|
|
Re: Bizarre Pattern among anti-SR "Dissidents"
Posted:
Mar 3, 2011 8:58 PM
|
|
On 3 mar, 19:53, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 3, 3:33 pm, mluttgens <lutt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 3 mar, 16:35, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 3, 2:27 pm, mluttgens <lutt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On 3 mar, 15:42, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mar 3, 1:19 pm, mluttgens <lutt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On 3 mar, 13:49, stevendaryl3...@yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Koobee Wublee says...
>
> > > > > > > >Said that from a person who does not even know how the Lorentz
> > > > > > > >transform actually mean.
>
> > > > > > > I use the Lorentz transforms in a consistent manner that agrees
> > > > > > > with experiment (within the limitations of applicability; the
> > > > > > > region of spacetime must be small enough that spacetime curvature
> > > > > > > can be neglected). You cannot use them consistently.
>
> > > > > > > The proof of understanding of a theory is the ability to use
> > > > > > > it consistently. You don't have that. Not about SR, not about
> > > > > > > GR, not about the Doppler shifts, not about any topic of physics.
>
> > > > > > > You are basically an idiot. A rude, pretentious, arrogant self-important,
> > > > > > > anti-semitic idiot.
>
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Daryl McCullough
> > > > > > > Ithaca, NY
>
> > > > > > Daryl, how do you physically explain the GR BH'singulartity?
>
> > > > > > Iow, how can a dimensionless point have mass or other physical
> > > > > > properties?
>
> > > > > I'm not sure I understand the problem, Marcel.
> > > > > Forget the black hole. The electron, as far as we can tell, does not
> > > > > have finite volume. This does not prohibit it from having physical
> > > > > properties including mass.
>
> > > > > I'm curious why you think that the properties of mass and volume (or
> > > > > charge and volume, or angular momentum and volume) are *necessarily*
> > > > > tied together.
>
> > > > > > As this is impossible, GR is almost right, meaning it is wrong.
>
> > > > > > Marcel Luttgens
>
> > > > Paul,
>
> > > > You want to forget the BH because of its unphysical singularity!
>
> > > Not so. And it doesn't appear to be unphysical. I chose the electron
> > > as something else to look at, because I doubt that you would claim
> > > that any theory that involves electrons must be wrong.
>
> > Thus, according to you, infinites are physical.
>
> What infinities?
> The mass is nonzero and finite, and the volume is zero and of course
> finite.
>
> Generally speaking, we do not have *measurable* quantities that are
> infinite, but there doesn't seem to be anything measurable in either
> case that would be infinite.
What about density, i.e. mass/volume? When the volume is zero,
the density is of course infinite, unless the mass is also zero.
Hence, the density of a massive point electron is infinite, which is
physically
nonsensical.
> > > > And btw, how do you demonstrate that the electron has zero volume?
>
> > > One measures its size. So far, there is no indication of any finite,
> > > nonzero size.
>
> > And so far, there is no indication that the electron is dimensionless.
>
> > > This doesn't mean that its size has been *proven* to be zero. But that
> > > wasn't my question to you. The question to you is why you assume that
> > > anything that has mass must also have volume?
>
> > The question is, how could a dimensionless point be massive?
>
> Because volume and mass are independent properties. One does not
> demand the other.
> But also to your statement, an electron is not to be equated with a
> mathematical point. A mathematical point does not have the property of
> electric charge, for example. A electron (as far as we know) and a
> mathematical point share the property of having no volume but this
> does not equate one with the other, any more than a zebra is equated
> with a tiger because they both have stripes.
>
> An electron, as far as we know, exhibits mass, charge, spin, lepton
> number, parity, and a few other properties, but it does not exhibit
> nonzero volume.
I agree.
> Nor does any of the properties that it does have
> DEMAND that it have volume.
If it had no volume, its density would be infinite.
>
> > > > Your mathematical modelling is no more than a tentative interpretation
> > > > of the physical world.
>
> > > The mathematical model, however, is successful, where success is based
> > > on observation.
>
> > Not in the case of BH, where the model leads to infinite values.
>
> Of what measurable property?
Its density. But of course, an infinite density is not measurable,
and makes no sense.
> > > The question is put to you how it is your assertion that nonzero mass
> > > necessarily implies nonzero volume is supported by any scientific
> > > measure of success.
>
> > How can a nonzero volume implies a nonzero mass?
>
> It doesn't. An empty box is an example of a nonzero volume with zero
> mass.
> A crystal is an example of a nonzero volume with nonzero mass.
Sorry, I meant a zero volume with a nonzero mass.
> An electron is an example, as far as we know, of a zero volume with a
> nonzero mass.
An infinite density has no physical meaning.
Marcel Luttgens
|
|
