Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: ever since 1842, the Doppler shift was assumed to exist for
lightwaves and never experimentally verified Chapt 8 #138; ATOM TOTALITY

Replies: 122   Last Post: Jul 10, 2010 2:38 PM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 Mitchell Jones Posts: 17 Registered: 8/18/05
Re: question as to whether speed of light is precisely 314159265.35.. m/s ; magnetic monopole Chapt 14 #191; ATOM TOTALITY
Posted: Jun 28, 2010 12:51 AM

In article <bOtUn.12735\$wi5.9869@hurricane>,

> "David R Tribble" <david@tribble.com> wrote in message
> | David R Tribble wrote:
> | >| The meter used to be defined in terms of what the French thought
> | >| the polar circumference of the Earth was (which was off by about
> | >| 8 km).
> | >| At any rate, I think ...
> | >
> |
> | Androcles wrote:
> | > Do you have any empirical evidence to support the absurd notion that you
> CAN
> | > think?
> |
> | Point taken. The fact that I am responding you proves conclusively
> | that I cannot think and am insane.
> |
> |
> | > | we all know who is the craziest person here.
> | >
> |
> | > Yep, the dumb bastard that defined the metre in terms of the speed of
> light
> | > and the speed of light in terms of the metre, then got hopeless confused
> | > over what a second is, is the craziest person here. We all know that.
> |
> | You win.
> |
>
> http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/current.html
> The meter is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum
> during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second.
>
>
> The mile is the length of the path travelled by a car on an interstate
> during a time interval of 1 minute. The speed of cars is 60 miles per hour.

***{You are right, of course, but that doesn't mean you will be able to
persuade a relativist to change his opinion. I used virtually the same
example in this group several years ago, on Mar. 11, 2007, in a lengthy
discussion with "Dan from Boston," "George Dishman," and others, yet I
persuaded no one. Below, between the lines of asterisks, is that entire
post.

*****************************************************
danfromboston2@yahoo.com(Dan from Boston) wrote:

> Have any of these guys who are continually 'refuting' SR and GR ever taken
> any math courses past algebra and trig? Their analyses are pitiable.

***{Mainly, we have been discussing whether the gravitationally
entrained aether theory can or cannot explain stellar aberration, and
everyone who has posted anything on the topic, whether pro or con, has
made use of no math beyond trigonometry, for the simple and sufficient
reason that trigonometry is the math which such an analysis requires.

The only attack on relativity that was posted in connection with that
discussion was posted by me, and I assume from your comment that you
disagree with it, since you characterized my analysis as "pitiable." So
let me ask you a question: if someone told you that (a) automobile
speeds are a universal constant the value of which is 50 mph, and (b)
that the speed of each automobile has to be measured using an onboard
clock that automatically registers 1 hour for every 50 miles traveled,
would you accept his conclusion?

If not, then why would you accept Einstein's statement that (a) the
speed of light is a universal constant the value of which is 186,000
miles/sec, and (b) that the speed of light has to be measured using a
clock in the vicinity of the lightpath which automatically registers 1
second for every 186,000 miles that light travels?

In other words, why can't we follow standard practice, and use clocks
calibrated to run at the same rate as standard time here on Earth?
That's what we do when we measure the speeds of automobiles and
everything else. Why must we make an exception for light?

Enquiring minds want to know! :-)

--Mitchell Jones}***

> Dan
*****************************************************

The above is, of course, a very strong argument, and it would persuade
any reasonable person. However, reasonable people--i.e., people who
place a greater value on finding the truth than on fitting in--are as
rare as hen's teeth on this blighted planet. The norm here, instead, is
unreasonableness, as described between the lines of asterisks below, in
an excerpt from a message that I posted here on Dec. 31, 2006.

*****************************************************
In article <m1mfp2t0mjk73mqbjp0274qq2p3v8fevfm@4ax.com>,
John C. Polasek <jpolasek@cfl.rr.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 01:48:39 -0600, Mitchell Jones
> <mjones@21cenlogic.com> wrote:

> >In article <r04bp21054rf9d76t9q7c7bdp71492e93g@4ax.com>,
> > John C. Polasek <jpolasek@cfl.rr.com> wrote:

[snip]

> >> Dual Space has this motto:
> >>
> >> "If you have something to say, write an equation. If you have nothing
> >> to say, write an essay".

> >
> >***{I've heard that a lot, and I don't deny that it contains a grain of
> >truth--to wit: the equations of physics describe observed relationships
> >between experimentally measured data points, and thus summarize the
> >the equations say, the odds are very great that you are talking through

> Your philosophizing is in the wrong venue. Try sci.liberalarts.
> It does not seem to bother you that there is not one equation cited
> above that would eliminate 90% of the arm-waving argument.

***{I suggest you consider what this group would be like if all the
words were eliminated from posts, leaving only the equations. Nothing
posted here would make a lick of sense, and an outsider who browsed
through the group would conclude that we are all insane. Even your
current post, to which I am presently responding, contained no
equations; yet you do not seem to have been troubled by that state of
affairs. How can it be OK for you to post natural language statements in
this group, if it is not OK for others to do it? --MJ}***

> To a mathematician it is as you say, "the equations of physics
> describe (nothing more than)  observed relationships between
> experimentally measured data points".
>
> To a real physicist the equation mensurates a model that he can use to
> represent a physical, believable mechanism and in which the equations
> contain sine qua non: units.

> But modern physics has deteriorated to the point of simply
> capitulating, in having to believe something they can't really
> believe.

> Such is the case with general relativity, in which, on the advice of a
> mathematician, space and time were equated. No one can really believe
> that space and time can be bent.

***{Foolish notions, I agree. But therein lies the vulnerability of the
theory of relativity: it is the natural language statements that are the
entirety of the theory; and it is they, not the equations, which are
vulnerable to attack. Why, then, do almost all of the non-relativists
who post here attack the equations while ignoring the actual target of
their ire? Why can't they comprehend that the equations are a summary of
results obtained by experimentation, and, as such, are by and large
simply statements of fact? Why attack the facts, when the
interpretations of the facts are so idiotic as to be virtually obscene?
Why get one's dander up in response to ridiculous natural language
statements and then, rather than attack the statements, attack the

>Nor can they believe that all of the
> 10^53 kg in the universe was at one time tinier than a neutron.

***{Transparent nonsense, of course. But you are wrong to say no one can
really believe it: nonsense is routinely believed by social reasoners.
Believing another person's nonsense is a way of sucking up, and social
reasoners have elevated sucking up into an art form. It's what they do
to "get ahead" and, to that end, is pretty much the only trick they
know. --MJ}***

>Nor
> that light really can have a constant value in a vacuum to which they
> attribute no physical parameters. Yet the practicioners must believe
> under pain of banishment.

***{Yup. The defining characteristic of a social reasoner is that
fitting in is more important to him than knowing the truth. In his heart
of hearts, he is utterly convinced of his own incompetence and, as a
consequence, that he cannot possibly succeed based on merit. Result: he
seeks to succeed with the assistance of others, and regards agreement
with other people's nonsense as the means by which that assistance is to
be obtained. Truth, in such a framework, is irrelevant. The goal is not
to understand reality. Reality, in the social reasoner's view, is
unknowable. Thus the social reasoner, out of ingrained habit, avoids
lines of thought that undercut the beliefs of those whose assistance he
desires, and seeks out lines of thought which support those beliefs.

Because the thinking of the social reasoner is selective, (a) his
beliefs bear no necessary relationship to the facts, and (b) there is no
power of persuasion or force of argument that can alter any opinion
which he regards as expedient within his chosen social milieu. Instead,
when his socially expedient beliefs are persistently challenged, he will
in most cases resort to non-substantive, ad hominem arguments. Indeed,
the introduction of ad hominems into the context of what had previously
been a rational discussion is a behavior that functions very much like a
leper's bell: it tells you what sort of person you are dealing with,
and, thus, that any insights gained if the discussion continues will
probably have more to do with the peculiarities of psychopathology than
with anything else.

Bottom line: when the leper's bell begins to ring, you need to decide
whether you are interested in studying psychopathology. If you are, then
you should continue the exchange; and if not, you should add the social
reasoner's name to your killfile. It's as simple as that.

--Mitchell Jones}***
*****************************************************

*****************************************************************
If I seem to be ignoring you, consider the possibility
that you are in my killfile. --MJ

Date Subject Author
6/5/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/6/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/6/10 pete
6/6/10 ostap_bender_1900@hotmail.com
6/6/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/6/10 ostap_bender_1900@hotmail.com
6/6/10 Mike Dworetsky
6/6/10 David Bernier
6/6/10 Mike Dworetsky
6/6/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/7/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/7/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/6/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/7/10 Mike Dworetsky
6/7/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/7/10 Mike Dworetsky
6/8/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/8/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/8/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/8/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/8/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/8/10 Porky Pig Jr
6/9/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/10/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/10/10 Mike Dworetsky
6/10/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/10/10 Mike Dworetsky
6/10/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/11/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/11/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/12/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/13/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/13/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/13/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/13/10 bert
6/14/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/14/10 Porky Pig Jr
6/14/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/14/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/15/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/15/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/6/10 Porky Pig Jr
6/7/10 bjacoby@iwaynet.net
6/7/10 Androcles
6/7/10 ostap_bender_1900@hotmail.com
6/7/10 ostap_bender_1900@hotmail.com
6/7/10 Brian Q. Hutchings
6/15/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/15/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/15/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/15/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/15/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/16/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/16/10 Porky Pig Jr
6/17/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/17/10 bert
6/17/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/18/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/19/10 Owen Jacobson
6/19/10 Androcles
6/19/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/22/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/22/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/22/10 Frederick Williams
6/22/10 Owen Jacobson
6/22/10 Androcles
6/22/10 David R Tribble
6/22/10 Androcles
6/23/10 David R Tribble
6/23/10 Androcles
6/28/10 Mitchell Jones
6/22/10 Uncle Al
6/22/10 David R Tribble
6/23/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/23/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/23/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/23/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/23/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/24/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/24/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/25/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/25/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/25/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/25/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/26/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/26/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/26/10 Cassidy Furlong
6/27/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/27/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/27/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/28/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/28/10 Brian Q. Hutchings
6/29/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/29/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/29/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/29/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
7/1/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
7/1/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
7/1/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
7/2/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
7/8/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
7/8/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
7/8/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
7/10/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
7/10/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/19/10 Owen Jacobson
6/19/10 Androcles
6/19/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/19/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/20/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/20/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/20/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/21/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/21/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/21/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/21/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/21/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/22/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/18/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/18/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/18/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/22/10 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
6/23/10 NoEinstein