Re: [Vo]:the OTHER zero point
On 09/24/2011 06:23 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: First, you hit a sore point here, and I'm going to address it first. The sore point is people giving some special, unusual meaning to a common word, and then pretending that they've done something more clever than just introduce a monkey wrench into the discussion. On 11-09-23 07:32 PM, Mauro Lacy wrote: I'll probably tell you too that for me science, real science, is about knowledge of the way things really are. Wrong on the face of it. Language is for communication, and communication using language requires a previously agreed to set of meanings for the words to be used. Consequently, you are welcome to define some word to mean knowledge of the way things /really/ are, along with your own personal definition of the term really are, but the word for that isn't science, which has rather more limited goals. What I'm saying is that science has bias. See below. You can pretend that /real/ science would have a more broad reaching goal than what /ordinary/ science has, but science is just a word, words are just for communication, and to have value in communication the word must be vested with its commonly accepted meaning. By definition, a word means what it is commonly agreed to mean -- nothing more and nothing less. If you use a word to mean something other than that, then you are using it for obfuscation, not communication. Ok, here's the obfuscated meaning I'm using: Science is the pursuit of knowledge about reality. Science, as the word is commonly used, refers to a particular technique and the knowledge which has been gained by that technique. The (extremely simple) technique of science consists of observing reality, making guesses about what makes it all go, and then /testing/ the guesses. The knowledge which has been gained by applying that technique is the aggregate of the guesses which have been made, and the results of the tests which have been applied, and really, that's all there is to it. Anything else is outside the realm of science, as the word is commonly used. In particular, determining the nature of some unknown and ultimately untestable absolute reality is utterly beyond its scope. I beg to disagree. Scientists limit themselves to a subset of possible ways of knowing, but that's not science, but academics, establishment, power struggles, sectarianism, and the like. And I insist: science (real science) is much more than that. On 11-09-23 07:32 PM, Mauro Lacy wrote: [ ... ] Now, looking at the picture again, I can ask you: what is moving in the galaxy? In general, you'll answer that stars, dust clouds, etc. are moving, and that their movement has taken a spiral form, again, due to gravity and due to a given initial rotation of the system, which was in the past a giant dust cloud of some kind(which was rotating who knows why), and gradually developed stars and planets out of the initial irregularities. And then I'll ask you: the empty space between stars, planets, etc. which is in the galaxy, is also moving? You'll probably answer that, given our current understanding of the matter, only matter can move, not empty space. Moreover, you'll cite scientific premises like Occam's razor and the like, to announce that we shouldn't multiply the entities, that only observables and measurable things must be considered, etc. No, I won't invoke Occam's Razor at all. I'll merely point out that we can easily cast your comments about the motion of space itself in classical terms. You are talking about an aether, and a sort of reverse aether drag where the moving aether drags the stars along. To date, the aether theories which are consistent with experimental results are also consistent with the predictions of SR, which is purely geometric and does not require an aether. Consequently, to date there's no evidence for the existence of an aether. That's wrong as a procedural rule. In fact, it's at the core of the problem: The next scientific step with a purely geometric theory is to try to assign it physical meaning. We can say, by example, that Kepler laws are purely geometric, and therefore, do not need something like a physical cause to operate. But then Newton came and derived an inverse square law from Kepler laws. Newton erred in his theory, by the way, when assuming that matter alone causes gravity, but nevertheless, a physical explanation, a reason for Kepler laws, was proposed and in fact adopted. So, the next scientific step with relativity theories, is to try to understand them physically, or to try to find a physical cause for the behaviour predicted by them. As I said, that step has been missing for centuries, and that omission has very specific reasons: A physical explanation for special relativity rules out materialism. If we understand matter as something having tridimensional (spatial) extent, relativity theories clearly point to something that is not material, i.e.
Re: [Vo]:the OTHER zero point
First, you hit a sore point here, and I'm going to address it first. The sore point is people giving some special, unusual meaning to a common word, and then pretending that they've done something more clever than just introduce a monkey wrench into the discussion. On 11-09-23 07:32 PM, Mauro Lacy wrote: I'll probably tell you too that for me science, real science, is about knowledge of the way things really are. Wrong on the face of it. Language is for communication, and communication using language requires a previously agreed to set of meanings for the words to be used. Consequently, you are welcome to define some word to mean knowledge of the way things /really/ are, along with your own personal definition of the term really are, but the word for that isn't science, which has rather more limited goals. You can pretend that /real/ science would have a more broad reaching goal than what /ordinary/ science has, but science is just a word, words are just for communication, and to have value in communication the word must be vested with its commonly accepted meaning. By definition, a word means what it is commonly agreed to mean -- nothing more and nothing less. If you use a word to mean something other than that, then you are using it for obfuscation, not communication. Science, as the word is commonly used, refers to a particular technique and the knowledge which has been gained by that technique. The (extremely simple) technique of science consists of observing reality, making guesses about what makes it all go, and then /testing/ the guesses. The knowledge which has been gained by applying that technique is the aggregate of the guesses which have been made, and the results of the tests which have been applied, and really, that's all there is to it. Anything else is outside the realm of science, as the word is commonly used. In particular, determining the nature of some unknown and ultimately untestable absolute reality is utterly beyond its scope. On 11-09-23 07:32 PM, Mauro Lacy wrote: [ ... ] Now, looking at the picture again, I can ask you: what is moving in the galaxy? In general, you'll answer that stars, dust clouds, etc. are moving, and that their movement has taken a spiral form, again, due to gravity and due to a given initial rotation of the system, which was in the past a giant dust cloud of some kind(which was rotating who knows why), and gradually developed stars and planets out of the initial irregularities. And then I'll ask you: the empty space between stars, planets, etc. which is in the galaxy, is also moving? You'll probably answer that, given our current understanding of the matter, only matter can move, not empty space. Moreover, you'll cite scientific premises like Occam's razor and the like, to announce that we shouldn't multiply the entities, that only observables and measurable things must be considered, etc. No, I won't invoke Occam's Razor at all. I'll merely point out that we can easily cast your comments about the motion of space itself in classical terms. You are talking about an aether, and a sort of reverse aether drag where the moving aether drags the stars along. To date, the aether theories which are consistent with experimental results are also consistent with the predictions of SR, which is purely geometric and does not require an aether. Consequently, to date there's no evidence for the existence of an aether. But that could change tomorrow. If the motion of the stars in spiral galaxies can be explained by an aether theory, then obviously that would change things rather a lot -- and the aether would move from the realm of speculation (which is what an untestable theory is) and into the realm of theories producing testable predictions. But to get to that point, you'd need to refine your speculation enough to explain not just precisely what the interaction between the aether and the stars is, but you would also need to explain what was making the aether whirl around like that. If you can't come up with a solid reason for the latter, then you've got no constraints on how you can assume the aether moves, and your theory starts looking untestable. It is not Occam's Razor that says that any theory which produces no testable predictions is not a valid theory. Rather, it's the basic principle of science: You observe, you guess, and you /test your guess/. If you can't test your guess in any way, then it's a useless sort of guess. And then I'll answer that it strikes me as completely self evident that what has caused the beautiful spiral arrangement of the stars in the galaxy arms is the movement of space itself. As I said, quantify that, so that it makes a testable prediction, and it becomes an interesting theory. Absent such quantification, it's just speculation, and is outside the realm of science, which doesn't deal with things which cannot be tested.
[Vo]:the OTHER zero point
Vorts, So, when I first heard about zero point energy years back, I assumed it was something I had already theorized myself when struggling with the concepts of relativity (which still bugs me, for the reasons I'm about to list) as I was mentally using the term Zero Point already. Imagine my dissapointment... Anyways, I'm a biologist and chemist more than a physicist, so PLEASE, correct me where I am wrong. As the velocity of an object increases, its apparent mass increases, and time slows, for that object, yes? And the time dilation and mass increase is relative to the velocity based upon the observer being a zero point. For 3 objects moving in a straight line in the same direction, one at .1 c, one at .2 c, one at .8 c, time dilation will be different for the .8 c object when vied by the other two objects, yes? because its traveling at .7 c compared to one, and .6 c compared to the other, correct? If that is the case, is there a zero point? is there an intrinsic velocity that pretty much EVERYTHING in the galaxy/universe shares? If so, what happens to mass and the flow of time as you approach that zero point? Confusedly, Alexander
Re: [Vo]:the OTHER zero point
Vorts, So, when I first heard about zero point energy years back, I assumed it was something I had already theorized myself when struggling with the concepts of relativity (which still bugs me, for the reasons I'm about to list) as I was mentally using the term Zero Point already. Imagine my dissapointment... Anyways, I'm a biologist and chemist more than a physicist, so PLEASE, correct me where I am wrong. As the velocity of an object increases, its apparent mass increases, and time slows, for that object, yes? And the time dilation and mass increase is relative to the velocity based upon the observer being a zero point. For 3 objects moving in a straight line in the same direction, one at .1 c, one at .2 c, one at .8 c, time dilation will be different for the .8 c object when vied by the other two objects, yes? because its traveling at .7 c compared to one, and .6 c compared to the other, correct? If that is the case, is there a zero point? is there an intrinsic velocity that pretty much EVERYTHING in the galaxy/universe shares? If so, what happens to mass and the flow of time as you approach that zero point? The velocity of the vaccum. Does the vacuum moves? At which speed? And in relation to what? the immobile vacuum? Einstein's SR disregards all those questions as nonsense, or better said, metaphysics. Speeds are only to be measured between material bodies, and not correlated against any absolute reference, because that absolute reference cannot be measured or determined. Does something that cannot be measured or determined exists? In which sense, or where, it exists?
Re: [Vo]:the OTHER zero point
In fact, the questions aren't nonsense; they just need to be carefully posed to get sensible answers out of them in a universe where SR applies. There is a distinguished frame for the universe: The rest frame of the three degree background radiation. There just is one inertial frame of reference in which that's isotropic -- in all other frames it's red shifted in one direction, blue shifted in the other. That frame is (presumably) the frame which is at rest relative to the primordial fireball. Furthermore, if the universe is a compact manifold and folds back on itself -- such as the surface of a sphere -- then there is an intrinsic rest frame as well, which can be found by sending pulses of light simultaneously in opposite directions. If the universe is closed, and the light eventually comes back to the emitter, then there is just one inertial frame in which the two pulses will arrive back at the emitter simultaneously. More obscurely, if the universe is closed, then the frame just mentioned is the one in which the Sagnac effect is null. All other frames are (in effect) /rotating/ (going 'round and 'round the universe). On 11-09-23 01:53 PM, Mauro Lacy wrote: Vorts, So, when I first heard about zero point energy years back, I assumed it was something I had already theorized myself when struggling with the concepts of relativity (which still bugs me, for the reasons I'm about to list) as I was mentally using the term Zero Point already. Imagine my dissapointment... Anyways, I'm a biologist and chemist more than a physicist, so PLEASE, correct me where I am wrong. As the velocity of an object increases, its apparent mass increases, and time slows, for that object, yes? And the time dilation and mass increase is relative to the velocity based upon the observer being a zero point. For 3 objects moving in a straight line in the same direction, one at .1 c, one at .2 c, one at .8 c, time dilation will be different for the .8 c object when vied by the other two objects, yes? because its traveling at .7 c compared to one, and .6 c compared to the other, correct? If that is the case, is there a zero point? is there an intrinsic velocity that pretty much EVERYTHING in the galaxy/universe shares? If so, what happens to mass and the flow of time as you approach that zero point? The velocity of the vaccum. Does the vacuum moves? At which speed? And in relation to what? the immobile vacuum? Einstein's SR disregards all those questions as nonsense, or better said, metaphysics. Speeds are only to be measured between material bodies, and not correlated against any absolute reference, because that absolute reference cannot be measured or determined. Does something that cannot be measured or determined exists? In which sense, or where, it exists?
Re: [Vo]:the OTHER zero point
Well, my own mental gymnastics says that at such a velocity, mass decreases to approach zero, and time slows towards zero as well, no? On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Mauro Lacy ma...@lacy.com.ar wrote: Vorts, So, when I first heard about zero point energy years back, I assumed it was something I had already theorized myself when struggling with the concepts of relativity (which still bugs me, for the reasons I'm about to list) as I was mentally using the term Zero Point already. Imagine my dissapointment... Anyways, I'm a biologist and chemist more than a physicist, so PLEASE, correct me where I am wrong. As the velocity of an object increases, its apparent mass increases, and time slows, for that object, yes? And the time dilation and mass increase is relative to the velocity based upon the observer being a zero point. For 3 objects moving in a straight line in the same direction, one at .1 c, one at .2 c, one at .8 c, time dilation will be different for the .8 c object when vied by the other two objects, yes? because its traveling at .7 c compared to one, and .6 c compared to the other, correct? If that is the case, is there a zero point? is there an intrinsic velocity that pretty much EVERYTHING in the galaxy/universe shares? If so, what happens to mass and the flow of time as you approach that zero point? The velocity of the vaccum. Does the vacuum moves? At which speed? And in relation to what? the immobile vacuum? Einstein's SR disregards all those questions as nonsense, or better said, metaphysics. Speeds are only to be measured between material bodies, and not correlated against any absolute reference, because that absolute reference cannot be measured or determined. Does something that cannot be measured or determined exists? In which sense, or where, it exists?
Re: [Vo]:the OTHER zero point
Wouldn't the light pulses only return at the same time if you also were at the center of the sphere? On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 11:12 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: In fact, the questions aren't nonsense; they just need to be carefully posed to get sensible answers out of them in a universe where SR applies. There is a distinguished frame for the universe: The rest frame of the three degree background radiation. There just is one inertial frame of reference in which that's isotropic -- in all other frames it's red shifted in one direction, blue shifted in the other. That frame is (presumably) the frame which is at rest relative to the primordial fireball. Furthermore, if the universe is a compact manifold and folds back on itself -- such as the surface of a sphere -- then there is an intrinsic rest frame as well, which can be found by sending pulses of light simultaneously in opposite directions. If the universe is closed, and the light eventually comes back to the emitter, then there is just one inertial frame in which the two pulses will arrive back at the emitter simultaneously. More obscurely, if the universe is closed, then the frame just mentioned is the one in which the Sagnac effect is null. All other frames are (in effect) rotating (going 'round and 'round the universe). On 11-09-23 01:53 PM, Mauro Lacy wrote: Vorts, So, when I first heard about zero point energy years back, I assumed it was something I had already theorized myself when struggling with the concepts of relativity (which still bugs me, for the reasons I'm about to list) as I was mentally using the term Zero Point already. Imagine my dissapointment... Anyways, I'm a biologist and chemist more than a physicist, so PLEASE, correct me where I am wrong. As the velocity of an object increases, its apparent mass increases, and time slows, for that object, yes? And the time dilation and mass increase is relative to the velocity based upon the observer being a zero point. For 3 objects moving in a straight line in the same direction, one at .1 c, one at .2 c, one at .8 c, time dilation will be different for the .8 c object when vied by the other two objects, yes? because its traveling at .7 c compared to one, and .6 c compared to the other, correct? If that is the case, is there a zero point? is there an intrinsic velocity that pretty much EVERYTHING in the galaxy/universe shares? If so, what happens to mass and the flow of time as you approach that zero point? The velocity of the vaccum. Does the vacuum moves? At which speed? And in relation to what? the immobile vacuum? Einstein's SR disregards all those questions as nonsense, or better said, metaphysics. Speeds are only to be measured between material bodies, and not correlated against any absolute reference, because that absolute reference cannot be measured or determined. Does something that cannot be measured or determined exists? In which sense, or where, it exists?
Re: [Vo]:the OTHER zero point
On 11-09-23 02:42 PM, Alexander Hollins wrote: Wouldn't the light pulses only return at the same time if you also were at the center of the sphere? Sorry, I wasn't clear. The compact manifold in that case is the */surface/* of the sphere. And in that case, you can't be at the center of the sphere; it's not part of the universe. (And all points on the surface are just like all other points on the surface.) The /contents/ of the sphere, on the other hand, assuming you don't include the surface, wouldn't be compact -- it's an open manifold. (There's no well-defined edge, when you're inside looking out: any point which is /inside/ the sphere can be surrounded by a tiny ball of stuff which is also inside the sphere.) The surface of the sphere, which is 2-dimensional, none the less can't be embedded in a flat 2-dimensional space. At least some cosmologists seem to think the real universe is like the surface of the sphere (but with more dimensions, of course): If you go far enough in a straight line you find yourself back where you started. The contents of a sphere isn't like that, of course -- if you're living inside a sphere, then you'd need to turn around at some point to get back to where you started. On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 11:12 AM, Stephen A. Lawrencesa...@pobox.com wrote: In fact, the questions aren't nonsense; they just need to be carefully posed to get sensible answers out of them in a universe where SR applies. There is a distinguished frame for the universe: The rest frame of the three degree background radiation. There just is one inertial frame of reference in which that's isotropic -- in all other frames it's red shifted in one direction, blue shifted in the other. That frame is (presumably) the frame which is at rest relative to the primordial fireball. Furthermore, if the universe is a compact manifold and folds back on itself -- such as the surface of a sphere -- then there is an intrinsic rest frame as well, which can be found by sending pulses of light simultaneously in opposite directions. If the universe is closed, and the light eventually comes back to the emitter, then there is just one inertial frame in which the two pulses will arrive back at the emitter simultaneously. More obscurely, if the universe is closed, then the frame just mentioned is the one in which the Sagnac effect is null. All other frames are (in effect) rotating (going 'round and 'round the universe). On 11-09-23 01:53 PM, Mauro Lacy wrote: Vorts, So, when I first heard about zero point energy years back, I assumed it was something I had already theorized myself when struggling with the concepts of relativity (which still bugs me, for the reasons I'm about to list) as I was mentally using the term Zero Point already. Imagine my dissapointment... Anyways, I'm a biologist and chemist more than a physicist, so PLEASE, correct me where I am wrong. As the velocity of an object increases, its apparent mass increases, and time slows, for that object, yes? And the time dilation and mass increase is relative to the velocity based upon the observer being a zero point. For 3 objects moving in a straight line in the same direction, one at .1 c, one at .2 c, one at .8 c, time dilation will be different for the .8 c object when vied by the other two objects, yes? because its traveling at .7 c compared to one, and .6 c compared to the other, correct? If that is the case, is there a zero point? is there an intrinsic velocity that pretty much EVERYTHING in the galaxy/universe shares? If so, what happens to mass and the flow of time as you approach that zero point? The velocity of the vaccum. Does the vacuum moves? At which speed? And in relation to what? the immobile vacuum? Einstein's SR disregards all those questions as nonsense, or better said, metaphysics. Speeds are only to be measured between material bodies, and not correlated against any absolute reference, because that absolute reference cannot be measured or determined. Does something that cannot be measured or determined exists? In which sense, or where, it exists?
Re: [Vo]:the OTHER zero point
Ahh, I gotcha. interesting. On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 2:15 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: On 11-09-23 02:42 PM, Alexander Hollins wrote: Wouldn't the light pulses only return at the same time if you also were at the center of the sphere? Sorry, I wasn't clear. The compact manifold in that case is the surface of the sphere. And in that case, you can't be at the center of the sphere; it's not part of the universe. (And all points on the surface are just like all other points on the surface.) The contents of the sphere, on the other hand, assuming you don't include the surface, wouldn't be compact -- it's an open manifold. (There's no well-defined edge, when you're inside looking out: any point which is inside the sphere can be surrounded by a tiny ball of stuff which is also inside the sphere.) The surface of the sphere, which is 2-dimensional, none the less can't be embedded in a flat 2-dimensional space. At least some cosmologists seem to think the real universe is like the surface of the sphere (but with more dimensions, of course): If you go far enough in a straight line you find yourself back where you started. The contents of a sphere isn't like that, of course -- if you're living inside a sphere, then you'd need to turn around at some point to get back to where you started. On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 11:12 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence sa...@pobox.com wrote: In fact, the questions aren't nonsense; they just need to be carefully posed to get sensible answers out of them in a universe where SR applies. There is a distinguished frame for the universe: The rest frame of the three degree background radiation. There just is one inertial frame of reference in which that's isotropic -- in all other frames it's red shifted in one direction, blue shifted in the other. That frame is (presumably) the frame which is at rest relative to the primordial fireball. Furthermore, if the universe is a compact manifold and folds back on itself -- such as the surface of a sphere -- then there is an intrinsic rest frame as well, which can be found by sending pulses of light simultaneously in opposite directions. If the universe is closed, and the light eventually comes back to the emitter, then there is just one inertial frame in which the two pulses will arrive back at the emitter simultaneously. More obscurely, if the universe is closed, then the frame just mentioned is the one in which the Sagnac effect is null. All other frames are (in effect) rotating (going 'round and 'round the universe). On 11-09-23 01:53 PM, Mauro Lacy wrote: Vorts, So, when I first heard about zero point energy years back, I assumed it was something I had already theorized myself when struggling with the concepts of relativity (which still bugs me, for the reasons I'm about to list) as I was mentally using the term Zero Point already. Imagine my dissapointment... Anyways, I'm a biologist and chemist more than a physicist, so PLEASE, correct me where I am wrong. As the velocity of an object increases, its apparent mass increases, and time slows, for that object, yes? And the time dilation and mass increase is relative to the velocity based upon the observer being a zero point. For 3 objects moving in a straight line in the same direction, one at .1 c, one at .2 c, one at .8 c, time dilation will be different for the .8 c object when vied by the other two objects, yes? because its traveling at .7 c compared to one, and .6 c compared to the other, correct? If that is the case, is there a zero point? is there an intrinsic velocity that pretty much EVERYTHING in the galaxy/universe shares? If so, what happens to mass and the flow of time as you approach that zero point? The velocity of the vaccum. Does the vacuum moves? At which speed? And in relation to what? the immobile vacuum? Einstein's SR disregards all those questions as nonsense, or better said, metaphysics. Speeds are only to be measured between material bodies, and not correlated against any absolute reference, because that absolute reference cannot be measured or determined. Does something that cannot be measured or determined exists? In which sense, or where, it exists?
Re: [Vo]:the OTHER zero point
In reply to Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Fri, 23 Sep 2011 14:12:09 -0400: Hi, [snip] In fact, the questions aren't nonsense; they just need to be carefully posed to get sensible answers out of them in a universe where SR applies. There is a distinguished frame for the universe: The rest frame of the three degree background radiation. There just is one inertial frame of reference in which that's isotropic -- in all other frames it's red shifted in one direction, blue shifted in the other. That frame is (presumably) the frame which is at rest relative to the primordial fireball. How can you know for a fact that the rest frame of the CMBR is the same all over the universe? We can really only detect it in our local neighborhood. What happens to the heat radiated by the Earth (and every other mass in the Universe)? I suspect it ends up being degraded until it becomes the CMBR, IOW I don't think the CMBR is necessarily the remnant of the big bang. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:the OTHER zero point
All relative measurements between different inertial frames share a Pythagorean relationship with the time axis. The gamma formula relies on the ratio of V^2/C^2. Relative measure suggests that the vacuum [ether] does move and at different rates proportional to gravitational fields - It is equivalent to spatial acceleration where an object approaching C also experiences less time passage as evidenced by the Twin Paradox. In real life, relativistic updates are required to account for accumulated time dilation of GPS satellites in orbit. From our relatively stationary perspective time appears to slow as objects achieve high fractions of C either thru linear acceleration or the equivalent acceleration of strong gravitational fields. My posit is that stationary objects do not necessarily mark a zero reference for time dilation! There are numerous claims of accelerated radioactive decays and accelerated spontaneous emissions dealing with microwave suppression or Casimir geometry. My point is that suppressing vacuum energy density may be a way to directly manipulate the C^2 portion of the Gamma formula regardless of the objects spatial velocity - instead of the equivalent acceleration of a deep gravity well slowing time this would be an equivalent negative acceleration of a gravity warp accelerating time such that objects in such a suppressed region would perceive even stationary objects outside the region as accelerated relative to their C^2/V^2 quotient. By directly manipulating C you sidestep the Pythagorean penalty requiring objects with spatial velocities approaching C before any significant changes occur. CERN's experiment may have introduced a small measure of suppression that accumulates over the length of the ring - we know that time dilation of a laser through a Casimir cavity is infinitesimally small and the effects are far less for the suppression of a microwave cavity but given the length of the ring these effects might accumulate to measurable levels - I can't say why these results would suddenly appear now, relative to this experiment, when not seen previously but would be keen to know how this experiment differed from previous. Fran -Original Message- From: Mauro Lacy [mailto:ma...@lacy.com.ar] Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 1:53 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:the OTHER zero point Vorts, So, when I first heard about zero point energy years back, I assumed it was something I had already theorized myself when struggling with the concepts of relativity (which still bugs me, for the reasons I'm about to list) as I was mentally using the term Zero Point already. Imagine my dissapointment... Anyways, I'm a biologist and chemist more than a physicist, so PLEASE, correct me where I am wrong. As the velocity of an object increases, its apparent mass increases, and time slows, for that object, yes? And the time dilation and mass increase is relative to the velocity based upon the observer being a zero point. For 3 objects moving in a straight line in the same direction, one at .1 c, one at .2 c, one at .8 c, time dilation will be different for the .8 c object when vied by the other two objects, yes? because its traveling at .7 c compared to one, and .6 c compared to the other, correct? If that is the case, is there a zero point? is there an intrinsic velocity that pretty much EVERYTHING in the galaxy/universe shares? If so, what happens to mass and the flow of time as you approach that zero point? The velocity of the vaccum. Does the vacuum moves? At which speed? And in relation to what? the immobile vacuum? Einstein's SR disregards all those questions as nonsense, or better said, metaphysics. Speeds are only to be measured between material bodies, and not correlated against any absolute reference, because that absolute reference cannot be measured or determined. Does something that cannot be measured or determined exists? In which sense, or where, it exists?
Re: [Vo]:the OTHER zero point
On 09/23/2011 03:12 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: In fact, the questions aren't nonsense; they just need to be carefully posed to get sensible answers out of them in a universe where SR applies. There is a distinguished frame for the universe: The rest frame of the three degree background radiation. There just is one inertial frame of reference in which that's isotropic -- in all other frames it's red shifted in one direction, blue shifted in the other. That frame is (presumably) the frame which is at rest relative to the primordial fireball. Furthermore, if the universe is a compact manifold and folds back on itself -- such as the surface of a sphere -- then there is an intrinsic rest frame as well, which can be found by sending pulses of light simultaneously in opposite directions. If the universe is closed, and the light eventually comes back to the emitter, then there is just one inertial frame in which the two pulses will arrive back at the emitter simultaneously. More obscurely, if the universe is closed, then the frame just mentioned is the one in which the Sagnac effect is null. All other frames are (in effect) /rotating/ (going 'round and 'round the universe). Fair enough. You are proposing some hypothetical experiments to detect absolute movement of a given frame. But I was positing a slightly different question. Let me make myself clear with an example. I'll adopt a kind of dialog to facilitate the exposition. Please don't feel I'm addressing you directly. Let's look at an image of the Milky Way, like this one: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/89/236084main_MilkyWay-full-annotated.jpg We can now ask: What has caused the spiral arrangement of the stars? Classical astrophysics will say that gravity has caused it. And because gravity only acts between material bodies, it will posit that, due that there is not enough visible matter to account for the missing momentum and velocity of some parts of the system, there must be some dark matter which is causing the additional gravitational pull. Now, looking at the picture again, I can ask you: what is moving in the galaxy? In general, you'll answer that stars, dust clouds, etc. are moving, and that their movement has taken a spiral form, again, due to gravity and due to a given initial rotation of the system, which was in the past a giant dust cloud of some kind(which was rotating who knows why), and gradually developed stars and planets out of the initial irregularities. And then I'll ask you: the empty space between stars, planets, etc. which is in the galaxy, is also moving? You'll probably answer that, given our current understanding of the matter, only matter can move, not empty space. Moreover, you'll cite scientific premises like Occam's razor and the like, to announce that we shouldn't multiply the entities, that only observables and measurable things must be considered, etc. And then I'll answer that it strikes me as completely self evident that what has caused the beautiful spiral arrangement of the stars in the galaxy arms is the movement of space itself. It was and it is space which is moving and rotating, and which is carrying along the stars, dust clouds, etc. which are evolving and condensing in stars and star systems, and forming beautiful galactic arms and whirlpools. Matter is being carried along by the movement of space itself. There is no dark matter at all, but rotational space flow. Again, you'll cite Occam razor's and the like, to say that we should not multiply entities, talk about unobservables, that science is about the measurable and the ponderable, etc. And I'll probably tell you that the movement of space is clearly observable by its effects, that you should reflect on the spiral arms of the galaxy, etc. I'll probably tell you too that for me science, real science, is about knowledge of the way things really are. And then you'll probably start to cite the nominalists (again) to question the nature of reality, to posit that real is only that which can be directly observed, that the brain attaches meaning to the world, and the like. Is the slight difference clear enough now? Best regards, Mauro On 11-09-23 01:53 PM, Mauro Lacy wrote: Vorts, So, when I first heard about zero point energy years back, I assumed it was something I had already theorized myself when struggling with the concepts of relativity (which still bugs me, for the reasons I'm about to list) as I was mentally using the term Zero Point already. Imagine my dissapointment... Anyways, I'm a biologist and chemist more than a physicist, so PLEASE, correct me where I am wrong. As the velocity of an object increases, its apparent mass increases, and time slows, for that object, yes? And the time dilation and mass increase is relative to the velocity based upon the observer being a zero point. For 3 objects moving in a straight line in the same direction, one at .1 c, one at .2 c,
