Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Himalayan Imports' started by munk, Jul 17, 2002.
(Note there are two underdashes after "varulv")
I've said what I have to say, Eik.
Kismet, where do you dig up this stuff?
Look at the paragraphs that precede the part you quoted.
Did they make sense? Not to me...Then how can their gravity theory based upon them make sense? Why bother to continue...but we will, for the hell of it. Hope my italic and bold fonts work.
"Photon energy is inversely proportional to photon wave length; the shorter the wavelength, the greater the energy. Since photon speed through space is a constant, shorter wavelengths must pass a point in space in less time than longer wave lengths. Because of this, and the (a) fact that the maximum possible electric and magnetic amplitude of any point in space is a certain finite value, photon action, expressed as Joule-seconds is a constant for all photons regardless of frequency.
(b) Planck's constant is this amount of electromagnetic amplitude available at any one point in space. Note that it is not a property of a photon, but rather a property of space itself. It is therefore not only the maximum amount but also the minimum amount of action available for a photon in space. This property of space is the key to the how gravity is caused by the Planck's-Constant phenomenon.
Planck's constant is this amount of electromagnetic amplitude available at any one point in space. Note that it is not a property of a photon, but rather a property of space itself. (c) It is therefore not only the maximum amount but also the minimum amount of action available for a photon in space"
(a) Dunno where this "fact" came from... maybe the photonics book? Dunno what photonics is really, something to do with propigation of energy through matter I think. All I can say is Wiley is a "real" publisher of scientific books. But it looks to me like these guys are trying to carry the properties of solids, liquids, gases to the "empty vacuum" of space. Valid? Certainly a topic in and of itself.
(b) Point? 1-D geometrical point which is infinitely small and of which there are infinitely many infinitely close together? Hardly seems limiting when discussing waves with non-zero wavelengths. Not this kind of point? What then, a volume? How big? No, not infinitely close together? What density, and why? Why Planck's constant? No justification for something which is main idea #4 of this paper.
(c) Whaaat? Some clarification certainly needed here...The photon consumes a chunk of "action" for as long as it takes a wavelength to pass? "Empty" space is quantized?...
Do these concepts of space, and photons fit with the rest of physics where they are also used? It's their burden to demonstrate this, not someone elses.
Should you happen to run accross the best, or any decent theory of gravitation I won't be able to tell you. The few folks I've known who did stuff like that started with a pile of equations from accepted theory and a postulate as a starting point, worked the equations into other mathematical forms, and kept doing that until they got a form which they could interpret as physically meaningful. Sometimes took years, since they maybe had to learn some new (to them) field of math along the way. In the past, new fields of math have been invented (discovered?--philosphical question) during this process, or some obscure field of math previously of interest only to mathematicians suddenly found an application.
Note that it is easier to show something's internally inconsistent or ill-defined than to show it is fully consistent, adequately precise, and does the best job of explaining what's known and should replace a current theory. They have a much higher burden of proof than me just B.S.ing around with you.
The goofy non-intuitive things in current physics eventually appear after mathematical manipulation of equations that are taken as the best representations of the physical world.Somebody didn't just think up black holes or time-dilation and then scribble down a theory in ordinary language. Representations of the theory in ordinary language are short-hand for the mathematical constructs and have full meaning and precise meaning only to those who understand the mathematical construct. The people who do this stuff think and communicate in mathematics. For many purposes, a less complete, intuitive understanding is adequate. (No relativistic problems driving to the store, or using a flashlight, or etching computer chips with UV light) But if no math error is found along the way, and the initial equations are still accepted, then one is stuck with the result until it's done another way that does as well or better. If one can't examine the work in that detail, one must rely on others who can. Peer review is a good thing, especially if no one except those peers can understand it.
Somebody who fiddles around with the imprecise lingusitic representations of fundamental concepts like this instead of doing the hard work described above, and then says "I've a better theory, you do the real work and prove me wrong" is asinine and infantile IMO. Kinda like scribbling a picture of a giant bridge on a napkin and saying "This is the design for the strongest and cheapest bridge that can be built, I'm better than any engineer, they haven't showed it can't be done."
That's about all the help I can give you, I suggest you try and find a non-mathematical description of gravitation written by someone who does work that's peer-reviewed before publication. Or perhaps a web-site that contains something from a college physics course. Sounds snobby and academic, but unless you've a few years of advanced physics under your belt, I think you'll have to trust such people to do the job of evaluating gravitation theories. That's what I do (but it is sometimes fun to see if I can find the flaw in wacky ones). Just like one must sometimes trust a tax attorney or airline pilot.
You have been both generous and tolerant in explaining what made no sense to me--keeping in mind, I didn't expect it to makes sense to me.
As near as I can figure, at the moment the answer is "Dunno."
But your informed and consistent explanations were wonderful to read.
I thank you.
We're all in this together, somehow.
Don't surrender, just take care where you look for answers and don't expect the last word, or an easy answer. And judge the answer's value to you. Is it meant or possible for humans to have complete knowledge or understanding of the Universe? Or ourselves? Through the culmulative work of many, many people, we seem to maybe slowly inch a tiny bit closer, and wonderful and beautiful things result that enrich our material lives and our thoughts. Even from the dead-end paths and mis-steps along the way. And those can be wonderful human creations in their own right. If only we were better at not using the incremental new knowledge for selfish and evil ends... Still, overall, our existance seems better for the effort, isn't that enough? The more you learn, the more ways to appreciate the wonder of it all. Take pleasure in the journey. The brain needs exercise too. Just as one can enjoy a sport without being the best at it, one can enjoy learning without knowing what an "expert" does. The more you engage in a sport, the more you enjoy watching the best at it. Same with learning of the work of those who are the best at the study of the Universe or the best at making knives.
"Dunno" is the cheap, lazy, boring path. I think you owe yourself more.
EDIT: On another thread, Sarge has shared with us a wonderful quote which I feel is fitting to repeat here:
"A good traveller has no fixed plan, and is not intent on arriving-Lao Tzu"
Thanks for your encouragement. I intended to say that I'll keep wondering and looking, but won't trouble you any further.
Your responses reflect the good will and helpfulness that typifies this forum.
I appreciate it.
(I had to try this avatar.)
I agree, Kismet, about good will here, and I am also leaning towards, 'dunno'....
"Ah dunno know neither, but armageddon purdy durn suspicious!"?
men are always trying to kill themselves and others, but think of the silliest, funniest things....speaking strictly from the shambles of my own life, of course..there has to be some kind of record for that..what a species..thinking up all kinds of 'stuff'...Two Great Hands of Man: on one hand Science streaming forward...while on the other just as much effort in citizens thinking up funny things to make them laugh. Sort of like mutiny.
My "Yahoo" home page informed me 18 died in "middle east violence" and I wondered why they didn't say, 'suicide bombers'?
Thanks for your kind words.
By definition science is a social exercise. Like many collective human endeavors injustices occur. For an example look up Barbara McClintock's (hope I've spelled it right!!) eventual vindication in genetics. But unless you've got an agenda, it is probably most useful to look to those who play the game by the (social!) rules for answers to scientific questions. It does work best most of the time. Just a fact of human life, and humans did invent the game. Like other things humans do it ain't perfect. And science can be very complex (maybe that's due to human's imperfection, or maybe the way things really are). So interpreters are needed for those of us who don't ourselves work in a particular area.
Einstein's work did lead to a theory of gravity among other things, but it remains to make that theory fully consistent with other ares of physics. It is still a darn sight better than "dunno".
If I've been any help to you I'm glad.
I was a couple of years too young to fully appreciate the time when this expression first became popular, but "keep on truckin'".
Very cynical afterthought: If nothing but the final, "real" answer will satisfy you, and you must have it now, Mankind in this world can't provide it! Is it worth the (I hope obviously too expensive) cost to find look elsewhere now? Should we stop looking here because we only find pieces?
By definition science is a social exercise. Like many collective human endeavors injustices occur. >> Firkin
I've just re-read your praticums to Kismet...very interesting, though I still don't know what is bothering Kismet. I thought the above quote meaty enough for reprint. I think science and students of science often fool themselves and forget the medium with which data must pass through in order to be identified; us.
Some of that stuff hurts my head.
more of it hurts my heart.
An interesting thing happened to me along in this thread. I thought I'd share.
For me, try as I will, ego and pride often creep into my actions no matter who or how well I deal with the world. That's just reality for all of us. Even if I am right, self doubt and introspection takes a toll. I 'checked' another member of the forum in these pages a couple of times. The HI site is unique in that it can be a living breathing community, and that is what a community can do, reward, advise, caution and even rebuke. I remind myself that I am not the official chastiser of HI.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I am very familiar with the ground, being knocked down by my own or other's actions so often. (figuratively)
Anyway, the individual contacted me in email. I was able to see a different side of his character, and something good came of all this. Wanted you to know. Good people sometimes act badly for various reasons. Sometimes friends are made that way, God assigning us people to deal with as we go. I know if I did all the picking and choosing it would be a boring world.
When I was having the same problem 30 or 40 years ago my Guru said, "once you realize that everything you do you do for yourself you will no longer have this problem." He was right.
which problem? I wouldn't trade finding myself on the ground again for anything.
For everything is self interest...I bet you would completely understand, Bill, that I figured that out when I was 16, but being 16, couldn't do very much with it....does that make sense?
It makes sense to me. I'm a slow learner and what's worse a hardhead.
Very very nice Munk .
Being good by being a kamikaze is not always wise, I have learned, hehe.
"All will be well, and all will be well, and all manner of things will be well." Julian of Norwich.
A max dose of Prozac and a few Xanax washed down as you recite the above mantra have their merits too.
Rusty; you knoew Julian of Norwich? Amazing!! All shall be well again, I know." Bok muir and tricket. Gotta hear them>