutherford’s nephew. I mainly remember the Austin A-80 he drove. Which reminds me; the distance of their house from school required a car ride, not the casual stroll you sugget.

    Despite the details though, I fail to see what your point even was! No one can dispute Rutherford’s influence, but it’s like you’ve clumsily injected another layer to the Leftist legacy. I would worry less about your memory & examine where your heads at. I’m guessing the dominant smell of faeces would precisely indicate your location.

  5. No I used to walk there. Honest injun. You go up past the graveyard. Along Church road. Down the hill. Past Philip Cross’ place. In those days the houses ran out right about there. At the bottom of the hill. And it wasn’t too much further along Church Road and you were there. It was like the first or second house after all the other houses ran out. So it wasn’t all that far. A bit of a hike for a six year old but no real pressure.

    Yeah I can see what you are saying about whats the point of it all. I might wind up wiping this one. It had a point in the context of this ongoing argument we are having at catallaxy.

    You see light-speeds been beaten. Relativity never had much going for it in the first place except as a template for very accurate calculations and predictions. But I maintain the Einsteinian version of it is totally dead.

    So yes I can see how you would wonder what the hell I was on about.

    I was likely thinking about what Geoffrey Blainey wrote in one of my the books of his I have. I may get the quote later. But he was expressing doubt that Einsteins reputation would hold up. He made some observation about us rearranging our ranking of scientists one century to the next.

    It was more on that basis that I’m estimating that people will begin to push up Rutherfords reputation and they will wind up downgrading Einsteins. Perhaps excessively so when they get out of their current denial about his system being dead. I suppose I was trying to echo Blainey and take the longer historical view.

    You think about how hard it would have been for Mr Elliot to have walked up that hill and go all the way to get groceries without a car. Thats a bit like saying you guys wouldn’t need a car. But it was a much shorter walk to your place.

  6. Over here in Australia we have an whole generation that has lost their sense of what science is about. They just go outside. Whet their finger and stick it in the air. And then once they find out which way the wind is blowing they vigourously defend the status quo. It amounts to something of a crisis. Particularly in economics. They just have no clue.

    And for such people Einstein isn’t necessarily the best example of what science is about. Did too much inductively. Did too much in terms of model-of-best-fit. Didn’t spend enough time in the lab. Too many extra unproven assumptions.

    Whereas our guy sorted it all out inductively about the structure of the atom. But he also was a great expermental scientist. It wasn’t all top-heavy on armchair thinking in his case.

  7. Our kids basically practice the cult of personality in every case. They can never think for themselves. They are always relying on Milton Friedman, on the IPCC and so forth.

    They no longer rely on evidence in this country either. Its only sentiment that they rely on and they don’t seem to give a toss about actual evidence.

  8. You must get head aches as your brain is constantly working. You made 3 seperate & wide ranging answers over a 30 minute periopd. Then again, you’ve only concentrated on reserecting a dull point accompanied by an admission of plagirism & a buzz word. Actually I thought you could have got more mileage of ‘The Hobbit’ . (Remember a 6 year old would be in the midst of an adventurous world) Then perhaps the ‘Marathon Man’ could make an appearance. Instead you concede the difficulty of shopping in a tumultous hillock region as a lame after thought. And then we’re subjected to more blather & you conclude with a soliloquy that observes:

    They no longer rely on evidence in this country either. Its only sentiment that they rely on and they don’t seem to give a toss about actual evidence.

    This is conceivably accurate, but especially ironic when you consider that this is from the loudest , yet least empiricist ever.

  9. An admission of plagiarism? What a load of bollocks. Gee dude. Its like you are sensible for awhile and then you just turn nutty. I saw the Blainey observation and knowing that Einsteins system no longer had legs I figured he was more right then he even knew. I may find the quote soon.

    And what a load of crap about the other stuff too. I’m not against empirical evidence. Its just that philosophical schools don’t often practice what they preach, nor do they describe themselves accurately.

    Your average young Empiricist in Australia wouldn’t give a toss that the Einstein system has been proved wrong in the lab. The empirical evidence that lightspeed has been beaten is merely spun endlessly so as to incorporate it into the model with a series of truly pathetic excuses.

  10. In some schools of thought, a hazy sense of demarcation would amount to plagerism pure & sensible, but instead you libertarian types, freely latch on, parasite style, & (wait for it…) AMALGAMATE/ENHANCE the original pretext offered. I stand corrected then your Majesty!

    No, I never said you were against Empiricism, per sa. I’ll write this slowly, you routinely mouth off, regardless of the topic, like an experienced ol’ hand; y-e-t y-o-u a-r-e d-e-v-o-i-d o-f e-x-p-e-r-i-e-n-c-e! Frankly, such misrepresentation is ridiculous & frequently embarrassing!

    You easily identify problems outwardly, but Mr Bird I suggest you correct your own scandolous jokes first!

  11. Well if you keep learning stuff after you leave university you end up learning a lot of stuff by the time you are a bunch older. Thats just the way it is. The key to it is not to be afraid to speculate. But to be fast on your feet updating your ideas when something you see would seem to not gel with the models you’ve built up.

  12. I’m not the least bit devoid of experience. Thats just silly.

  13. I’m not the least bit devoid of experience. Thats just silly.

    While that’s a fabulous theory, but how does an opionated, loud mouth actually compare though? It would be superb if you considered the myriad of views. The fact you have a chronic bias only exacerbates your true ignorance. (By the way, given the current tulmotuos world financial climate, are you still celebrating the genius of George W. Bush OR is that the result of yet another leftist conspiracy?) You routinely dance around promoting yourself as some fully informed intellectual, with a type ‘A’ personality, but basically an average Bloke when actually, you’re an unimaginative, right wing, underachiever. Your omni-expert status; whether it’s history, geography, science or economics is just farcical. Whereupon, I expect you’ll remind me of your diverse & regular reading regimin. Look buddy, I’m reminded more of a quote that goes ‘…opinions are like ass-holes, everyone’s got one…’

    Look, anyone can confine themselves to others opinions, but the actual COAL FACE has credibility.

  14. Its GWB’s failure to exercise his Veto signing arm which is one of the key contributing causes to the current financial trouble. The other being stupidity in monetary policy. So no George is as responsible as anyone else almost for this trouble. The other thing is after successfully taking out the Baathists they left their men in a position of static defense for 5 years and counting at about 1 billion per day. This is of course a disgrace. You either have to win quickly or go home. And this 1 billion a day blood and red ink bill is of course a contributing factor.

    So yeah. Its like I don’t know whats wrong with him. He did a good job for the first two years and its largely been downhill from there.

  15. Yeah, the reception he gets these days in the USA doesn’t at all resemble the glory you envisaged. Actually, the diametric opposite seems to be the prevailing mood. It’s almost as if the concencus, is the reverse to your sense of reality. I wonder, could it be, that you’re full of shit!

    You’ve completely ignored my previous points, about being a opinionated loud mouth & only immersing yourself in the blinkered rhetoric of the Right & instead attempt an impudent excuse to an ancillary question.

    Why aren’t I surprised! Stupid & gutless. If I could, I think you should be sentenced to detension in the REAL world. Instead, thanks to technology-we get you solving world problems.

    Yeah right! Thanks for the humor!

  16. Graeme, what is this drivel all about?

    Apart from the stuff about piano lessons, game shows and uncles, you seem to be saying that Lorentz transformations are an alternative the Einstein’s special relativity

    O contraire, lorentz transformations are the mathematical backbone of special relativity.

    Rutherford I didn’t even recognize in your account, and I don’t think anyone could seriously say that he was a competitor – worthy or not – to Einstein

    • Dude. Lorentz transformations are more or less just a bit of mathematical mucking about.

  17. Not Lorentz transformations. Lorentz relativity. Rutherford will be considered superior to Einstein since Einsteins system is now untenable.

    It ought to have been considered a mere template for doing calculations. It is a theory of velocity absolutism. To develop it he made the velocity of light an absolute metric. The fastest speed in the universe. And then he just stratched everything else to fit the data.

    But the speed of light isn’t the fastest thing there is. So the theory cannot hold and other theories must be developed.

    I can see its an odd post. But I just grafted it over from catallaxy where we have argued about this sort of thing for months with the velocity-absolutists coming up with not a damn thing.

  18. JM you intimate that simply because you are unaware of Rutherford’s legacy, that therefore Einstein’s superior. Yet many would be horrified by your ignorance! I know I am. Drivel my ass, honestly even I understood that inspite of the yokel like scene rustically transmitted by our erstwhile web master, important egghead discoveries aren’t exclusively due to Albert alone. Before you bitch again, perhaps a clever fellow such as yourself, could um.. get off your butt & google!

  19. Dicky B Burke: I am perfectly aware of Rutherfords legacy, I just couldn’t (and still can’t) see what Graeme is going on about.

    I’ve googled Lorentz relativity and at first glance it doesn’t appear to say anything different from SR – but SR says a lot more, so must be the more powerful theory.

    Graeme: “But the speed of light isn’t the fastest thing there is.” Huh? Since when? And please don’t go on about superluminal or non-local quantum effects, while they’ve only been demonstrated since 1982, they’ve been discussed widely since ERP in 1935 and are well accomodated in the modern framework.

    • “I’ve googled Lorentz relativity and at first glance it doesn’t appear to say anything different from SR – but SR says a lot more, so must be the more powerful theory”

      HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

      Go tell Occam you silly prick.

  20. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    1. Superluminal means faster than light. Hence light speed has been beaten. Hence the theory is untenable.

    2. ” but SR says a lot more, so must be the more powerful theory.” Lorentz relativity has to be considered superior since it can make the same predictions but with less arbitrary assumptions.

    3. To “discuss” something is not to change the laws of physics. Particularly when the discussion amounts to a lot of wankery making excuses for denying the obvious.

    You have basically admitted yourself that you knew there were matters superluminal. Superluminal means faster than light. That means that Einstein was wrong.

  21. Quantum effects are an obvious gyp. Quantum effects are proof that there is propagation faster than light. Quantum theory was built up under the dogma that this is not so.

    I’m not competent to rework quantum theory on the basis that we accept faster than light propagation as the explanation for quantum effects. However I am competent to trash the theory for going down the wrong track. Comparative paradigms is really what I do.

  22. Graeme, the superluminal, non-local (and also the many worlds) interpretations of QM are *not*, repeat not disproofs of SR. They are also not “comparative” paradigms (whatever the hell that is supposed to mean – aren’t paradigms by definition “alternatives?)

    But from googling I can see that many people over-interpret both QM and LR to “disprove” SR.

    Those sites are pseudo-science.

    If you regard debates in physics as “wankery … denying the obvious” perhaps you should steer clear of expressing an opinion, particularly as you admit to “not [being] competent to rework quantum theory [to work with] faster than light propagation” (It’s not really propagation anyway, it’s collapse of the wave function)

  23. Yes they ARE repeat ARE disproofs.. And they are total disproofs. All that chatter you hear is just a series of pathetic excuses and obviously so.

  24. Not only are they TOTAL disproofs. They are OBVIOUS disproofs repeat OBVIOUS disproofs. And their totality and obviousness and total-obviousness is manifest.

    Now tell me where you have come off the beam.

    Its easy to disprove stuff. Somewhat harder to find a comprehensive replacement. But thats just what you would expect.

    Now get it right and stop being silly.

  25. “(It’s not really propagation anyway, it’s collapse of the wave function)”

    Do you want to explain that and nail it down in your own words. Because I put it to you that its a confession.

  26. Ok, for the sake of argument, let me get this right. QM (via EPR) disproves SR, so you then propose LR – a classically based theory as an alternative? You’re using non-classical QM to prove classical LR? Have I got that right?

    And then you’re using Alain Aspect (and Bell) – experiments in the field that prove QM and disprove local hidden variables (and during the last year non-local hidden variables as well) to prove LR, which requires/implies local hidden variables? Is that the gist of it?

  27. LR is only a provisional alternative. It can do the job for the moment without the arbitrary and false assumptions.

    There is no spooky action at a distance. Could never be. Extra dimensions ought not be invoked until all other alternatives are exhausted.

    But don’t put it on me man. Justify the dogma if you think you can.

  28. Graeme

    QM is *not* incompatible with SR. There are several formulations of SR that are relativistic (Yang-Mills for example). It is only general relativity that we can’t reconcile with QM. QM is proven to a very high precision. It is the most exact theory of all time (but then so is GR)

    LR belongs to a class of theories which require local hidden variables – a class disproven by many EPR/Bell experiments now. It is not provisional, it is invalid.

    You are either wrong or a genius, but since you admit you can’t formulate QM in superluminal terms (something I can’t do either), my best assumption is that you are wrong.

  29. Sorry, that should have read “There are several formulations of QM that are …”

  30. BTW – there are formulations of QM that include superluminal particles (google tachyon) but they cannot transfer information, which is what is required to resolve Bell’s formulation of EPR and validate your stance.

    You’re out of luck on this one.

  31. Tachyons are obvious crap. You couldn’t find a scintilla of evidence for them in a blue fit.

    Don’t talk to me about Tachyons unless you can find evidence for them.

    We don’t need to fantasise to break light-speed. It was an arbitrary limitation from the start.

    Alsways these dumb bastards throw up the non-existent Tachyon as a stalling tactic.

    I never said that QM was incompatible with SR.

    QM was FORMULATED with the light-speed constraint in mind.

    They are both crap and QM needs to be reworked.

    What you have to do is find evidence for the paradigms.

  32. Tachyons have not been observed, very true.

    “[lightspeed] was an arbitrary limitation from the start”. So why if there are no observations to support faster-than-light activity is it “arbitrary”. If we actually observe it as a real limit in the physical world, confirming theory, shouldn’t we regard it as a “real” limit?

    “They are both crap and QM needs to be reworked.”

    No physical evidence for faster-than-light stuff, why does a superbly well confirmed theory need to be reworked? How would we do that without testable predictions?

    “What you have to do is find evidence for the paradigms”

    Ahhh, paradigms are mental perspectives are they not? Ways of looking at the world, rather than the way the world really is? How do I find evidence for this one? Dissect your brain?

  33. Well now you’ve already started lying. You mentioned SUPERLUMINAL activities before. You obviously know about quantum effects.

    So you’ve got to cut out the lying or you won’t be able to think straight.

  34. Right.

    Now that we know that light-speed has been broken… Now that we know you are lying when you imply that you do not know this… Now that we know all this we say to ourselves….

    Is light-speed the fastest speed anything can go?

    The answer is NO.

    Then we ask ourselves if Special Relativity is viable once the light-speed limit is beaten.

    Well yes it is untenable and so the matter is resolved.

  35. “No physical evidence for faster-than-light stuff, why does a superbly well confirmed theory need to be reworked? How would we do that without testable predictions?”

    Far from being superbly confirmed it is entirely refuted. As we have seen.

    You have simply got to apply the laws of human reason to all situations without fear or favour.

  36. What goes faster than light, Graeme? Tachyons perhaps? That “obvious crap” that has never been observed?

    So how has light speed been broken?

  37. You’ve already told me about superluminal phenomenon. You’ve already confessed you know about quantum effects. So you’ve started lying again. If you don’t lie the conclusion becomes obvious.

    Gravity propagates much faster than the speed of light and obviously so.

    We will see a litany of bad excuses to stick up for a blatantly refuted set of ideas.

  38. “Gravity propagates much faster” Spooky action at a distance. Something we’re trying to rid of I think.

    Or did you have some other superluminal phenomenon in mind?

  39. Graeme

    Let’s recap (I need to get to bed, work t/row)

    You’re unhappy with SR and QM, so propose LR a classical theory requiring local hidden variables – things we can’t see and haven’t found yet – representing a hidden but ultimately discernable reality.

    In 1935 EPR questioned QM using a thought experiment suggesting that hidden local variables – ie. a hidden but discernable relatility – must exist.

    In 1964 Bell proved that if ‘entanglement’ exists in the real world, there can be *no* hidden reality.

    Aspect demonstrated entanglement in 1982, there is no hidden reality.

    There are only three ways out:

    1. superluminal information transfer. Never observed, and no-one can find a theory, any theory that includes it. Only tachyons have been proposed, but they don’t transfer information and have never been observed.

    2. non-locality. A form of ‘spooky action at a distance’ but well explained by QM, a very successful theory, in all its common formulations. It’s just a bit difficult to get your head around it.

    3. many-worlds. An alternative form of QM, but one which – you being a practical man – would make your head explode.

    So, take your choice. Is it (2) or is it (3).

  40. Superluminal speed has been observed. You are lying.

    QM effects are superluminal. As are other experiments. And the information transfer business was a feeble excuse, is irrelevant, and in any case has been broken to boot.

    Now what we have to do is simply stop you from lying so that you can talk sense.

    You didn’t answer this one:

    “(It’s not really propagation anyway, it’s collapse of the wave function)”

    I put it to you that this means you are lying again. If you explained this in full we would see that you are lying again.

    Gravity isn’t spooky action at a distance since there is no such thing. But we know it propagates much faster than light. Or else the galaxies would unravel and the stars pull apart in all directions.

    Also the earth would get substantially further from the sun every year.

  41. “1. superluminal information transfer. Never observed, and no-one can find a theory, any theory that includes it. Only tachyons have been proposed, but they don’t transfer information and have never been observed.”

    Observed constantly in quantum effects. The information or something else must be transferred in the space between the two particles. Remembering always that this information business was a feeble excuse.

    “2. non-locality. A form of ’spooky action at a distance’ but well explained by QM, a very successful theory, in all its common formulations. It’s just a bit difficult to get your head around it.”

    There is no spooky action at a distance. The claim was made for QM simply to dogmatically keep it in line with SR.

  42. There are no such thing as tachyons so forget about that crap. They are just there as a “LOOK OVER THERE” technique.

  43. “Superluminal speed has been observed.”

    Where? When?

    “Gravity isn’t spooky action …”

    Gravity is kinda out-of-bounds in this conversation. Neither SR nor QM cover gravity. And it is ‘spooky action’ in classical formulations.

    “Observed constantly in quantum effects. ”

    Examples?

    “There is no spooky action at a distance.”

    Refutations? Of non-locality? You end up with many-worlds.

    “The claim was made for QM simply to dogmatically keep it in line with SR.”

    Uh. No. Einstein made this reference in EPR as a reductio absurdum argument to refute QM, not to save it.

  44. Graeme

    You have painted yourself into a corner using your own ignorance.

    You claim Rutherford as superior to Einstein by insisting that “Lorentzian Relativity” is superior to Special Relativity because it allows faster-than-light (‘superluminal’) “propagation” (although what Rutherford has to do with Lorentz is beyond me)

    You then go on and say that Quantum Mechanics is rubbish because it assumes c as a limit. But LR also assumes c as a limit, it just can’t be reconciled with QM whereas SR can.

    You insist on superluminal “propagation”, but refuse to accept the very constructs – tachyons – than would enable it to exist.

    You despise ‘spooky action’ yet that is exactly what superluminal “propagation” is.

    You despise Einstein yet Einstein made the only really serious attack on QM.

    You despise SR yet Einstein’s attack relied on SR forbidding superluminal propagation.

    You despise QM but use ‘quantum effects’ as an example of superluminal action.

    You can put forward no examples.

    The very fact that you do not understand my use of the common-as-muck phrase ‘collapse of the wave function’ demonstrates you have absolutely no understanding of this topic whatsoever.

    You are clearly completely unfamiliar with the history of SR, QM and entanglement (my posting at 11:14 gives an ok good starting point). I doubt you’ve ever heard of this subject before.

    Lastly you claim that gravity propagates much faster than light – a purely classical interpretation overturned by General Relativity – as an example of superluminal propagation or ‘spooky action’, the very thing you deny exists. General Relativity states the propagation speed of gravity as equal to that of light. This has been confirmed by recent observations. I’ll leave the explanation of why this doesn’t mean galaxies will fly apart or the earth get ‘substantially’ further from the sun every year, as an exercise for you to complete in your research. (Hint. GR is not a classical theory)

    You keep using terms – ‘gravity’, ‘superluminal’, ‘relativity’, ‘speed of light’, ‘tachyon’, ‘quantum’ – but you clearly have absolutely no idea what they mean.

    Or if you think you do, then I’m afraid they don’t mean what you think they do.

    I suspect you are simply taking terms introduced by your interlocers (such as me) and introducing them into your own contrary and inflametary statements as a means to drum up traffic for your site by keeping the conversation going.

    Chucking the word ‘liar’ into every second paragraph might inflame many people into providing you with the smidgen of knowledge you’ll need to impress at your next piss-up, but not me.

    I’m terminating this conversation.

    Your post is drivel, your responses are gibberish and you are a fraud.

  45. No no you’ve lost the plot. Try and concentrate on one point at the timie because this shitrain of nonsense… Well I cannot pick up after you.

    See look at this:

    You have painted yourself into a corner NO I HAVEN’T using your own ignorance. I’M NOT IGNORANT YOU ARE LYING.

    You claim Rutherford as superior to Einstein by insisting that “Lorentzian Relativity” is superior to Special Relativity because it allows faster-than-light (’superluminal’) “propagation” (although what Rutherford has to do with Lorentz is beyond me)

    I NEVER WENT THROUGH ANY LINE OF REASONING COMPARABLE TO THIS EVER.

    So its just continual bullshit and no evidence.

    Now can you find some evidence. But don’t go in for this rolling textual diarrhea where you meander from one point to another putting words in my mouth as you go. Because when you do that you make it impossible to clean up after you.

    And at the same time you fool yourself into thinking you have made a substantial point. Which you haven’t.

    Now where is your evidence for all this spooky-Jive. Its not as if anyones seen a Tachyon, perceived warping space, found any evidence whatsoever for anything as ludicrous as space-time, or resolved all these many manifestation of superluminal speed.

    So go again and try and come up with valid reasoning.

  46. “Gravity is kinda out-of-bounds in this conversation. Neither SR nor QM cover gravity. And it is ’spooky action’ in classical formulations.”

    No its not.

    Quantum effects propagate faster than light. For you to pretend that you don’t know this is just you lying. Gravity propagates much faster than light. For you to rule gravity out of the discussion is pathetic.

    So far only lying on your side of the argument.

  47. “Michael Brooks: Around five years ago a researcher called Nicolas Gisin performed a strange experiment in the mountains of Switzerland. He and his team sent million of photons, the quantum particles of light, whizzing through optical fibres between two villages 11 kilometres apart. The photons travelled at the speed of light which, according to Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, is supposed to be the fastest anything can move through the universe. However, the photons were connected via a phenomenon called quantum entanglement, a strange almost telepathic link that allows particles to influence each other’s properties. Gisin measured how fast that influence travelled and clocked it at least 10 million times the speed of light.”

    The take-home story is:

    “Gisin measured how fast that influence travelled and clocked it at least 10 million times the speed of light.”

    The “Science Show” transcript then goes on to incorporate these QM fantasy-voodoo ideas into it. But we just want the facts. Knowing that when QM was formulated the light-speed limit was dogmatically adhered to we see that there was no reason to adhere to this arbitrary stipulation.

    Above we see light-speed has been broken. Not just broken but smashed by at least 5 orders of magnitude. 5 orders of magnitude minimum.

    When we are talking gravity…… estimates come in as 2 billion times the speed of light MINIMUM.

    So we know that the speed of light is broken second-in second-out. But since QM was formulated to dissalow this in theory, it just fills in the gaps with voodoo.

    This is a fundamental denial of the scientific method. Since science is supposed to eliminate the voodoo.

    So no spooky action at a distance. No arbitrary assumptions.

  48. Graeme

    “Gisin measured how fast that influence travelled and clocked it at least 10 million times the speed of light.”

    Once more, I fully understand entanglement (well, maybe not fully, but certainly much better than you do). Trust me, this does not mean that light speed has been broken. Entanglement experiments, however are frequently described that way in popular science shows. Voodoo descriptions used in TV shows to make the audience go “woo” are not evidence of your ideas.

    “gravity…… estimates come in as 2 billion times”

    Only for classical (ie. Newtonian) gravity. GR gives c. Latest observations – observations of the real world – show it propagates between 0.8 and 1.2 of c.

  49. Of course it means light-speed has been broken.

    Lets go over it again you idiot. The concept of entanglement was invented when the light-speed limit was considered undeniable dogma. But its unscience to simply patch up theory with voodoo.

    Had there been no velocity-absolutist dogma on the go, entanglement would have been rightly considered proof for very fast movement. In this case at least 10 million times the speed of light. In the case of gravity at least 2 billion times the speed of light.

    It is unscience of you to be trying to prove dogma by reference to dogma. To try and prove the paradigm by reference only to itself. When it is that paradigm which is under review.

  50. What possible use could it have been for you to claim that GR says that gravity moves at c? That is the disputed dogma. I already knew that this was the arbitrary claim.

    In fact gravity moves so fast it has to be at least 2 billion c. Because otherwise all known orbits would be degrading noticeably.

    So you are back to the irrationality of attempting to prove dogma by the restating of that dogma.

    Like talking to a protestant schismatic. I say prove to me that the bible is all true and the word of God. So he says “It is written……..”

    Thats the irrationality you have confronted me with. A paradigm can only be proved by convergent evidence. Not by reference to itself.

  51. “The concept of entanglement was invented when the light-speed limit”

    No it was invented (sort of) by Einstein to disprove quantum physics, but it turns out to be a real observable effect, so QM is a true description of the world

    “entanglement would have been rightly considered proof for very fast movement”

    Movement of what? What’s moving? Nothing moves at all apart from the photons themselves and they move at the speed of light, not 10 billion times faster.

    “gravity at least 2 billion times the speed of light.”

    An artifact of the mathematical formulation, not a real effect. In GR, the same data produces a speed equal to that of light.

    Nothing has been observed to move faster than light. Nothing. That’s not dogma, that’s observable reality.

    Stop paying attention to pseudo-science and TV woo-woo.

  52. Graeme

    You do realize that you’re contesting 2 of the 3 most verified theories in the history of science here? Wanna throw in evolution as well?

    I’m an auto-dictat on that one as I haven’t formally studied it. You might have a chance of making it 1 out of 3

    Not.

  53. They aren’t verified at all.

    Go ahead and verify them. If they were verified you would have made a valid point by now.

  54. Don’t tell me “NO” when you are lying.

    I must restate:

    “The concept of entanglement was invented when the light-speed limit was considered undeniable dogma.”

    No don’t claim thats not right when it is in fact right. The observations behind this theory are observations of the breaking of light-speed.

    We are just going to have to go over it again:

    “Gisin measured how fast that influence travelled and clocked it at least 10 million times the speed of light.”

    NOW STOP BEING IRRATIONAL. A PARADIGM CAN ONLY BE PROVEN BY CONVERGENT VERIFICATION. NOT BY REFERENCE TO ITSELF.

  55. Graeme

    I made my points at 10.19

    Respond to them if you wish, don’t just reiterate your mistaken understanding

  56. You didn’t make any valid points. You are lying.

    Lets go again. We are simply going to have to restate until you acknowledge the basic rightness of what I am saying.

    “The concept of entanglement was invented when the light-speed limit was considered undeniable dogma.”

    Now don’t claim thats not right when it is in fact right. The observations behind this theory are observations of the breaking of light-speed.

  57. Oh sorry, I stand corrected J.M.

    But really I neither have the time or inclination to dissect the thrust of your arguement with Birdy. I can’t believe what geeks you both are though.

    For shame!

  58. There is nothing mistaken about my understading.

    Once again. The observations behind this theory are observations of the breaking of light-speed.

    To say otherwise is simply to lie.

  59. “Nothing has been observed to move faster than light. Nothing. That’s not dogma, that’s observable reality.”

    No thats lying:

    “Gisin measured how fast that influence travelled and clocked it at least 10 million times the speed of light.”

    And on top of that gravity must propigate at least as fast as 2 billion times the speed of light or else the orbits would degrade.

  60. Actually light-speed is routinely beaten and not just by Gisin. The experiments are legion. You know about them also and you are simply lying.

    The whole discussioni relies on you lying. Experiments sending light through ceasium crystals beat light-speed. Also an experiment bouncing a microwave off a mirror.

    Ideologues know all about this but when you debate them they just lie.

    Just like global warming fanatics the whole thing is based on relentless lying and feeble excuses.

  61. Graeme:

    In an entanglement experiment – like Gisin’s – what moves? And at what speed?

    I say the photons and only the photons at the speed of light.

    You?

  62. Dicky B. Burke Says:

    “Oh sorry, I stand corrected J.M.”

    No problem, don’t worry about it. Glad you’re enjoying it.

  63. We don’t know what it is that moves. We do know that something moves between the two entangled particles. Thats obvious enough.

    We have a minimum speed. We don’t have a maximum speed. But our best guess would have to be that whatever stream of particles is moving between the two photons, they wouild be moving at far faster than the minimum speed given.

    It would be way too conincidental for whatever stream of particles, to be able to maintain the relationship, to be moving between the two photons at only that minimum speed. So our starting point is that the speed is far fast then 10,000,000 times the speed of light.

    Now take the minimum viable speed for gravity. People who have calculated this minimum speed say it 2 billion times the speed of light. Once again we would expect it to be far faster than the minimum.

    But lets say we have a stream of many millions of these superfast, supertiny particles moving between the two photons. If the photons are only a few kilometres away from eachother. And only moving at the speed a light. A stream of many millions of supertiny particles moving between the two photons at 2 billion times to the speed of light…….

    ….. Well to use personification for just a moment….. It would seem to the super-tiny particles that the two photons were basically standing still. Hence it would be very easy for the relationship to be maintained and nothing spooky about it.

    SO WHAT WAS SPOOKY BECOMES PROSAIC AND THEREFORE PLAUSIBLE.

    Now this is of course all speculative. Whats not speculative is the idea that we must dispense with all notions of spooky action at a distance. Because any subset of a theory based on such an idea………. well that subset is not science but a pathetic excuse.

  64. Graeme: “we have a stream of many millions of these superfast, supertiny particles moving between the two photons”

    What particles? We’ve never observed anything like this. The only alternative is a magic pixie (cf Maxwell’s Demon) carrying her silver hammer who, when I measure photon A kicks off for photon B at an incredibly high faster-than-faster-than-light speed, catches up with photon B, takes a quick look at the second detector and gives photon B a belt to make the experiment come out right.

    Trouble is we would either see the pixie kick off at photon A (her hammer affects photon B remember, so her kick has to affect photon A), or if she’s really magic we would see the cloud of pixie dust as she went past. We don’t see any of that.

    All of which is just a way of saying that there are *very* serious objections to the sort of ‘realistic’ argument that you’re making here. And those objections – apart from a few corner cases – have been proven to be valid by experiment. The very experiments – such as Gisin’s – that you quote so freely. Take a look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_Paradox about 1/2 way down “Bells inequality”

    QM is non-intuititve. Intuitive notions grounded in our physical experience as humans are not a guide.

    Yes it is hard to understand (I oughta know), yes it is wacky and mind mending (again, I oughta know), but as Richard Feynman once said “Anyone who says they understand quantum mechanics, hasn’t understood it at all”

    We are in the same position as Newton when he first had to use ‘instantaneous action at a distance’ (what you call ‘the speed of gravity is 2b times that of light’) to make his gravitation model work. He hated it, and so did everyone else.

    We hate non-intuitive notions that we can’t understand, but the model works so we just put our head down and get on with it. Eventually Einstein comes along and says ‘no gravity propagates at the speed of light, and this extra bit explains why galaxies don’t fly apart’

    At that point, we say “well that clears that up” and go back to using the same old model unless faced with some situation where we have to use the newer model. We don’t unwind hundreds of years of accumulated knowledge in favor of crackpot “provisional” theories that are “good enough”. Because they aren’t good enough, they don’t work at all.

    QM is weird. Deal with it.

    On the other hand, if you happen to know the magic pixie personally and can explain how she does her work, a Nobel prize and our eternal gratitude awaits you.

    But I know you’ll wave your newspaper article and demand to know why Gisin says 10M x c. So let’s eavesdrop on the sub-editor and science reporter:

    ScRep: “This guy at CERN has proven his non-realistic theory of physics”

    SubEd: “Some guy’s got an unrealistic theory? That’s not news, they’re all unrealistic – what is he a crackpot?”

    ScRep: “Ok, how about faster-than-light?”

    SubEd: “You got me, we’ll run it page 1 in the science section with a feeder on page 5 of the main”

    You see, these experiments can always be recast in terms of the magic pixie, but it doesn’t mean she exists. It just sells newspapers (and is easier to explain intuitively to some when getting grant money). The Magic Pixie (superluminal) doesn’t exist but she is very sexy.

    Finally, yes Rutherford was a great scientist, and a fantastic experimentalist. His model of the atom was a very successful stepping stone to our current understanding, but going back to it isn’t going to help at all.

  65. BTW – you said this discussion started at Catallaxy? Have you got a url for that as I can’t find it.

  66. QM isn’t weird. Its rubbish and without foundation. And example of what happens when you keep on building one theory upon another without applying Occams razor.

    There is not nor ever was such a thing as spooky action at a distance.

  67. “What particles? We’ve never observed anything like this. ”

    Currently many particles are inferred indirectrly via their effects. Nothing new there.

  68. Graeme

    You’re being slow on the uptake.

    Magic Pixie = metaphor for “a stream of many millions of these superfast, supertiny particles moving between the two photons”. Kick/hammer = effect on photons. Pixie dust = radiation/whatever while in flight

    Now that metaphor can be taken further to demonstrate all sorts of nasty anomolies like time travel, failure of causality (ie. events occuring before their causes) etc.

    That’s why one believes in it.

    We deny faster-than-light “streams of many millions of superfast, supertiny particles” for a number of reasons:
    * we never see the kicks/hammers or pixie dust or any effects at all
    * there is no place and no need for unknown particles in the standard model
    * they cause all sorts of contradictions and problems just in the example you’ve chosen alone
    * they lead to a hell of lot of trouble in just about every other area of physics

    Contrawise, we use QM and GR because they have very solid experimental and conceptual foundations, and what’s more, they work.

    That catalaxy link?

  69. No I’m not slow on the uptake.

    This is how you leftwingers operate. Now you are talking about pixies. But I never talked about pixies. We have magnets and they have fields. And we have to assume that it is small particles creating these fields.

    So Magnetism isn’t spooky action at a distance. Since what its all about is a field of small particles. Now we don’t know if this is also the case with entanglement. But thats the obvious assumption. Whereas QM, as brilliantly conceived as it may be….. as useful a predictive model as it might be… the fact is its too many pixies, too many fairies at the bottom of the garden, too much Buddha, and the science has gone out the window.

    Its not for me to figure out from the armchair what the reality is. As I pointed out its very much easier to find stuff that is itself untenable than to find out what it is that ought to replace the untenable stuff.

    I myself would just for the moment take stuff “off-the-shelf” (as it were) without pretensions to the idea that the more plausible CURRENT theories will turn out to be revealed truth.

    The main thing is that sound predictions are not good enough for a model. Necessary but not sufficient. The entire multi-century process of science is to get rid of the voodoo. Whats gone wrong with twentieth century cosmology/high physics is that this process has been reversed. And instead of doing the hard yards to keep solving the mysteries they are inventing mysteries that were never there in the first place.

  70. Good grief, what is it now? Politically correct physics?

    “This is how you leftwingers operate. ”

    What would you prefer? Good old fashioned white picket fence physics?

    Get a life Graeme. I have given you a reasonable explanation of a subject (EPR) that I happen to know fairly well. There is no politics involved, nor could there be. It’s physics for heavens sake, not economic policy.

    The fact is you are trying to defend pseudo-science (speeds faster than the speed of light)

    Secondly, if you knew anything about science at all you would’ve heard of Maxwell’s Daemon – a thought experiment used by James Clark Maxwell to make an argument about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (you’ve heard of that, no?) See here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_demon

    Maxwell didn’t care anything about the details of the mechanism, only it’s properties, so he used the metaphor of a daemon who executed the properties and processes he was describing.

    His argument is much respected, loved and appreciated in the physics community and every now and again someone will make an argument using something similar – like pixies. The aim is to focus on the properties not details (like “superfast, superlight, unseen particles”) so that the audience can understand the argument itself (or in my case, the objection) rather than being bamboozled by new, arbitrary and probably hopelessly confused concepts (like “superfast, superlight, unseen particles”).

    These metaphors are hard to come up with, because rarely does the metaphor contain enough of the essential properties you need, so if you can do it successfully there’s a little bit of extra kudos attached (I’m kinda astonished that this one came to me – it’s the first time I’ve ever managed to do it) .

    Because it doesn’t matter if the mechanism is previously unknown superfast particles, pixies or paris-hilton rays from the Andromeda galaxy – your argument (or rather your hopeless, doomed meandering search for truth ex principia from “the laws of human reason” or whatever other nonsense axiom you choose) is …. WRONG.

    Please do some reading, there’s a lot of layman-level material around on this – I pointed you at some.

    Now some nitpicks.

    “Its not for me to figure out from the armchair what the reality is”

    Yes it is Graeme, yes it is. You got the idea, you make the case, you back it up. Einstein was a low level clerk in 1905 when he published his 4 famous papers (only one of which was SR – do you know the others? No? Got a bit of reading to do then haven’t you). He hadn’t even been admitted to university.

    “too much Buddha” You’re confusing me with Fritjov Capra who wrote a very popular, but very misleading book about 30 years ago equating certain elements of mysticism with QM. He was wrong too.

    “revealed truth.” That’s your standard is it? Adherence to the elements of Christain faith? C’mon

    “The main thing is that sound predictions are not good enough for a model.”

    Yes they are, provided by ‘sound’ you mean both true to observation and a model consistent with other ‘sound’ theories.

    “The entire multi-century process of science is to get rid of the voodoo.”

    Whose voodoo? Yours? No, the process of science is to incrementally get ever closer to the truth regardless of what it is.

    “instead of doing the hard yards to keep solving the mysteries they are inventing mysteries that were never there in the first place.”

    Wrong, those mysteries were most certainly there – the precession of the perihelion of Mercury, the photoelectric effect, the missing aether, the inadequacy of the Rutherford model of the atom, Newton’s hated ‘action at a distance’. Einstein and QM helped us with them all. They just raised new questions which we will go on to solve in the same old way.

    Stay out of physics Graeme, you know SFA about it, and are incapable of being taught.

  71. Oh, one last very egregious one:

    “We have magnets and they have fields. And we have to assume that it is small particles creating these fields.”

    Bzzt. Magnetic fields are produced by the movement of electrically charged particles, not little ‘magnetic’ particles. Quite ordinary 19th century physics, discovered by Faraday in 1831 well before Rutherford.

    The particles which you ‘assume’ – magnetic monopoles – are only hypothesed, have never been found and probably don’t exist.

    Sorry, and another:

    “Now we don’t know if this is also the case with entanglement. But thats the obvious assumption.”

    No it’s not an obvious assumption at all. Entanglement will probably fall out of the cracks once we get to the unification of gravity and quantum physics – but until then we very DEFINITELY know it has nothing to do with particles.

  72. You don’t have a point.

    You have taken the religious fundamentalist point of view of TRYING TO SHOW THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE BIBLE WITH REFERENCE TO THE BIBLE.

    But we only get rightful certitude from CONVERGENT VERIFICATION.

    And when it came down to it you could not come up with any killer-argument or killer-evidence.

    I’m not running down the brilliant mathematicians (mainly) and the handful of the early super-brilliant physicists who put these models together.

    These are good models and useful models and useful predictive models and it was magnificent that they acheived this.

    ITS AMAZING WHAT THE KIDS WERE ABLE TO DO.

    Its out attitude towards these models that is at fault. They are a first draft. They are NOT revealed truth.

    Nor did the brilliance of the people who derived these brilliant models make them the best people to see just how the thinking ought to have evolved on the multi-decadal level.

    Now we have got to get away from this cult of personality. We have to get away from this idea that because a person is manifestly brilliant in some areas that they are an authority in all areas.

    These guys were the right guys to develop the theories. They weren’t necessarily the right guys to exercise stewardship over the evolution of the academy and in any case they did not get to do so.

    Because in the taxeating age stewardship was taken over by the stolen money and the career science-politicians.

  73. “But we only get rightful certitude from CONVERGENT VERIFICATION.”

    You keep using this term of your own invention. If you mean by conformance to experimental results, fine, but if something else forget it.

    “And when it came down to it you could not come up with any killer-argument or killer-evidence.”

    Yes I did, many actually, you just don’t recognize them.

    ” They weren’t necessarily the right guys to exercise stewardship over the evolution of the academy and in any case they did not get to do so.”

    So if they didn’t get to do so (a somewhat ahistorical statement, but I’ll let it slide for the sake of argument), what’s your complaint?

    “Because in the taxeating age stewardship was taken over by the stolen money and the career science-politicians.”

    Oh, I see. Politically correct science.

    You’re pathetic.

  74. You really don’t know anything do you:

    “I’m not running down the brilliant mathematicians (mainly)”

    Mainly? Earth to Graeme. Mathematicians and physicists don’t get on very well because they think in different modes.

    “ITS AMAZING WHAT THE KIDS WERE ABLE TO DO.”

    Kids? Were? The people engaged in this – then and now – are grown adults with many years of education and experience. They are not kids, and they’re still at it.

    This is physics we’re talking about, not some bunch of skateboarding hooligans in CA working on the latest ‘cool’ website.

    You have some very serious misunderstandings going on in your mind. ‘bats in the belfrey’ I believe was the technical term of art during the 20th century.

  75. No no. We only get rightful certitude from CONVERGENT VERIFICATION and thats just a fact.

    Here’s my essay for beginners on the matter:

    https://graemebird.wordpress.com/2006/05/03/deductive-bivalent-exactitude-versus-rightful-certitude/

  76. I keep hoping that one day we will all wake up and discover that GMB has been one big April fool’s day prank.

    We live in hope.

  77. Lets have some sort of evidence or argument Pingu.

  78. The current crop may as well be skateboarding lunatics.

    At least that way they wouldn’t be putting about the baseless nonsense that they do.

    Think of this thread. You cannot find even the slightest evidence for the mainstream view. No evidence for the light-speed limit. And so forth.

    This is a situation where Rainman-like mathematicians have taken over and are pretending to be natural philosophers.

    I’ll give you a shot.

    Try and prove that there is such a thing as a “singularity”.

    Its a daft idea and not even the slightest scintilla of evidence for it.

    But prove it via convergent verification.

    You won’t be able to do it and in fact the entire corpus rests on this self-same-sort of baselesness.

  79. “Try and prove that there is such a thing as a “singularity”.”

    In what sense, mathematically? If so, you’re a moron.

    Physically? I’ll give you a hint, physicists don’t believe in the reality of ‘singularities’, it’s just shorthand for ‘bloody small, wonder what happens in there’

    Graham, apes do so read physics, they just don’t understand it. Now let me correct a on a couple of things, OK?. ‘revealed truth’ is not the objective of science; “bi-valent deductive exactitude” is not a meaningful phrase, convergent verification is not a scientifically valid method, it’s gibberish; and Josephus was too in the Bible – the Latin ones – how the hell do you think his work survived the book burning of the early Christians?

    Those are mistakes Graham, and I didn’t even have to look them up.

    Get back to the seminary and stop running interference on those of us with real knowledge and real lives.

  80. No NOT!!!! mathematically you idiot.

    Lets go over it again.

    Try and prove that there is such a thing as a singularity.

    Now don’t fuck it up this time.

    GO!!!!

  81. No you have NOT identified any mistakes of mine. Now don’t be a fuckhead and lets see some evidence for such a thing as a singularity.

    You are such a moron you don’t even appear to have a concept of REALITY.

  82. Graeme

    What is it about the phrase “physicists don’t believe in the reality of ’singularities’” that you don’t understand?

    Why should I prove something physicists don’t actually believe in?

    To satisfy you? I think not.

  83. Nice to say you’re having fun, JM.

    Think of GMB as shooting fish in a barrell after a hard days’ work.

  84. Thanks Jason, I don’t think I’ve have had so much fun in years.

  85. Well don’t clog up my blog having “fun”.

    How about coming up with an argument you stupid jerk.

  86. No you are lying. The concept of a sigularity is standard in physics. Its central to the theory of black holes and also the theory of the big bang.

    So you see. You just tell lies when you cannot come up with anything.

    Ok if you want to lie your way out of the singularities caper well lets try something else.

    WHAT ABOUT THE LIGHT-SPEED LIMIT.

    Where is your evidence that nothing can go faster?

  87. So you haven’t identified any mistake of mine, you haven’t come up with any evidence for your beliefs, when challenged on the singularity you lied and dissociated yourself from it. And in fact you don’t have a pot to piss in.

    Have you got something? Have you got anything?

  88. You are just a fucking idiot mate. You haven’t come up with anything. This is the same level of stupidity that you came up with when you claimed that the dispute was over when Israel got rid of its borders.

  89. What about time dilation? You got some evidence for time dilation?

    Or how about space-time curvature? You got some evidence for that?

    You see its all baseless. Just artifacts of a useful template for calculations.

  90. Graeme

    “WHAT ABOUT THE LIGHT-SPEED LIMIT.”

    All of modern physics (and I do mean all) relies on the speed of light being a constant, and being a limit.

    There is no, I mean none, evidence that this is untrue.

    If you believe however, that the limit is invalid you will have to do two things:

    1. Come up with a theory to explain it (and also replace all the rest of physics that relies on it)
    2. Find an observation that proves it.

    And when you’re done, you better make mighty sure that my laptop still works, my electric lights still turn on, and my fridge still keeps my beer cold.

    Get cracking

  91. Jason you’re wrong you know, this is nothing like shooting fish in a barrel.

    Here the fish shoot themselves while we crack a tinny and watch

  92. Right. Lets go again.

    HAVE YOU GOT ANY EVIDENCE FOR THE LIGHT SPEED LIMIT?

    yes or no:

    GO!!!!!!

  93. “What about time dilation? You got some evidence for time dilation?

    Or how about space-time curvature? You got some evidence for that?”

    Actually, Graeme yes I do.

    If you synchronize two atomic clocks, put one on a plane and fly it around for a while, then bring it back it will be slow compared to the one on the ground. This was done back in the 50’s I think to demonstrate the resolution of the first atomic clocks. Surprised you didn’t hear about it, it was in all the papers.

    And space-time curvature goes back to 1917 when GR was validated by the observation of the bending of starlight past the edge of the Sun. Newtonian gravity gives one figure for this, Einsteinian gravity gives twice that number. Einsteinian gravity (aka General Relativity) was confirmed and Einstein hailed as a true genius.

  94. So you’ve got the argument from snideness as your evidence for the light-speed limit. But no AUTHENTIC evidence.

    Go again!

  95. Graeme
    Define AUTHENTIC evidence.

    GO!!!!!

  96. Graeme

    “HAVE YOU GOT ANY EVIDENCE FOR THE LIGHT SPEED LIMIT?”

    Do you have any understanding of how logic works? You’re asking me to prove a negative – the non-existence of fast-than-light particles. Just in case you don’t know, it is impossible to prove a negative, it is only possible to disprove it by counter-example.

    Now I’ve been generous, if you can find the counter example (and don’t reiterate your earlier points please, they aren’t counter examples, and I don’t want to go through the whole exercise again) then I’ll accept what you have to say.

    But as I explained at 2.56am, it really is up to you.

    You’ve got a lot in front of you, so I suggest you get an early start.

  97. Graeme

    I’m sorry I can’t wait but my son is badgering me to take him to JB HiFi

    I realize this is going to take you some time, but trust me I’ll come back periodically to check on your progress.

  98. Well we’ve already proven that ilight-speed has been beaten. Hence its dead in the water. But you simply do not want to believe it.

    But have you got any evidence for ANY of these fantasies.

    1. The light-speed limit…. pure fantasy.

    2. The singularities.. central to Big Bang theory and the theory of black holes….. pure fantasy.

    3. Tachyons…. pure fantasy and aN obstructive debate technique.

    4. The spontaneous creation of space, which pushes the total weight of the universe apart 360 degrees… Pure bullshit and the worst excuse in all of history.

    5. Time dilation….. pure fantasy.

    6. The compression and stretching of space…. pure fantasy.
    …. And a fundamental contradiction.

    7. That the universe is expanding and accelerating in its expansion.. Actually there is evidence for this one. But I’d like to hear it from you. Its non-Convergent evidence and therefore cannot be taken too seriously.

    8. The non-existence of an aether in the face of the known fact that light travels in waves.

  99. ” it is impossible to prove a negative, it is only possible to disprove it by counter-example….”

    Well we’ve already done that. I don’t get emotionally involved with this stuff. I like Albert as much as anyone else. But once light-speed is broken, and it is, then its an automatic downgrade to a predictive template.

    Light-speeds over. And left-wingers wanking on about it making excuses doesn’t change that.

  100. “Graeme
    Define AUTHENTIC evidence.

    GO!!!!!”

    Yeah I thought that you had no idea about this sort of thing.

    Now take the idea that the universe is expanding and accelerating in its expansion. They have authentic evidence for this but they don’t have CONVERGENT evidence hence it has to be seen as a speculative idea. In the face of better theories it can subsequently be downgraded to a pretty stupid idea.

    What is the authentic evidence? Well for stars close by we can build up a database of stars and their evolution and all this. And we can see how fast these stars are moving away, by deciding what sort of a star it is and by using the convergent evidence of PARALLAX combined by the red-shift phenomenon.

    Everything above is evidence. But notice how its dependent on theory. Its when we have the combined evidence of parallax and redshift that we have pretty good information. We tie that up with theories of gravity and theories of stars and we have it pretty good if we have parallax and red shift at the same time.

    Now red shift on its own…… I DON’T DISCOUNT THAT AS EVIDENCE. It IS evidence. But anything resting only on red-shift alone must be thought of as speculative. Because while there is evidence its non-convergent.

    Also parallax and red-shift together really isn’t good enough. Its pretty good but not enough on its own to be really certain. To send the super-doubters like Popper or Hume on their way. Or more correctly the followers of these two who are no doubt misrepresenting them horribly.

    To be sure enough to send the doubters on their way we really need three or more convergent lines of evidence.

    Hence most of modern cosmology, maths-theology, and a great deal of physics is wide open for overhaul.

    Now I don’t know why you don’t see this Jason. Because it was you that was always waving the Hume-nuke at me and invoking Popper for hyper-skepticism.

    So why don’t you practice what you preach.

    Only multiple convergent lines of evidence can give us rightful certitude.

    And as brilliant as our earlier physicists were if they did not know that, if they were philosophically confused, then we need not be too harsh on them for going down the wrong track.

    I’m not harsh on these guys. But they have gone down the wrong track and thats the fact of the matter and no worries at all.

  101. “Contrawise, we use QM and GR because they have very solid experimental and conceptual foundations, and what’s more, they work.”

    No thats not true. The only evidence they have is in terms of the way they were formulated. As predictive models to make sense of the data.

    So you have the data. You make sense of it by method of best fit. Hence its not surprising at all that it will subsequently predict the data that was akin to the data you had that inspired you to make the model in the first place.

    So the process is this:

    data…….. make up theory to fit data………. theory predicts subsequent data like that of the data that inspired the best fit.

    Now notice that once I admit that a model is a valuable predictive model its really no good coming up with the same sort of predictions of data that were the predictions of data that were generated by the best-fit-model in the first place.

    Its no use telling me that Einsteins system is proven on account of the way light bends next to the sun. Because the system was so developed as to predict that. Its no use telling me that Einsteins system is proven on account of the orbit of mercury. Since Einsteins system took this into account in its best fit formulation.

    Einsteins system was way overambitious. Since it took the entire corpus of mysteries and dimly understood stuff and liquidised all this disparate stuff down to a simple system with everything on the table. No ridiculous idea was ruled out. Space could compress or stretch, mass could increase or compress in the direction of its movement. Time could stretch or slow. Everything to take in the entire known and mysteries and boil it down into one system.

    A spectacular performance. Only problem is now we know its not true. Still a good predictive template. But the entire deal disproven.

  102. Hmmm. Tell you a story. I was visiting my girlfriend recently in Tokyo and she took me to a sushi restaurant. She knows I like sashimi so she ordered some.

    The guy went and caught the fish, brought it back, filleted it and tossed it back. It continued to swim in the tank – alive – but without its flesh.

    That’s the trouble with fish – they don’t know when they’re dead and they take a long time to expire.

  103. ALL THIS SILLINESS IS CONNECTED TO NO EVIDENCE.

  104. And don’t bullshit us man.

    You are too damn stupid to have a “girlfriend”

  105. What a fucking idiot you are? I could have come up with at least SOME evidence for this system. But you came up with nothing at all.

  106. Well what about you Jason Soon?

    You got anything.

    The system hasn’t got legs when none of you clowns can come up with a damn thing except the argument from snideness.

  107. Here’s me thinking an intelligent discusion, between a group with similar ideas is possible in cyberspace. Well obviously I’ll still have to venture further afield. No biggie though, however it seems that you must totally & passionately agree with Birdy or else.

    His own rigid ideals & ignorance amazingly bypass common sense. For someone who in the past has raged at totalitarian dictatorships & talks about freedom, this is just outrageous. Really he behaves like the school bully. And I see he isn’t adverse to sheer unpleasent abuse: – You are too damn stupid to have a “girlfriend” or “What a fucking idiot you are?”Well sorry, but we aren’t all macho adonisis with cheese grator abs, long flowing locks with a Brad Pitt looks & Cassonova’s bedpost. That counts for squat! I’m more horrified that you systematically employ an abhominnon argument style.

    Face it Birdy, not only are you nasty, but your blog also sucks!

  108. Don’t be an idiot Dicky.

    Just come up with some evidence. The others aren’t getting panned by me on the basis that they disagree. They are being panned because they refuse to come up with any evidence.

  109. Evidence-where do I start? OK, OK, OK some meglamaniac gets hold of the net & morphs into a virtaul expert on a multitude of topics. But woe betide anyone who challenges or queries his logic. I hope that’s not too general? But you probably get the thrust, right?

  110. Graeme, just to make my argument clear, please read the following:

    Nbr km in 1 light year: 9 x 10^12 (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=number+of+km+in+light+year&btnG=Search)

    Size of universe: 156 x 10^9 light years (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_monday_040524.html)

    or 1,404 x 10^21 km (== 1.4 x 10^24 km)

    Size of Gisin’s experiment: 11 km (==1.1 x 10^1)

    Ratio of universe/Gisin: 1.4/1/1 x 10^23 ~ 10^23 times as big

    Magic Pixie speed in Gisin: 10^7 speed of light.

    Run Gisin’s experiment with detectors at the end of the universe rather than just 11km apart (there’s no reason why entanglement won’t work that far, so long as the photons don’t hit anything).

    Required speed of magic pixie is now

    10^7 x 10^23 = 10 ^ 30 times speed of light.

    Actual speed. 10^30 x 300,000 km sec == 3 x 10^36 km/sec
    or 3 x 10^39 m/sec

    That exponent (^39) is technically termed “ridiculous”. There is no way it can be true.

    By comparison, the Planck length (ie. the point at which physics breaks down):

    1. x 10^-35 m (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length)

    Physicists get very nervy about exponents that big and disbelieve them, because we don’t encounter them anywhere else (apart from crackpot theories)

    Magic pixies? “superfast particles”?

    Quite easily disproved.

    • Right. But this is the speed needed to have a non-occult view of gravity with particle physics. Hence gravity isn’t created by particles. Since this is how fast they would have to move to keep the effect going. Light also has no good reason to move as fast as it does, were it created by a volley of particles.

  111. They haven’t tried faulting my logic yet.

    OK then. How about you fault Herbert Dingles logic:

    http://www.heretical.com/science/dingle1.html

    http://www.gravitywarpdrive.com/Rethinking_Relativity.htm

    “Dingle’s Question:

    University of London Professor Herbert Dingle showed why Special Relativity will always conflict with logic, no matter when we first learn it.

    According to the theory, if two observers are equipped with clocks, and one moves in relation to the other, the moving clock runs slower than the non-moving clock. But the Relativity principle itself (an integral part of the theory) makes the claim that if one thing is moving in a straight line in relation to another, either one is entitled to be regarded as moving.

    It follows that if there are two clocks, A and B, and one of them is moved, clock A runs slower than B, and clock B runs slower than A. Which is absurd.

    Dingle’s Question was this: Which clock runs slow?

    Physicists could not agree on an answer. As the debate raged on, a Canadian physicist wrote to Nature in July 1973: “Maybe the time has come for all of those who want to answer to get together and to come up with one official answer. Otherwise the plain man, when he hears of this matter, may exercise his right to remark that when the experts disagree they cannot all be right, but they can all be wrong.”

    The problem has not gone away.”

  112. “They haven’t tried faulting my logic yet.”

    Yes I have Graeme.

    Perhaps if you unmoderate my last comment at April 8, 2008 at 10:34 am, then other people will be able to see it.

    Regards

    JM

  113. Graeme

    “Dingles question” is really called the “Twins Paradox” and is well known.

    In fact, it’s a school boy question (I first debated it when I was about 12), and appears in just about every TV documentary on SR ever made. (Again I’m surprised you haven’t heard about it, I thought you sourced all your “evidence” from pop science?)

    The answer is simple, you can only tell which clock is running slow when you bring them back together and compare them. Let’s say you bring clock B back.

    That means clock B turned around and changed direction – ie. accelerated. The return trip is a third intertial frame and so you have to apply the Lorentz transformation a second time to that clock (but not to clock A).

    Once you do that, it’s easy to prove that clock B runs slow.

    As I mentioned above, this has been proven in actual experiments. There is no doubt about it whatsoever.

    Dingle was ill-informed.

    (There’s a very much more detailed explanation at Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox)

    JM

  114. Exactly, Birdy in all his logic ONLY acknowledges his faults occasionally. YOU ARE NOTHING MORE THAN A FRAUD BIRDY. Your strike rate stinks e.g The invasion of Iraq; Your feeble prediction that George W. Bush was the best U.S. President EVER. Of course you’ll wimp out by semi-agreeing & say, ‘well Bush jnr was initially good but, HE LOST THE PLOT.’ See, if he’d bothered to consult my wise words via my blog, my premonition would be a dead cert!

    By the way I’m only generalizing because the idea of going through your archives would be too torturous.

  115. Graeme

    Your second link – the one after your Dingles Question rubbish – points me at Tom Van Flandern’s site. That man is regarded as a crank by anyone who’s sane.

    He believes just about anything – including that old NASA photos from the 1970’s prove that there’s life on Mars, even though modern clearer photos don’t show the same things – he was looking at poor quality photos with artifacts from image enhancement. Anyone who persists in a false belief in the face of newer contradictory evidence is irrational – but then you exhibit the same trait yourself.

    About this ‘speed of gravity’ hogwash you – and Van Flandern persist in – try reading this written by someone who really does know what he’s talking about, and can explain it better than I can.

    http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/grav_speed.html

  116. Oh – what the hell, I’ll repost it myself. Below my enhanced explanation why GMB is barking up the wrong tree.

    ————————————————-

    Graeme, just to make my argument clear, please read the following:

    Nbr km in 1 light year: 9 x 10^12 (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=number+of+km+in+light+year&btnG=Search)

    Size of universe: 156 x 10^9 light years (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_monday_040524.html)

    or 1,404 x 10^21 km (== 1.4 x 10^24 km)

    Size of Gisin’s experiment: 11 km (==1.1 x 10^1)

    Ratio of universe/Gisin: 1.4/1/1 x 10^23 ~ 10^23 times as big

    Magic Pixie speed in Gisin: 10^7 speed of light.

    Run Gisin’s experiment with detectors at the end of the universe rather than just 11km apart (there’s no reason why entanglement won’t work that far, so long as the photons don’t hit anything).

    YES THERE IS. THAT IS A COMPLETELY LUDICROUS ASSUMPTION. WHEN ENTANGLEMENT HASN’T BEEN EXPERIENCED EMPIRICALLY ANY FURTHER THAN IN THIS EXAMPLE.

    Required speed of magic pixie is now

    10^7 x 10^23 = 10 ^ 30 times speed of light.

    Actual speed. 10^30 x 300,000 km sec == 3 x 10^36 km/sec
    or 3 x 10^39 m/sec

    That exponent (^39) is technically termed “ridiculous”. There is no way it can be true.

    By comparison, the Planck length (ie. the point at which physics breaks down):

    1. x 10^-35 m (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length)

    Physicists get very nervy about exponents that big and disbelieve them, because we don’t encounter them anywhere else (apart from crackpot theories)

    Magic pixies? “superfast particles”?

    Quite easily disproved.

  117. Oh – what the hell, I’ll repost it myself. Below my enhanced explanation why GMB is barking up the wrong tree.

    ————————————————-

    Graeme, just to make my argument clear, please read the following:

    Nbr km in 1 light year: 9 x 10^12 (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=number+of+km+in+light+year&btnG=Search)

    Size of universe: 156 x 10^9 light years (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_monday_040524.html)

    THIS IS A CRAZY CLAIM TO BE MAKING. YOU DON’T HAVE THE ABILITY TO MAKE THIS CLAIM. WHAT IS OUTSIDE OF THIS UNIVERSE YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT? WHAT WE SEE IN THE TELESCOPE IS FAR CLOSER THAN WHAT IS THOUGHT.

    or 1,404 x 10^21 km (== 1.4 x 10^24 km)

    Size of Gisin’s experiment: 11 km (==1.1 x 10^1)

    Ratio of universe/Gisin: 1.4/1/1 x 10^23 ~ 10^23 times as big

    Magic Pixie speed in Gisin: 10^7 speed of light.

    Run Gisin’s experiment with detectors at the end of the universe rather than just 11km apart (there’s no reason why entanglement won’t work that far, so long as the photons don’t hit anything).

    Required speed of magic pixie is now

    10^7 x 10^23 = 10 ^ 30 times speed of light.

    Actual speed. 10^30 x 300,000 km sec == 3 x 10^36 km/sec
    or 3 x 10^39 m/sec

    That exponent (^39) is technically termed “ridiculous”. There is no way it can be true.

    By comparison, the Planck length (ie. the point at which physics breaks down):

    1. x 10^-35 m (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length)

    Physicists get very nervy about exponents that big and disbelieve them, because we don’t encounter them anywhere else (apart from crackpot theories)

    Magic pixies? “superfast particles”?

    Quite easily disproved.

  118. Well in case you weren’t aware MJ, what you consider as ‘crank’ Birdy routinely worships & idolizes. That’s precisely what I refered to previously. His M.O. is to prove that any logic opposed to his own confused version is incorrect & therefore is most likely instigated by liberal/commie agtators. Typically he’ll skew the topic in the hope of creating a ‘sensational’ blog. He’s no better thsn a despondent junkie seeking another hit!

  119. JM

    Lets see some argument or evidence. I was really knocked out when finally I stumbled across Van Flandern. He is a hero and if he is a crank then crank is a good thing.

    Its really about REASON…. IN-PHYSICS…… AND COSMOLOGY.

    The current system is Physics-irrationalism. And we want to bring human reason back to physics and cosmology.

    So my mission is to bring philosophy and human reason, back into physics and cosmology.

  120. Here is us arguing physics-irrationalism into the ground.

    http://catallaxyfiles.com/?p=3513#comment-89998

    The point is the usual bully-boys have nothing.

    Notice that the irrationalists have no real argument.

  121. “Lets see some argument or evidence. ”

    Graeme

    I *have* made the argument – you have moderated my comments and refused to display them.

    JM

    I DIDN’T MODERATE ANY OF YOUR STUFF. THREE OR MORE LINKS GETS YOU THROWN IN THE SPAM FILE. I JUST FOUND THEM NOW BECAUSE I WAS INCENSED BY YOUR IDIOCY ON GLOBAL WARMING. SO I WANTED TO CHECK OUT IF YOU HAD MULTIPLE PERSONALITIES.

  122. I didn’t moderate any comments. I’ll have to go down into the spam file to dig them out. they get moderated if there is more than one link.

  123. “As I mentioned above, this has been proven in actual experiments. There is no doubt about it whatsoever.”

    No thats bullshit. It has not.

  124. “If you synchronize two atomic clocks, put one on a plane and fly it around for a while, then bring it back it will be slow compared to the one on the ground. This was done back in the 50’s I think to demonstrate the resolution of the first atomic clocks. Surprised you didn’t hear about it, it was in all the papers.”

    The experiment was shown to be a rigup. It didn’t allow for acceleration or the earths gravity field and the rersults didn’t come out as judged by the raw data. The people locked up the raw data and would have done so for ever. But after 20 years someone got hold of the data via freedom of information. Turns out it was science fraud exactly as we would have expected.

  125. I much prefer your political analysis, this is just NERDY Birdy!

  126. For once I am fully with you Graeme.

    Relativity is a hodgepodge of mathematical tricks. Physics has lost its way tempted by the abundant funds of the military-industrial complex to build increasing numbers of white elephants known as particle accelerators. All smoke and fairy dust if you ask me. We must revive the Newtonian template and build upon it. Einstein was an intellectually conceited man with delusions of grandeur piling mathematical fantasy upon mathematical fantasy in a wild Platonic ballet.

  127. btw Graeme we must be cousins in some way, from which branch of the Macquarie family are you?

  128. there is only one parkos in Ozblogistan!! Graeme Murray Parkos (just kidding)

    I saw you typing those last fake parkos comments in JC,
    nice flatscreen you have there in the living room there in South Yarra. We should have the next catallaxy drinks on Toorak Road with Kroger eh eh

  129. Hey good idea you needn’t just bum one another, swap some amber liquid in addition to the shared poo.

  130. “Einstein was an intellectually conceited man with delusions of grandeur piling mathematical fantasy upon mathematical fantasy in a wild Platonic ballet.”

    I suspect that he was overwhelmed by his rock-star status and after all he was only a kid.

    I don’t blame him.

    I have pointed out that his tragedy is very much like the story of DOUGGIE MADDEN in the novel “Tough Guys Don’t Dance.”

  131. > after all he was only a kid.

    Only a kid? He was 26 years old in 1905 (his first publication year), and married with two small children. Your specicous fantasies are not substitutes for facts Graeme.

    RIGHT 26 IS ONLY A KID. I’M TRYING TO LET HIM OFF THE HOOK FOR BRINGING SUCH FOOLISH MYSTICISM AND REIFICATION INTO SCIENCE.

  132. Oh, and didn’t become famous until after he won the Nobel in 1921 when he was 42 years old.

    “Rock star” Poppycock.

    HE WAS ALREADY A ROCK STAR MUCH EARLIER WITHIN PHYSICS CIRCLES.

  133. “But he didn’t have the epistemology sorted and thats fine because you don’t either.”

    LOL – do you actually know what epistemology means? When used in physics?

    If anyone could *never* be accused of having a sloppy epistemological viewpoint it would be Einstein

    And I think you’re the one with the personality cult – van Flandern perhaps?

    ‘Albert’? Who’s this ‘Albert’. No-one refers to him like that. Were you his personal friend or something? I know you’re the walking undead – you’d have to be to have ever met him.

    Graeme, your parallel universe is a really strange place.

  134. Mr XY, to be frank his parallel universe just scares me. Is his imagination just overactive or is he just a giant, so hobbits do exist? Serously where can one obtain these far out hallucingenics from though? I’ve a suspoican that the bugger would either hold out on us, possibly dob us in or plead 5th amendment.

  135. Well lets see an example of Einsteins great epistemology then you idiot.

    He was by no means great on that score. Of course he was marvellous if you compare him to the idiots that later locked his system in.

    I know Popper was taken by his reccomendation that if the arc light didn’t bend in a certain way that made his own ideas untenable.

    But that was crap anyhow. We’ve seen eclipses before and it strains all probability that such light bending wasn’t ever measured. And his theories could not be confirmed by any such measurements. So it was all small beer and no vindication of his theories at all. Its not Einsteins epistemology that was ludicrous. Its the idea that such an expedition could prove any damn thing. How can bending light prove any of that bullshit. The expedition under Wartime conditions was a misleading waste of money. And Eddington was sold on the new religion anyhow. It didn’t confirm Einsteins system in the slightest and it was misleading of any of the nutballs of the time to suggest that it did. Horrendous epistemology.

  136. Graeme

    ‘Epistemology’ means “how do we know what we know?”

    Einstein took the view that we only know something when we see it. That what we actually observe is actually reality. Observation == reality.

    BAD EPISTEMOLOGY. REALITY IS INDEPENDENT OF THE OBSERVER. REALITY IS NOT DEPENDENT ON ANY OBSERVER. REALITY IS NOT CHANGED BY THE OBSERVER. BRINGING LITTLE MEN INTO THE PICTURE EVERYWHERE WAS JUST CONFUSED THINKING.

    Remember time dilation? We see the little man at the tip of the light beam leaving us, and we see his clock stopped. Einstein, in the theory of relativity, said “that is what is real for the observer, nothing else is”

    THERE IS NO EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION OF LITTLE MEN EXTENDING THEIR LIFE-SPAN RIDING ON THE FRONT END OF LIGHT WAVES. AND YOU ARE IN NO POSITION TO VERIFY WHAT THEY MIGHT SEE.

    That’s a pretty strong statement, and is the essence of his “epistemology”. Relativity. That’s what it says.

    ITS WRONG. AND BASELESS. BAD EPISTEMOLOGY.

    And it works in the real world.

    NO IT DOESN’T. NONE OF THE EXPERIMENTS HAVE BORNE IT OUT. EVEN THE ORIGINAL MOREHOUSE DEAL WAS A NON-NULL RESULT FOR AN AETHER AND A FALSIFICATION OF EINSTEIN.

    Because we cannot see, and can never see, anything that is any different. We are not god.

    YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO ACT LIKE A SCIENTIST AND FIND OUT WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED.

    What you call “reality” is unobservable. It is imaginary.

    NO THESE STUPID LITTLE MEN RIDING ON LIGHT WAVES ARE IMAGINARY. REALITY IS REAL.

    A couple of nitpicks ok?

    “He was by no means great on that score. Of course he was marvellous [etc]”

    This sort of statement is just ignorant. Blindingly, stupifyingly ignorant. You lack the knowledge to make the slightest evaluation or comparison at all.

    NO I’M RIGHT AND YOU ARE WRONG.

    “it strains all probability that such light bending wasn’t ever measured.”

    Why? It never was measured before.

    WHAT A LOT OF BULLSHIT. OF COURSE LIGHT BENDING WAS MEASURED BEFORE 1919.

    Noone ever thought of it. Facts, Graeme, do make a difference in the real world.

    And all your crappola about Eddington doesn’t change the fact that light bending in subsequent experiments and observations *have*, *have* confirmed Einstein.

    EDDINGTON DID NOT FIND ANY EVIDENCE THAT VERIFIED EINSTEIN CRAPOLA. THATS JUST A FACT.

    Have a look at this: http — imgsrc.hubblesite.org/hu/db/2008/04/images/c/formats/full_jpg.jpg

    That’s from the Hubble telescope and shows a quasar and two galaxies lined up one behind the other in our line of sight.

    The concentric rings are the gravitational lensing of the quasar by each galaxy.

    Light bends, exactly as general relativity predicted.

    THIS IS THE HALLMARK OF A RELATIVIST AND BIG BANG IDIOT. THE USE OF THE WORD “PREDICTION” IN A DISHONEST WAY. RELATIVISM DOESN’T HAVE A GREAT DEAL OF SUCCESSFUL PREDICTION TO ITS NAME AND THE BIG BANG HAS NONE. PREDICTION HAS TO BE IN ADVANCE. IF ITS NOT IN ADVANCE ITS NOT PREDICTION. THIS IS REALLY QUITE SILLY THE CLAIM THAT NEWTON PREDICTED THE WAY LIGHT BENT AND GOT IT WRONG. NEWTON WOULD HAVE MERELY FOUND OUT HOW LIGHT BENT.

    Would you like to try explaining that with your pre-Copernican theory? Can epicycles explain that?

    Would you like to specify some alternative “epistemology” that a.) explains whatever “greater reality” you prefer, and *also* explains what we see with our own eyes?

    JM

    (And you should stop blocking my posts here if you want to retain any credibility at all)

  137. No you are lying. It time dilation doesn’t work in the real world. We have had two threads where you have refused to come up with evidence for this.

  138. “Einstein took the view that we only know something when we see it. That what we actually observe is actually reality. Observation == reality.”

    Well it would be very poor form if he didn’t. But he wasn’t particularly strong on this. But the problem isn’t so much with him. ITS THE MODERN FOLLOWERS OF HIS SYSTEM THAT ARE JUST CRIMINALS WHERE THIS IS CONCERNED.

    His epistemology was really very weak. But its his followers who are just pathetic.

  139. “Light bends, exactly as general relativity predicted.”

    What and idiotic thing to say. You are truly a moron. We knew how light bent prior to any theory of general relativity.

  140. How stupid is this. You make a model based on data. Then you say….. HEY MY MODEL IS PROVEN BECAUSE LOOK IT PREDICTS THE DATA.

    How fucking moronic is that. Einstein wasn’t all that bad. But his latter-day followers are complete fucking morons.

  141. “he wasn’t particularly strong on this.”

    On what? That observations are the reality of the observer? Isn’t that the principle of relativity?

    “We knew how light bent prior”

    Not really, because we hadn’t thought about it.

    WHAT A LOT OF RUBBISH. YOU MEAN TO SAY THAT NO-ONE LOOKED AT PRISMS, LIGHT THROUGH GLASS AND LIGHT BENDING AROUND AN ECLIPSE EARLIER THAN 1919. THIS IS JUST SILLY.

    And Newton’s theory said it bent half as much as it actually does

    NO THATS RUBBISH TOO. NEWTON WOULD NEVER HAVE LOOKED AT LIGHT BENDING AND CLAIMED THAT IT BENT HALF OF WHAT IT REALLY BENT. ANOTHER SILLY CLAIM BY RELATIVISTS

    and even then it takes a bit of jiggerring to get Newtonian gravitation to bend light. Photons have zero mass, plug a zero into Newton’s equation and you get a zero – no bending.

    PHOTONS DON’T HAVE ZERO MASS. THEY DON’T EVEN EXIST. LIGHT MOVES THINGS IF YOU SEND IT OUT WITH ENOUGH POWER. THATS HARDLY ZERO MASS. ENERGY IS CONVEYED BY LIGHT. SO IF PHOTONS EXISTED THEN BY YOUR DOCTRINE THEY WOULD NEED TO HAVE MASS.

    “How stupid is this. You make a model based on data …”

    I agree, it is stupid, it’s what Ptolemy did – BUT IT IS NOT WHAT EINSTEIN DID.

    “His epistemology was really very weak. ”

    In what way? Could you please enlighten me.

    HE WOULDN’T HAVE BROUGHT IN REIFICATION IF HIS EPISTEMOLOGY WAS SOUND.

  142. Yeah, Sir you seem to expect an immediate hat dance merely by offering an epistemoligical concluion. I would urge you to use the standard Oxford definition when assuming Popper was subserviant to the Newton model of Relativity. Any other model is sheer lunacy. Then Graeme would feel this would make a more coherent metabalisation of the Karl Marx priniciple. For shame!

  143. “Not really, because we hadn’t thought about it. And Newton’s theory said it bent half as much as it actually does, and even then it takes a bit of jiggerring to get Newtonian gravitation to bend light. Photons have zero mass, plug a zero into Newton’s equation and you get a zero – no bending.”

    Thats all nonsense. How light bends is an empirical matter largely independent of theories of gravity. And if Newton didn’t have the empirical information but Einstein did that hardly makes Einsteins ridiculous view of gravity any less ridiculous. Nor ought it be a slight to the Newtonian system.

    It hard to comprehend the unscience of it all. That anybody would think that an expedition to find how light bends can be twisted into a triumphalist lot of dancing about by true believers pretending that a whole lot of other nonsense had been proven.

    This is how the left goes about things. They don’t prove anything. They just dance about like a bunch of naked apes in the pretense that something has been proved.

    Think of the sheer implausibility of it. You figure out that the light bends a certain amount…… so these bozos then reckon that proves time dilation, the existence of space-time, a light-speed limit, and velocity absolutism.

    Finding out how light bends doesn’t prove Jack. It certainly doesn’t prove all this relativist make-believe.

    Its just embarrassing is what it is. Almost as bad as the Keynesian revolution. Just a whole lot of millenarian idiots jumping up and down claiming that something is proven when it isn’t.

  144. You Sir, are nothing more than a Philostine, pure & simple. When one considers the sheer luancy of attempting to reject Newton’s discoveries (That preceded the atomic age by a good couple of centuries!) entirely when compared to the contribution of Einstein. Surely the fragmented nature of discovery per sa over time is understandable to any rational layman.

    I believe such an issue was dealt with, in an early Star Trek TV episode. And isn’t that proof enough of how best to even consider it’s credibility?

    Still as far as I’m aware the name Keynes still has credibility over the so called expertise of some virtual punk!

  145. Mr Withers, (if that is your real name) I & no doubt many others, take extreme exception to your horrendous attitude towards Birdy. I am not prone to correspondence, but your flagrant disregard for logic is just appalling. Admittadly he isn’t the loveable tyke kind, however you disregard his well conceived arguments & seem to specialize in flaunting your ignorance. This should not be confused with an eruldite cleverness, sadly this eludes you.

    Please keep your ill-informed & shoddy ideas to brain dead zombies who might welcome your intellect. In short, piss off!

  146. Please keep your ill-informed & shoddy ideas to brain dead zombies who might welcome your intellect. In short, piss off!

    RIGHT BACK AT YOU RUSTY & ASSOC.

    To paraphrase that quote ‘if’s it too hot in the kitchen, get out!’ Birdy seems to think he’s immune to this common sense. Because he has his own web site (When he’s not whoring hinself elsewhere on the web!) He’s no better than a Dictatorial geek!

    Look, if he can’t accept an alternative viewpoint…TOO BAD!

  147. I feel I should voice my disgust at the shameful effort to illustrate my picture. While you’re welcome to choose whatever mismash you think appropriate to beautify my criticism. Except upon closer inspection of Birdy’s accompanying pic, I am wondering why he looks like some entrant in a Freddy Mercury charm school. Then again, given his idiotic & primevil views, perhaps a homoerotic Greecian pose is most apt!

  148. This post is as old as fuck. Boring as batshit. Fucking change it or I’ll be coming around.

    You fucking tax eater. And fucking overtime working lard arse.

  149. Mr Blow Me, if that is your real name. I don’t think like your attitude.
    While I too, agree that this blog tends towards a dull & a rather staid affair, I object more to your threats. Look ass wipe threaten all you want, but unless you can teleport around the world, keep your fucking promises to your sad ass self.

  150. hahahaha Bird

    you got banned!!!

    hahahahahah

    suck shit dumbass

  151. Catallaxy’s loss. Its now a lifeless sellout site devoid of ideas. A site which puts on the libertarian hat just long enough to sell us down river and then jumps out and says “Ho Ho I’m a socialist after all.”

  152. You aren’t a libertarian. You are a crypto-collectivist with a sideline in UFOlogy.

  153. tell us about mars, graeme

  154. Jason – In all fairness you should behave on his blog if you ban him on yours.

  155. shut up nutellastalker

  156. Graeme Bird
    Translation Services
    Document Omega

    Catallaxy’s loss. Its now a lifeless sellout site devoid of ideas. A site which puts on the libertarian hat just long enough to sell us down river and then jumps out and says “Ho Ho I’m a socialist after all.”

    Should read:

    Boo hoo hoo. I got no friends left. 😦

  157. “tell us about mars, graeme” I’ll do an explodian summary sooner or later. This is the issue that has revealed more than most the light-weight mentality of a lot of people on catallaxy. I mean the pictures were clear enough. And those structures didn’t get there on their own.

    Whats a bit shocking to me is the lack of basic affinity for science.

  158. good idea, do a longer post on explodia putting together all the EVIDENCE in one spot

  159. The hardest thing to do is to get peoples mind to shift with the context. Look at Edney.Desperately trying to tell himself you couldn’t get a phase-change leading to an explosion. His reasoning such that it is, would only tell you why we aren’t blowing up before Wednesday week. This solar system has been around well over 4 billion years and we seem to have only had 3 or 4 of these events. We are likely only to get one or two more. So his reasoning is totally without foundation. And cannot explain why Mars is so different on the side of it that caught the explosion.

  160. jeepers Graeme that’s an ugly icon. better not to have one than to parade that around.

  161. Hey, buddy. Hope you’re well.

  162. Of course I’m well Sinclair. I have finally been liberated from the duty I had to stop Catallaxy from veering hard-left towards crony-socialism and base stupidity.

    Its like superman no longer having to get about saving the world. Its totally out of my hands.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Yeah I might be hard-pushed to change it. I’ve forgotten how. I originally put it up there as a sort of conspiracy with Anna Winter. By having Chairman Mao as my icon I was able to get ever-so-much more posts through at Prodeo.

    This plan worked brilliantly. The itinerant lefty censors would let a lot more gear through that way.

  163. Its like superman no longer having to get about saving the world. Its totally out of my hands.

    You really believe that don’t you? Jay-sus!

  164. Are you going to specialise in being boring and pointless over here as well?

  165. BIRDSNEWWORLD
    Posted Thursday, 17 March 2011 at 6:38 pm | Permalink
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    No no. Its simply NOT acceptable to bring irrational fantasies into this matter. So no its NOT alright to have make-believe particles like photons. Its NOT alright to pretend that there can be an action (the molecule altering the direction of light)…. without a reaction. Nor is it okay to pretend that a cat can be both dead and alive simultaneously. The wavicle does not exist nor ever did. And its NOT okay to play make-believe with ridiculous creation fantasies like the big bang.

    No public service fantasies need ever apply for serious consideration. “Socialism never works. But sometimes it can take some time to fail.” Public service science is no exception to this rule. Its extremely damaging to be humoring irrationality, and the cult of personality, no matter where it raises its embarrassing head.

  166. Proof that Daddy Dave is a moron after all:

    “um, no. The simplest theory is that a bunch of whackos hijacked some planes and flew them into the twin towers.”

  167. It appears that Daddy Dave is so dimwitted that he never even expected FOREIGN regime intelligence.

  168. Daddy Dave not doing himself any favors:

    “oh okay I see where you asked that question. My answer still stands.”

    One has to realise that many conservatives can pass for half-smart simply by positioning themselves in a prudent relation to the tribe and then they can kind of “wing-it.” But here Daddy Dave gives it away that he’s a dolt, when he didn’t need to type at all.

    Here I’m pretty glad that Dave is anonymous. Because he’s a sensitive soul and he’s making such a dick of himself.

  169. Its not getting any better. Here is how Daddy Dave explains the molten iron he saw coming out of the South Tower before it collapsed. Here’s how he explains the molten iron in all three basements and the multiple explosions. Here he explains how three buildings came down when there were only two planes.

    “On a more technical note, it’s quite easy to explain. The structure may have withstood the impact until a breaking point (kinda like the ‘tipping point’ that climate scientists are so fond of) after which it suffered catastrophic collapse. The stress of one wall shearing added to the stress in the other walls, causing them to sheer at the same time.”

  170. TILLMAN justifying bullshit with more bullshit. If anyone is hired help it would have to be Tillman.

    “But the towers didn’t fall straight into their footprint. There was quite a spread of damage, including enough damage to take out WTC 7 across the road.”

    Thats new and individual to Tillman. Most people say that the third building fell down due to fire.

  171. THIS EXPLANATION USES PHOTONS, BUT SINCE THERE ARE NO SUCH THINGS AS PHOTONS HE OUGHT TO COME UP WITH ANOTHER EXPLANATION, OR CALL HIS EXPLANATION “PROVISIONAL.”

    • JOSEPH CAMBRIA. CO2-BEDWETTER. AUTHORITY ON TRICERATOPS REPRODUCTION. CARBON TAX ADVOCATE.

      SCIENTIST.

  172. Photons are a lie. There’s no such thing as photons, and only public service science aristocracy would believe such an imbecilic theory. You show me a bucket of photons, and I’ll show you some transparent glass, fella.

  173. BIRDSNEWWORLD
    Posted Friday, 18 March 2011 at 3:48 am | Permalink
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Photons are an irrational fantasy in the same way as particle-duality is an irrational fantasy. A particle cannot also be a wave. Because a wave is not what something IS. A wave is what something DOES. And on some level its usually what many little things DO. Dualities are best left to theologians and Sundays.

    No belligerent irrationality need ever get a pass in science and so a hard rain must fall. The main method by which this irrationality gets in, other than public servant bully-boy behavior ….. is by way of the cult of personality.

    The standard model of the atom, (which few believe any more and least of all the quantum “mechanics) is useful in this story to the extent that it shows that air pressure is needed for the molecules to transmute the electro-magnetic energy into thermal energy (in any meaningful way.) We see that this is true empirically. Death valley is not world famous for its abundant greenhouse gases. But its the hottest place in the US just the same. We see this tendency also in comparisons between places like Cairns versus the Atherton Tablelands. Or Gordonvale on the ground versus Gordonvale as you go up Walshes pyramid.

    Without air pressure greenhouse gases are ineffectual. So the runaway greenhouse story was never on the cards. A runaway heat and air pressure story could be more plausible.

  174. “I have no idea about JFK and whether it was a lone nutter or some shadowy organisation behind the scences…….”

    If you want to know …. ASK!!!! Too easy.

    “…. However, the theory is at least plausible, compared to a staged 9/11 and a fake moon landing. The latter would requires hundred if not thousands of people to keep quiet and not send anything to Wikileaks nor make a deathbed confession. Same goes for the masons, illuminati and all that other crap…. ”

    Papachango. They don’t have all that many tricks. They just use the same tricks over. We were lucky with 9/11. They were caught redhanded in the same way the Israelis were caught suffocating that terrorist bigshot. In that case the Israelis hadn’t put out a big hit like that for awhile and did not anticipate close circuit television in the hotel. These are public servants after all.

    9/11 was a massive covert operations botch-up. Consider that not only did they leave pictures proving that the planes were not even the right sort of plane. But we all got to see molten iron pouring out of the south tower. The culprits did not anticipate that people would have learned something from the Kennedy hit. But worst of all no-one anticipated the advent of youtube. Where the crime was subsequently shown, in pretty much all its aspects, from every angle imaginable.

    “…. However, the theory is at least plausible, compared to a staged 9/11 and a fake moon landing. The latter would requires hundred if not thousands of people to keep quiet and not send anything to Wikileaks nor make a deathbed confession. Same goes for the masons, illuminati and all that other crap…. ”

    Pappachango. If at first you understand FULLY how THE BIG EVENT (the codename of the Kennedy hit) worked in all its details you would then understand the very few tired tricks they used to get away with the even bigger event. They are a fucking open book once you know how they go about it.

  175. “There’ll be reprisals from other kids in the school and he still has to go to school somewhere,” he said.”

    How cool would it be to be the righteous kids schoolyard bodyguard. Getting to counterpunch against those sand-niggers with an extra 30+ kilos behind your fist, or if that didn’t work …….. physically forcing the skinny cunt over and pummeling his head into the ground … All the while knowing that the righteous kid was covering your back.

  176. Of course the above does not take into account ones awesome intellectual capital in the field of theoretical ethics. Nor does it take into account ones meticulous and committed fidelity to the practice of same.

    All I’m saying is how cool would it be? Very cool!

  177. Annabelle. This one had me stooged for about 8 years.

    “Given how much trouble governments have when it comes to leaks, I find conspiracy theories ridiculous. Consider 9/11 conspiracies. There would have to be so many people in on it keeping mum that it becomes implausible. Group-think such as we saw in the climate-gate emails, is a different matter. Humans are naturally tribal. Indeed……”

    But consider this: Is there such a thing as covert-ops? Yes or no? People are trained in covert ops. There would have to be a “science” to it. And we know that it does exist.

    So your theory cannot be right. As sensible as it sounds.

    As it turns out there IS a science to it ……. And it consists of just a few shabby tricks. A few shabby tricks, the pursuance of which neutralises any worthwhile goal the operation might have had in the first place.

    When I say the word “science” in this context, remember that its the public service we are talking about. So the word has to be taken with more than just a grain of salt.

  178. YOU ALWAYS DO THIS YOU MENTALLY RETARDED CUNT

    “C.L., They were wild guesses. He was completely wrong on the details………”

    For fucksakes Mark Hill you lying cunt!!!!! Why do you always fucking lie like this.

    How about get specific you complete fucking cunt!!!!!!!!

    Fucking hell. The rest of you: Don’t let the deranged Mark Hill get away with this poxy behavior.

    • Is Mr Hill circumcised? It sounds like he is

      MORE LIKELY THEY TOOK OFF THE ENTIRETY OF HIS GEAR AND USED BRAIN GRAFTS FOR THE REPLACEMENT.

      WHAT A COMPLETE CUNT HEY? LYING LIKE THAT. AND HE ALWAYS DOES IT.

      • stupid is as stupid does Mr Bird

        and Mr Hill fell from a Mt Everest high stupid tree and was beaten on the head by stupid branches from the stupid tree all the way down

  179. SOMETHING HAS CHANGED. YOU’VE DECIDED TO USE REASON AND DEEP-SIX YOUR FLIPPANCY ON A SINGLE SUBJECT. THATS A BIG FUCKING CHANGE. FUCKING BIG CHANGE.

    • Mr Stewart
      Persist and you may achieve at least one tenth the degree of enlightenment attained by Mr Bird

  180. Fucking lying cunt keeps going. Every statement is a lie:

    “Mc Carthy made nothing but wild guesses. That’s why he never nailed anyone. He didn’t even know about Venona and his accusations specifically were slanderous. He was a dangerous malodourous turd.”

    Why are you wimps putting up with this? Give that lying cunt a grilling or give him a bit of the old Casey.

  181. Fantastic audio of McCarthy explaining how difficult it was to nail people. He had one of the Rothschilds absolutely busted. But Edward Rothschild kept pleading the fifth. He had every opportunity to say no. That he was innocent.

    The whole idea was simply to move Rothschild out of the printing office. Why go through any of this nastiness when you could simply move people from sensitive positions? But the left, or the shadow government, or whoever, managed to manipulate the Senate in order to say that this was too much to ask.

    Imagine that? You cannot work behind the scenes to be effective and save embarrassment of those that may only be only somewhat culpable? Instead you have to nail known traitors and give them harsher penalties then what was necessary to do the job. Which would only have meant traitors to go to the private sector and suspect types to be moved sideways. Fucking most bizzare story ever.

  182. And yes. I did speculate that taking on a Rothschild might have marked the date of his true downfall. Thats an obvious thing to wonder about.

  183. Here is some of the people that Mark Hill reckons Joseph McCarthy didn’t “nail”:

    Haldore Hanson, John Carter Vincent, Owen Lattimore, Edward Rothschild, Irving Peress, Annie Lee Moss, Lauchlin Currie, Gustavo Duran, Theodore Geiger, Mary Jane Keeney, Edward Posniak.

  184. http://www.realnews247.com/the_hidden_truth_about_joseph_mccarthy.htm

  185. BIRDSNEWWORLD
    Posted Saturday, 19 March 2011 at 4:15 am | Permalink
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    There is no “they tell it to the children so it must be true” trump-card in logic. That they tell it to the children, makes it a scandal. It does not make it true.

    Never has the wave particle duality been demonstrated. Not with high-school equipment, kitchen equipment, or billion dollar accelerators. Never will a wave-particle duality be demonstrated. Not with cartoons or any other form of animation. A wave can never be a particle, since a wave is not what something IS. A wave is what something DOES.

    Like most incompetence in physics, the wave-particle duality is maintained by the cult of personality, and not by evidence or reason. This is simply another case of what the public service winds up with when they get hold of other peoples money.

  186. After all this time I want to find out if this idiot JM is a talmudic jew? Is it these Jews that are polluting all of science with their idiocy/


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: