thomas clarke

If that is not a joke, you are insane.

I don't know what course you took in calculus. It must have skipped indefinite integration.


The equations are the picture. Equations can deal with N dimensions.
No human, that I know of, can visualize N dimensions.


You are trying to make he we in your analogy but it is not working.


The motion he knows or the motion we as 3D beings outside his world know.


His motion may not be orthogonal to his 2D world from our point
of view. It could be oblique.

Not so, he could be oblique. Orthogonality is an extra assumption.

Huh? Rotation about which axis?


If he's a mathematician and you give him equations he will.
If he's a physicist and you tell him an experiment that
cannot be explained without the theory of embedding in a 3D
world, then he will.

Why orthogonal and not oblique.
Why only a fourth dimension?
Why not N extra dimensions?

Or oblique.


Again. About which axis?

I think that relativity does this with time as the fourth
dimension already - for Sagac anyway.
Brillet Hall I still think probably a spurious signal.

Tom Clarke


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

barry

His method worked then, didn't it?


Because we've agreed that MMX is 2D and can't reveal non-accelerated
motion to him, or even to us.

Remember you agreed with me on that one?


But we see him move, don't we?

That's our gedanken.


No, that's why we use an analogy.

To see ourselves as others see us.


Well, photons are all I can see, I don't know about you.

The orthogonal part is intuition, insight and analysis of experimental results.

You accidentally clipped out the first part of the explanation:
___________________
I said that his world was vertical and moving from left to right
across our room. Nevertheless, he can only observe photons that reach
him on a path orthogonal to his motion. Hence he can only see a 2D
world.

The set of all paths orthogonal to any given direction in 3 space would
form a 2 D surface, I would think.
___________________

Naturally, I meant paths leading to our Flatlander and orthogonal to the
direction of his motion.


Imagine a point on a flat sheet of paper. Imagine a line perpendicular
to the paper at that point. Now, imagine all the lines orthogonal to
that line, at that point.

Don't you think that they lie in the plane of the paper?

Why bother with science if you're content?

Frankly, I just don't get that.


Remember that my previous sentence, which you had reproduced just above
was:
_______________________
Remember, we're trying to solve the problem of why he can only see a 2D
surface, To solve this puzzle, we have to leave behind what we know and
make a guess,
___________________

How on Earth can you forget the sentence that you had just responded to?

Why do I have to remind you that I just reminded you?

Once again:
______________________
Remember, we're trying to solve the problem of why he can only see a 2D
surface, To solve this puzzle, we have to leave behind what we know and
make a guess, ______________________

Once again:
______________________
Remember, we're trying to solve the problem of why he can only see a 2D
surface, To solve this puzzle, we have to leave behind what we know and
make a guess,
______________________


It suggests to me a previously unrecognized fundamental property of
matter, and that the *apparent* structure of spacetime is a consequence
of this property, not a stage upon which matter acts out its play.


But *we* know that he's in our 3D space, don't we?

His little flat friends.

In SR terms, do you realize that you and I observe different 3D surfaces
in spacetime, if we are moving relative to one another?


I tend to use British, Australian, New Zealand, Canadian, Irish, West
Indian, Indian, Pakistani, Sri Lankan, Nigerian, Ugandan and South African spellings.

You don't know that we observe different 3d slices than our non
co-moving neighbours observe?


I have a 2D plate on a 2D table. I'm going to rotate the plate, while
leaving the plate on the table.

Think of a roulette wheel, if you like.

Where does the axis of rotation point?

Effort don't enter into it.

And did those mathematicians sit around waiting for some equation fairy
to leave equations under their pillow?

How did he determine that the theory did not work, if he did not consider it?

That he will close his mind if he has a theory that "works".

Just as you have.


No, remember I'm writing a different book from the _Flatland_ we read?


Not by me. But symmetry is not just a mathematical concept. It is also
physical and aesthetic.

So Science is finished?

We all pack up, turn off the lights and go home?

That's what they thought at the close of the 19th Century.

Barry

tclarke

Well I'm back from my travels and I find that
Barry wrote a very long post in reply to my last
one.

But his arguments are just as stupid as the previous
post, just as stupid as the ones I just wasted time replying
to in another subthread.

So I choose not to answer his stupidities.

Tom Clarke

thomas clarke

Theory A makes no use of the value V and theory A is also
able to explain every observed experiment.

Theory B says V is observable.

But this means that according to theory B there is an
experiment E whose outcome depends on the value of V.
If there were no such experiment, then there is no way
B could determine the vlaue of V since all experiments
would be independent of the value of V.

But theory A can explain the results of experiment E
independently of the value of V. But this means that
the results of E cannot depend of V. If this were not so
A could not explain E since E would have different results
depending on the value of V and A does not have any way
to utilize the value of V in its explanations.

So there is a contradiction. If A explains all experiments
there can be no such theory B. ..........


Yes perfectly good. What is imperfect about it?
...........

What is the experiment E that A cannot explain?

Tom Clarke

--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

thomas clarke

Think of it as a gedanken.
Theories in practice have a domain of applicability.
No one would expect GR to explain arthritis. But GR is
expected to explain anything having to do with gravity.
So far it has succeeded.

I was really thinking of the velocity of the ether.
But with regard to the F'ers I don't know that they are moving
across the room. That is only a hypothesis to see if anything useful emerges.

The history of science has been that the nose of the scientist
is rubbed in the discrepancy. Mercury's perihelion advanced before
anyone knew of flaws in gravity (probably they were doing the
accurate measures in hope of the fame of discovering a new planet,
though). The photoelectric effect just did not work they way
the wave theory of light said it should. Etc. etc.
Now scientists have caught onto the game and are always on
the watch for anomalies and the fame and fortune that would attend such discovery.


Yes I recall writing that. How will you twist it?

A contradiction actually.

If he can process data from experiments in such a way as to
reveal some new fact - like V- then V is not truly unobservable.

A better word would be "veiled".
[e.g see "Veiled reality" by Bernard d'Espagnat]

If something is unobservable then no theory can make it observable.
Perhaps if it was just difficult to observe "veiled", or
if it were a mistake that it was unobservable it might be the
case that it is observable.


It is fact dependent. Whether we humans know that it is
observable or not is theory dependent. Our theories have
no influence of the facts of reality.

Well then theory A is wrong, if that is the case.

Then theory A is wrong.
So there is an experiment, a fact of reality, that depends on
something corresponding the variable V.


So B is true but A is false.
V was not unobservable after all. It was observable all
along. It just took a bit of work to find it. .............


But A does not need V and explains E perfectly well
in the cases I have in mind.

So where is the experiment that needs V? This would
have to be an experiment that when V=0 comes out one
way and when V=1 comes out another way (without loss of
generality scale so V=0 and V=1 are possible values).
Theory B could explain this nicely, but A would be hamstrung.
In fact the results of the experiment would constitute a
V detector.

So what is an experiment E which corresponds to different
values of V?

Tom Clarke


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

barry

You won't look because you don't think it's possible, or you don't think
it's possible because you haven't looked?


Is that because you don't think it's possible, so you haven't looked?


To have your nose rubbed into something is to be disgraced.

I don't think it's a disgrace to make mistakes, do you?

Are you really making an effort to understand?

That's what we're trying to show him isn't it?


Can you think of anything that used to be "unobservable" but no longer
is?

Can you think of anything that is "unobservable" now but might soon be
"observed"?

I wonder what you think is "unobservable", without qualification, right
now, and always will be?

That is theory dependent. Remember the Fool on the Hill?


I've spent some time trying to show you how our Flatlander might detect
his motion, but you don't seem to want to help him.

How could you possibly detect your own motion with that attitude?

Your argument is that Maxwell was wrong? You're very brave.

Numbers that "mysteriously" appear, just like "v", in which case, you
seem to be arguing that Planck, Maxwell and Einstein were all out to
lunch.


Did anybody expect the Spanish Inquisition to come back?

Planck, Newton, Maxwell and Einstein all wrong, but Tom Clarke correct?


You can lead a horse to water....

Which is why I was pointing out that "A" was ingenious but
scientifically unimaginative, almost sterile.

So you want experiments where pi, h, and c change?

--
Barry

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to
entertain a thought without accepting it.
-- Aristotle (384 BC - 322 BC)

thomas clarke

In SR there is no absolute time standard. Ergo there cannot
be an absolute ether velocity standard. Did you mean to imply this? ......................

Is not the BH apparatus ultimately an electronic device?

That is non-inertial motion, or course.

That is also a non-inertial situation. GR instead of SR.


I didn't say they wouldn't work. But that they would work differently,
requring retuning and the like. ................................


You don't seem to get my point that everytime an electronic apparatus
works as expected in a moving laboratory that such is in effect a
test of the principle of relativity, that is of the independence of the
speed of light on the _constant/inertial_ speed of the laboratory. ............................

Dennis. Please quote Su's prediction for the value of aberration. ...................

I don't know how to respond. But here is the context
Clarke wrote: >> No. Su explicity says his theory does not account for aberration.

I still don't know how to respond as I have no idea what Dennis
means by "different theories all labelled SR, GR and QM"

Of course string theory is different from gauge theory/standard model,
but both are quantum theories. As far as I know there is only one
GR or SR. LET claims same predictions as SR but they are
different theories (I have doubts about LET dealing with QM to make QFT).


How do you design particle accelerators with your theory? .................

That was too quick. Since gravity in your theory is caused by flow
of ether particles toward the sun (for planetary orbit case), how do
you prevent aberration of the direction of motion of the particles
relative
to the moving planets from causing a tangential force component and
therefore causing the planets to spiral into the sun? ......................

I am saying that Su doesn not use the "Lorentz trasnformaiton of ...
time"
as implied by quote above.

************************************
[regarding cesium clocks]

Sell then it is only your hypothesis that cesium clocks are analogous
to sound based clocks.
I do not agree with the analogy.

Tom Clarke


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

barry

In Re: Anti-ether experiments, not in How to observe...

Tom, why are you responding to Dennis' post in an entirely different
thread?

I've noticed your doing this several times in the past.

There are at least three good reasons for avoiding this:


(i) Dennis might overlook your response.

(ii) It makes it difficult for readers to back track up the thread for
logical continuity.

(iii) It can make you appear dishonest.

--
Barry

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to
entertain a thought without accepting it.
-- Aristotle (384 BC - 322 BC)

thomas clarke

I don't know. Ask the news reader software at www.mailgate.org

At mailgate.org which I started using as it responds faster than
google, is more reliable than the local universities newsfeed, and
easier to get to (usually) than AOL, I notice that the subthread
you started with "How to ..." title from the "Anti-ether..." thread
shows up as the same single thread, unlike google. I guess it
gets confused once in a while.

I don't do it on purpose.


Of course, I do harbor suspicians that Barry is a Dennis alter ego.
Correlations in absences, tendency to read same threads etc.

Do you really think there are any other readers than us?


Only to the suspicious.

Tom Clarke


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

thomas clarke

He is 2D being, by definition he cannot observe the 3rd dimension.
You are trying to convince him that he should adopt a theory
that incorporates a 3rd dimension on the basis of his 2D evidence.


If he can observe it then he is not a Flatlander.


If you succeed than he is a Flatlander who believes his
2D perceivable world is embedded in a 3D (or higher) non-perceivable space.

You want him to "infer" it.
He cannot see it. His instruments cannot directly respond to it.
He cannot directly "observe" a 3rd dimension. .....................


Yes I did.
So is your theory just another way of looking at Minkowski space or not?


Will you stop with the Flatlander already?
I have no idea what you are trying to get at.


Those are pretty well answered by SR.


I have no idea what a "wall" is?


GR takes care of this.


At last an question that might break new ground. Although
SR/QM relation is pretty well covered.
Do you think you have something to say about about GR/QM? ..

Explain what you mean by this, then. I can't even see how
you think Flatlanders are observing different 2D surfaces.

Aristotle suggesting 4D and complex?
What history do you live in? ....................

Not "is the point", but "to the point".

Don't expect to not get an argument from me about where
you take that "yes", though.


How do you distinguish between unobservable and non-existent?
That is to to the point, I think.


You are assuming the conclusion. How do you know that
"things that exist are observable"? I'll grant that things that
"don't exist are unobservable".


And how does that show that what exists is obervable?

Don't put words in my mouth.

Yes, we might always be wrong - about many things.

And what profound meaning do you think this has?

Oh that is where you are going.


Don't. If you want to go ahead. Argue with yourself then and I'll sign
off from this thread. I mentioned things that we have reason to believe
will be observed soon, things we are actively looking for. Stuff that
might be "serendipitously" discovered in the future could exist but
I cannot think of, by definition.


Lucy in the sky with diamonds.

I can entertain the thought of detecting pink unicorns. If you want
details, a strange craft lands on the Whitehous lawn and out steps ...


That's it? Talk about trivialities!

I disagree with the characterization of sterility.

So you think pi is a variable that should be manipulated in theories?

Tom Clarke


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG