RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (7) < 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 >   
  Topic: Comparing Dembski and Mike Gene, Story of two attempts to infer design< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5455
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,15:41   

Quote (Alan Fox @ Jan. 23 2008,16:32)
Thanks for the link, Bob. The subject is Ginger (how we struggled to come up with that). I have a few more photos (in the drier, in my wife's knicker drawer etc. ) but alas, Ginger is no more...

Your wife's knicker drawer is an odd place to keep pictures of your cats.

Never mind, I'm going to quit right there.

;)

--------------
“Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

   
creeky belly



Posts: 205
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,16:19   

Quote
First things first.  

Minkowskian space-time geometry is the appropriate model of our universe, not Euclidean geometry.

Agreed?

Minkowskian space-time geometry easily allows for the interconnection of things that travel at the speed of light.  It practically forces it.

As uncomfortable as it might make you, would you agree to that too?

It doesn't make me uncomfortable; the conservation of the speed of light forces space-time to be what it is: a hyperbolic geometry. This is only scratching the surface, though. If you want a proper treatment you need to introduce affine connections, something that hints at the dynamics. It's the only way to resolve things like Mach's principle.

Also, quantum information can be transmitted faster than the speed of light, I think that was a corollary of Bell's experiment. However, classical transmission of information faster than the speed of light is still forbidden.

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,16:53   

Quote
...quantum information can be transmitted faster than the speed of light, I think that was a corollary of Bell's experiment. However, classical transmission of information faster than the speed of light is still forbidden.


On this we agree.

Quantum information is not "classical transmission of information".  Therefore, it can not result in a causal paradox.  Quantum information can travel forward and backwards in time along with instantly traveling to anywhere in the universe.

In other words, quantum information can propagate to any point in the universal space-time geometry from the Big Bang to whatever happens at the end (Big Crunch?).

Penrose's OR hypothesis suggests that not only can quantum information propagate everywhere and everywhen, it does.  All the quantum information (i.e. quantum effects) are just exposed parts of one giant wavefunction that is our universe.

What things like Bell's experiment and Greenberger–Horne–Zeilinger states show us is that whenever any quantum information is exposed as classical information, the entire universal wavefunction (past and future) is forced into consistency with that exposed information.

However, the wavefunction only needs to be dynamic if the choice of what gets exposed is random.

Newtonian physics is deterministic.  It doesn't generate randomness.  The only apparent true source of randomness appears to come from the decoherence of quantum effects.

I suggest the game is rigged.

Of course this opens up some curious ramifications to the concept of free will and consciousness.

  
dheddle



Posts: 545
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,17:11   

Arggh. One draconian law I would support is you can't discuss QM unless you have a Ph.D. in physics. And you can't discuss free will and QM ever. It should be the unpardonable sin. Maybe it is.

--------------
Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,17:13   

GET BACK TWO WORKIN ON YOU"RE SPACE TELESCOPE.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
keiths



Posts: 2195
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,17:14   

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Jan. 23 2008,15:13)
Hi Keiths,

I see you have finally posted what you should have long ago.

Occam tells us what to do with superfluous hypotheses.

Now, would you agree that the Twin Paradox is a geometry problem and that the traveling twin takes a short-cut in the non-Euclidean space-time geometry?

Or would you like to complicate it to make it less understandable?

TP,

Your comment is one long non sequitur.

Did you read the Lasky article?  Do you finally understand why you are wrong to claim that special relativity cannot resolve the twin paradox?

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,17:15   

Geeze, Heddle, I find myself agreeing with you more and more.  That doesn't mean we're going steady, though!

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,17:19   

To add to keiths' comments (and for TP's benefit):

Non sequitur is Latin for "it does not follow." In formal logic, an argument is a non sequitur if its conclusion does not follow from its premises.[1] In a non sequitur, the conclusion can be either true or false, but the argument is a fallacy because the conclusion does not follow from the premise

And to answer the question TP Posed to me regarding me trying to invalidate his arguments, TP you do a nice job of that all by yourself.

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,17:22   

Hey, TP, a couple of further comments.  First, you wrote:


Quote
Do you really think taunts and comparisons to creationists will make my arguments any less valid?


No, your arguments couldn't possibly get any less valid than they are right now.

Second, I've decided to promote you from Creationist Moron to Creationist Moron First Class with a Dishonest Fig Leaf Cluster (stolen from Dembski).

Your original "point" of this thread was to discuss Dembski and Mike Gene, but when that turned into a cluster (literally) you then claimed that your point was to discuss another topic about which you know nothing, quantum mechanics.  You're dishonest.  And a moron.  However, as I pointed out earlier your arguments are not moronic because you are a moron.  That would be ad hominem.  The two events are independent.

So, tell me, Quantum Boy, how fast would you have to walk through a 3-foot wide doorway to diffract?  Please return in two years with experimental results.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,17:32   

WOO WOO. ALL ABOARD THE DEEPAK CHOPRA EXPRESS!



--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,17:50   

Quote
how fast would you have to walk through a 3-foot wide doorway to diffract?


Doesn't the wavelength of the object have to be comparable to the width of the opening for diffraction to happen?

Henry

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,18:08   

Hi Keiths,

 
Quote
Did you read the Lasky article?


I read it the first time you presented it to me and I told you then that I disagreed with it.

 
Quote
Do you finally understand why you are wrong to claim that special relativity cannot resolve the twin paradox?


It doesn't matter whether you or Lasky can twist Special Relativity into a form where it might resolve the Twin Paradox.  You finally admitted that...

 
Quote
4. General relativity also resolves the twin paradox.


Special Relativity is superfluous.  General Relativity is a complete explanation.  Special Relativity no longer needs to be a consideration.  Occam's razor suggests we should discard it.  That is what I am doing.

Minkowskian space-time geometry is the appropriate model of our universe, not Euclidean geometry.

Minkowski's concept of a single reference frame and "absolute world" has been shown to be correct.

If you want to quibble about semantics, be my guest if that will help your ego.

Meanwhile, I suggest the ramifications of Minkowskian space-time geometry is rather interesting in its explanatory power.

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1208
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,18:28   

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Jan. 23 2008,18:08)
Meanwhile, I suggest the ramifications of Minkowskian space-time geometry is rather interesting in its explanatory power.

Just out of curiosity, how do you reconcile the alleged explanatory power of Minkowskian geometry with the inarguably contrary implications of Henderson-Darling oscillation and reciprocal inversion? You are aware of Penrose's misgivings in this regard, I assume?

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,18:51   

Hi Jim Wynne,

I have no idea what you are talking about.

I suspect it is just gibberish.

Was this a test?

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,19:21   

I vowed not to return but since I'm the only person on this thread with a PhD from a reputable university I will step in on this point.

Yes, TP, it was a test and you failed miserably.  You see, the Internet has a lot of stuff on it but it doesn't have all the stuff.  Us old geezers used paper and pencils in the last century and much has not been digitized and made available over the Web.

Henderson did a sabbatical at Cambridge in the 60's where he met a young physicist, Stephen Hawking.  Henderson was working on quantum fluctuations associated with interstellar gasses and it was Hawking who introduced Henderson to the mathematics that would lead to the characterization of black holes.

It turns out that Darling, also working at Cornell with Henderson, was finishing his PhD dissertation on mass balance of interstellar gasses, and, although his data was accurate he was concerned that it wasn't accurate enough.  Something else was going on and Henderson, via Hawking, provided a clue, and that was quantum oscillation.  

Quantum oscillation called for "tunneling" between energy potential wells in interstellar space.  Remember, at this time tunneling was a new concept which was later demonstrated and is the basis for things like solid-state lasers.

Penrose's concern was that there was not an energy source that could drive tunneling in interstellar space.  The distances between particles was great, it was nearly zero Kelvin and calculations could not deliver the heat, so to speak.  Enter Hawking and black holes.  Suddenly it all dropped out.  Small black holes, on the order of a solar mass or less, but more prevalent in interstellar space, especially where there were large dust accumulations, such as nebula, could not only provide the power for oscillations, but the mass balance calculations all but proved the concept.

Of course, identifying small black holes has been a problem, and that may always be the case, and that's Penrose's concern, however, the math solves the mass balance problem.

So, the search is on for small (some people call them micro) black holes and time will tell.

An interesting side note is that the new supercollider being built has as an objective to create a micro-micro black hole.  The sponsors of that project are none other than Henderson and Darling.

Pretty cool, eh?

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,20:11   

Quote (Doc Bill @ Jan. 23 2008,19:21)
I vowed not to return but since I'm the only person on this thread with a PhD from a reputable university I will step in on this point.

Hey!  I resemble that remark. I may not have a Ph.D. in quantum mechanics, and Stanford may be about to lose SLAC, but I do have a Ph.D. from a reputable university!

Oooh. I forgot. I'm not a participant in this thread any longer...

Carry on. I do so want to hear more about quantum tunneling as an explanation for microtubule function, and pantsfrontloading, and how Mike Gene is gonna kick Dembski's books right off Amazon and such.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,20:27   

TP

I'd just like to add my two rupees to say "Jeeeeeesus what the fuck are y'all goin on about" and to add that there is nothing like some physics to make ordinary folks feel plumb ignernt.  YouknowhutImeanTP.  God-dam decoherence, the Monroe-Martin decoherence, the Reno Single String Theory, Round Peak Relativity vs Clinch Mountain Frail, hell I give up.  I'll keep to poking VMartin with the ugly stick.

Don't get me wrong.  Although I have only lightly kept up with this thread, I'm impressed that you are somewhat less trollish and ignorant than some of our other cranks.  You may have a point.  I could never tell.  It seems that the educated lot amongst us disagree but that's the way it goes.  These days I'm cynical enough to say if you ain't an IDiot or a young earth moron you're probably halfway sane.  Then again, there is Deepak.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,20:44   

Hi Doc Bill,

Yes, it does sound cool.  Dangerous, but cool.

My training is as a glorified grease monkey, an electrical engineer.  In the '70s our professors struggled to explain the physics behind tunneling diodes much less the more intense stuff.

I had some interest in physics and showed enough promise that one of the professors from the physics department tried to convince me to change majors.  I went for the money instead (microcontrollers).

So, besides doing my usual over simplification, would you agree that I am presenting Penrose's OR hypothesis reasonably accurately?

I am not asking you if you agree with Penrose, I am interested in how well you think I am understanding it.

BTW, thank you for the explaination about who Henderson and Darling are.

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,20:45   

Albatrossity2, you are one sick puppy cynical bastard.  Did I leave anything out?

But, you stumbled (God knows you didn't figure it out.) on an interesting development that we were pursuing with Rice University before I retired.

Oh, and before I go too far, I had this dream of a jayhawk carrying a cat-like critter in it's beak before dropping it in a cornfield from 50,000 feet.  Ever have that dream?

Anyway, it turns out that nanotechnology will be the key to our next generation of ultra-light, long-life batteries.  Imagine a laptop that can go for a month without a charge, but weighs less than 3 lbs?  The batteries exist but they cost $100,000 each at the research stage.  The key is to use carbon nanotubes to position dual lithium crystals using chelation, similar to EDTA binding metals, like copper.

In fact, the original design used EDTA and copper but we couldn't figure out how to stabilize the nanotube once the liquid was removed.  It just collapsed.  Paired lithium through ionic bonds proved to be more stable.  Not unlike salt, NaCl, actually.

Grown in solution the nanotubes form helixes that align when lithium is introduced and the supporting liquid evaporated.  The helixes align the paired lithium which crystalizes and is stable at room temperature.  The resulting di-lithium crystal structure provides 3.5 V at 12 milliamperes which isn't bad.  By sandwiching the nanotube lattices you can increase the current capacity at the same voltage.

Research is ongoing, but we think there might be a tunneling activity that supports stability of the structure.  Because the current drain is constant as we change temperatures, we think tunneling could account for that.  But, don't know for sure.  On paper we could power a car for a month using a di-lithium crystal nanotube battery the size of a shoebox.

Personally, I think the engineering is 5 years away from being practical.  But, there you have it.  Real life quantum mechanics and a practical application.

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,20:55   

Hi Erasmus,

Thank you for your comment.

 
Quote
...some physics to make ordinary folks feel plumb ignernt.  YouknowhutImeanTP.


Yes I do.  ;)

Do you have any idea how hard it was to struggle through 1000 pages of Roger Penrose level math when you have been out of college for over 30 years?

I am trying to explain my understanding as well as I can.  I get the impression I am not too far off, but I can't know for sure.

Obviously my explaination is incomplete.  I am just trying to figure out what I have got flat out wrong.

Is there anything in particular that you would like me to try an explain better?

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,21:17   

I dunno what you could explain to make me believe that quantum effects would have anything to do with macroscopic phenomena, much less biological evolution.  It all sounds like the Chopra, the Matrix, Dancing Wu Li, water molecules can tell when you are sad, Steve Hurlbert's Demonic Intrusion term in ANOVA, infinite wavelength radiation ad hoc b.s. to me.  But I'll be brutally honest and admit that I could easily be fooled, my parsing of physics is probably akin to the coarse palate of the English (everything is boiled to mush with the parsnips).  

I just wanted to say that whether or not you are a crackpot you are a jolly good sport and that is admirable!

/lurk

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,22:15   

Hi Erasmus,

Thank you again for your comment.

I don't want to convince you.  I want you to decide for yourself.

Part of my provocative style is so if people come to see things the way I do, they will do it in spite of my arrogance.  I want people thinking for themselves.

As for data...
Here is something interesting from Berkeley Labs...

"We have obtained the first direct evidence that remarkably long-lived wavelike electronic quantum coherence plays an important part in energy transfer processes during photosynthesis,”

  
keiths



Posts: 2195
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2008,00:09   

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Jan. 23 2008,18:08)
I read it [Lasky's Scientific American article on the twin paradox] the first time you presented it to me and I told you then that I disagreed with it... It doesn't matter whether you or Lasky can twist Special Relativity into a form where it might resolve the Twin Paradox.
 
Then it should be easy for you to show us what's wrong with Lasky's graph, and to explain to us why he should have gotten different answers for each of the twins:

(Note that the time axis should be labeled in years, not light-years)


How about it, TP?

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
creeky belly



Posts: 205
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2008,00:26   

Quote
Anyway, it turns out that nanotechnology will be the key to our next generation of ultra-light, long-life batteries.  Imagine a laptop that can go for a month without a charge, but weighs less than 3 lbs?  The batteries exist but they cost $100,000 each at the research stage.  The key is to use carbon nanotubes to position dual lithium crystals using chelation, similar to EDTA binding metals, like copper.

That's really cool. I'm working in a ChemE lab this quarter, trying to create batteries with thin films (~10nm). We're using a polymer spin-coated onto a silicon wafer to suppress the crystallization (ruins the electrolyte properties of the polymer), and a scanning force microscope to probe the mechanical properties. The next generation of LEDs will most likely stem from the same research, using the crystal properties of polymers to draw thin nano-sized wires. The field is pretty much wide open at this point, as the technology has really only been utilized in the past decade or so.

  
keiths



Posts: 2195
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2008,00:31   

What's really funny is that TP's idol, Roger Penrose, explicitly contradicts him on the twin paradox.

From The Road to Reality, p. 422:
Quote
It used to be frequently argued that it would be necessary to pass to Einstein's general relativity in order to handle acceleration, but this is completely wrong... The astronaut is allowed to accelerate in special relativity, just as in general relativity. [Emphasis mine]

Okay, TP, let's hear your explanation of how Penrose is wrong, how Lasky is wrong, how the author of the Math Page article is wrong, how Zachriel and I are wrong, but you -- who can't even keep the differences between special and general relativity straight -- are right.

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2008,00:32   

What is quite interesting about Keiths' graph is how similar it is to the lithium carbon microtube power cell that's being developed.

The lower curve with the positive knee is close to the power consumption curve of a mono-lithium microtube battery.

The central curve corresponds to the standard lithium hydride battery that you can buy at WalMart.

But the upper curve with the negative knee is exactly the kind of power curve we see with a di-lithium crystal.  Exactly the same response.

We think it's a quantum effect, but perhaps TP can shine some electrical engineering expertise on the problem

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 2564
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2008,03:13   

Quote
Enter Hawking and black holes.  Suddenly it all dropped out.

Surely not if it entered a black hole.

:-)

Bob

--------------
It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

   
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2008,07:34   

Hi Keiths,

Thank you for your response.  I think it helped me with my presentation, a lot.

The difference between you and Zachriel is that Zachriel approaches his discussions like he would a military maneuver.  He is careful not to over-extend.

You may yet win the battle of convincing people I made a semantic mistake in my use of the term "General Relativity" but it may cost you the war in that you end up demonstrating that my efforts are honest and rational.

Page 422 of The Road to Reality is part of Chapter 18 which is titled "Minkowskian geometry".

Starting at the top of Page 420...
"In passing from [Euclidean geometry] to [Minkowskian geometry], there are also changes that relate to inequalities.  The most dramatic of these contains the essence of the so-called 'clock paradox' (or 'twin paradox') of special relativity. ... if we accept that the passage of time, as registered by a moving clock, is really a kind of 'arc length' measured along a world line, then the phenomenon is not more puzzling than the path along which this distance is measured.  Both are measured by the same formula, namely [integral of ds], but in the Euclidian case, the straight path represents the minimizing of the measured distance between two fixed end-points, whereas in the Minkowski case, it turns out that the straight, i.e. inertial, path represents the maximizing of the measured time between two fixed end events (see also 17.9)." [emphasis Penrose's]

Penrose goes on to explain how in the shortest distance between two points in Euclidean geometry is a straight line and how that is not true for Minkowskian geometry.

This is why I say the traveling twin took a short cut.

Page 421 has some pictures explaining all of this.  Penrose also explains why this is NOT due to accelerations and is purely a geometry problem.

Continuing on page 422...

"It is frequently argued that it would be necessary to pass to Einstein's general relativity in order to handle acceleration, but this is completely wrong.  The answer for the clock times is obtained using the formula [integral of ds] (with ds>0) in both theories.  The astronaut is allowed to accelerate in special relativity, just as in general relativity."

Penrose was trying to explain a concept using terms people understand.  I was focused on Penrose's concept.  If you want to claim victory over semantics, be my guest.

As for how to "fix" your chart.  Simply re-label the chart to read...

   
Quote
Traveler's clock as seen by Homebody

Traveler's clock

Homebody's clock


You and Lasky are handwaving a preferential choice of a frame of reference.  What is the basis of this choice?  Acceleration?

I suggest that is why Penrose was trying to explain that worrying about acceleration was "completely wrong".

The Twin Paradox is a geometry problem.

And it doesn't matter whether you want to mouth the words "Special Relativity" or "General Relativity" in the process of figuring out the arc lengths.

The traveling twin took a short cut.

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2008,11:41   

Of course, the alleged paradox is caused by failure to account for the traveler changing from one inertial frame of reference to another at the far end of the trip. Time dilation is a relationship between inertial frames, so moving from one frame to another changes the amount of time dilation that the traveler observes in the stay-at-home. Account for that and the paradox goes away, whether the accounting is done using S.R. formulas, G.R. formulas, computing when each twin receives radio signals sent by the other, or by slapping a label of "short cut" on it.

Henry

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2008,19:03   

Hmmm, it’s gotten quiet all of a sudden.

Hi Henry,

Thank you for your comment.

I had put together the Star Trek example in anticipation of the standard "changing inertial frames" argument.

It is the landing party that is going out and back, not the Captain on his ship.  At least from the Captain's frame of reference.

You are using acceleration to choose a preferred frame of reference.

Now if the ship was orbiting a gravity well, the Captain and his ship wouldn't experience acceleration.  Oops, special relativity breaks down and then the hand waving begins.  Why make exceptions for an antiquated concept that has outlived its usefulness?  Nostalgia?

Did you understand what Penrose was talking about with "'arc length' measured along a world line"? Minkowski brought Einstein and physics back to the "absolute world" of a single, non-Euclidean reference frame. The integral of ds is the summation of the path taken by the respective twin.  The path taken by the traveling twin is shorter in the single, "absolute world" that is our universe.

The traveling twin takes a short cut.

  
  204 replies since Jan. 04 2008,22:07 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (7) < 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]