Argument supporting existence of a God

[Idolater]

The phrase highlighted in red is your faulty premise. The photon are NOT taveling a sinusoidal route. That is not happening.

You are speaking of a partical as though it was traveling along the surface of a wave function. That flat out is not what happens. The photon itself IS a wave function.

That ought to sound contradictory. If it doesn't then you are not understanding what I'm saying.

How can a partical be a wave function?

Answer that question and they'll give a Nobel prize and then shut the Nobel prize making factory down because you'll likely have finished physics.

It's coming back to me. I remember crunching through the Schrodinger equation. I never apprehended what it meant, but I crunched the numbers many times. As I mentioned previously, I've come round to Newtonism again, and finally understand the importance of the concept of momentum, and its relation to force and acceleration and kinetic energy and its conservation and all that it means. It was the tie that binds together all the rest of Newtonian mechanics.

And now I have to return to the subsequent education I didn't receive, that used Newtonism as a reference, by analogy. The Schrodinger equation is in quantum parallel to F=ma in Newtonism, and now that I understand F=ma better than I did before, maybe this time around I'll be able to apprehend quantum. 'Worth a shot anyway.

No, not at all. Relativity doesn't address the issue so far as I understand it.

Maxwell proved that light was an electromagnetic wave in the mid 1800s and Einstein discovered the photoelectice effect, proving it was a particle in 1905, which is what won him his nobel prize.

No one has yet answered what light is propagating through...

So I thought that the Michelson-Morley experiment and all its subsequent confirmations positively deny that there can be anything through which light propagates, and that Einstein used this finding as the foundation for special relativity? Can you explain my error here?

or how it makes sense that light is somehow both a particle and a wave.

I think your answer above, that all we can really say is that it is a wave function, is probably as good as we can get, unless someone can translate what that means into more common parlance.

It is just as definitely a particle.

And - just as definitely not a particle.

It's much weirder than you think...

Fantastically intriguing though. And to think that this is 'all' God made on Day One. Genesis 1:3 KJV

 

[Clete]

So I thought that the Michelson-Morley experiment and all its subsequent confirmations positively deny that there can be anything through which light propagates, and that Einstein used this finding as the foundation for special relativity? Can you explain my error here?

I don't mean to imply that its not related but I wouldn't say that the M&M experiment was "the foundation for special relativity".

Both relativity theories have to do with the way the universe looks to different observers who are moving relative to one another and are not specifically about light per se. Light is an important aspect but is not the central theme or subject of the theories.

I think your answer above, that all we can really say is that it is a wave function, is probably as good as we can get, unless someone can translate what that means into more common parlance.

No way. Someone will eventually figure it out. That is, of course, assuming that it possible to figure out at all.

Fantastically intriguing though. And to think that this is 'all' God made on Day One. Genesis 1:3 KJV

This is what I meant by "assuming that it possible to figure out at all".

It could well be that the nature of the physical (i.e. created) universe is such that the creatures in it are incable of figuring out the minute details. The nature of God's reality may be both far enough outside our ability to comprehend and sufficiently imposed upon the physical universe so as to make such details beyond our grasp. (Col. 1:17)

I think, however, that it is wise to assume that we can figure it out and, as a result, keep trying to do so.

The problem with science today isn't an inability to figure things out but rather an unwillingness to question the scientific establishment for fear of losing one's grant money or ability to publish one's work or just outright losing your job as a scientist.

Clete

 

[Stripe]

I thought that the Michelson-Morley experiment and all its subsequent confirmations positively deny that there can be anything through which light propagates.

M&M found an orbital velocity of 8kms, not zero. Their experiment did not establish the absence of an aether.

 

[Stripe]

I don't mean to imply that its not related but I wouldn't say that the M&M experiment was "the foundation for special relativity".

As I understand it, they sought to show the orbital velocity of the Earth by measuring a difference in how a split beam of light behaved differently along paths at 90 degrees to reach other. This was to prove the existence of an aether — through which light propagates.

Their contraption was to provide direct observations of "fringe shifts," how light was offset by traveling either with the assumed aether or against it. They thought they failed because their measurements returned an Earth orbital velocity of 8 kilometres per second, which is said to be instrument error in an aether-less universe.

However, the information I have is that they missed a step in their calculations (essentially multiplication by 4), so the observation was very close to the orbital velocity of 30kms.

Today's interferometers don't do direct measurements, and the aether has been replaced with "spacetime."

 

[Clete]

As I understand it, they sought to show the orbital velocity of the Earth by measuring a difference in how a split beam of light behaved differently along paths at 90 degrees to reach other. This was to prove the existence of an aether — through which light propagates.

Their contraption was to provide direct observations of "fringe shifts," how light was offset by traveling either with the assumed aether or against it. They thought they failed because their measurements returned an Earth orbital velocity of 8 kilometres per second, which is said to be instrument error in an aether-less universe.

However, the information I have is that they missed a step in their calculations (essentially multiplication by 4), so the observation was very close to the orbital velocity of 30kms.

Today's interferometers don't do direct measurements, and the aether has been replaced with "spacetime."

There were actually a few problems with their experiment but others have done it better with results that are, in fact, effectively (statically) zero.

The problem isn't with the result but with what the result is assumed to mean.

The experiment was intended to detect an aether wind caused by the Earth moving through the eather in it's orbit around the Sun.

No such wind was detected but that does not prove that an eather doesn't exist. If an eather exists, we have no idea what it's properties are. We don't know, for example, how it responds to magnetic fields or whether it is effected by the mass of bodies like the Earth. We don't know whether it is rigid (as the M&M experiment tacitly assumes) or whether it flows like a fluid. If it is fluid, how viscous is it? We don't know any of that and all of that would effect an experiment's ability to detect it's presents.

For example, if the aether flows like a think liquid that sort of sticks to massive bodies (Picture pushing a spoon through a vat of honey.), then the Earth's movement through it may not create any wind at all near the surface.

Perhaps its a fluid that isn't so "thick" but is instead spinning around the Sun the way we are. If so, again, you'd detect no eather wind.

Perhaps the eather is captured by magnetic fields and we are carrying a pocket of eather along with the Earth, sort of like the air in your car is held in by the closed windows. Again, just as you detect no wind while driving through air with your windows closed, you'd detect no eather wind if it is captured by the Earth's magnetic field.

The point being simply that the experiment did not prove that an eather doesn't exist. But instead of clear thinking, the scientific establishment of the day just took the null result and declared the eather to be nonexistant and effectively stopped looking for a medium through which light could be propagating.

Perhaps no such medium exists but we'll never know because no one is looking for it.

 

[Stripe]

Others have done it better with results that are, in fact, effectively (statically) zero.

Using laser interferometers.

 

[Stripe]

http://www.relativitychallenge.com/papers/Bryant.CICS.MMX.Analysis.06302006.pdf

 

[Omniskeptical]

If photons are material particles, why do they pass through the glass of a Crookes radiometer?

 

[Clete]

http://www.relativitychallenge.com/papers/Bryant.CICS.MMX.Analysis.06302006.pdf

Very interesting paper. I'm very skeptical of it, however.

I mean, I really do want for it to be true because to my mind it would make the world make so much more sense BUT...

1. Why isn't it at least written as a formal scientific paper that would at least be eligible for scientific publication? I know that none of the prominent scientific journals would touch it with a ten foot pole but there are other journals that would publish it and then it could at least legitimately proclaim itself to be a published scientific paper. That may not be important to you personally, but it is important in the larger scheme of things.

2. I wasn't kidding earlier when I mentioned to someone that Einstein's equations are very robust and, in addition to that, his theories make several predictions that a lot of people have repeatedly tested and shown to be accurate, not the least of which is the fact that the GPS system wouldn't work if they didn't use Einstein's equations to compensate for the different rate at which clock tick in orbit. Additionally, I'd be remiss if I failed to mention the fact that General Relativity permitted Einstein himself to calculate the orbit of Mercury which, up to that time, was a big mystery to science because it did things that Newtonian physics said it shouldn't do.

3. As I said before, there were some at least potential problems with the MM experiment itself, not just with the math. Any paper that figures out a way for their results to show the expected orbital velocity of the Earth is suspicious for that reason alone. In short, if someone has good reason to believe that the experiment will show the presence and the aether then set it up and run the experiment and show the results. Of all the things I've seen that what to suggest that the MM experiment actually shows an aether, this is the one thing that they all universally have in common. They never rerun the experiment, which would not be that expensive to do, by the way.

So, having said all of that, I want to emphasis that I do not dismiss it out of hand. I'm merely skeptical. The first thing I ever read that really got me wondering about the MM experiment was this article about the work done by Dayton Miller. It is to this day, the most persuasive thing I've seen on the subject. Still, it just seems way too conspiratorial to think that the last century of science including the success of Einstein's theories in producing real world practical things like the GPS system and the ability to calculate anomalous orbits of real planets has all been faked somehow or at the least is some sort of miraculous coincidence.

Clete

 

[Stripe]

Very interesting paper. I'm very skeptical of it, however.

I would expect nothing less.

1. Why isn't it at least written as a formal scientific paper that would at least be eligible for scientific publication? I know that none of the prominent scientific journals would touch it with a ten foot pole but there are other journals that would publish it and then it could at least legitimately proclaim itself to be a published scientific paper. That may not be important to you personally, but it is important in the larger scheme of things.

I'm fairly certain Steven has had this paper published. I know he has had others. Maybe at https://www.aip.org?

EDIT: Published by Galilean Electrodynamics in May/June 2008.

2. I wasn't kidding earlier when I mentioned to someone that Einstein's equations are very robust and, in addition to that, his theories make several predictions that a lot of people have repeatedly tested and shown to be accurate, not the least of which is the fact that the GPS system wouldn't work if they didn't use Einstein's equations to compensate for the different rate at which clock tick in orbit. Additionally, I'd be remiss if I failed to mention the fact that General Relativity permitted Einstein himself to calculate the orbit of Mercury which, up to that time, was a big mystery to science because it did things that Newtonian physics said it shouldn't do.

Accuracy doesn't mean that a mathematical model should be accepted as a perfect description of real life.

Moreover, the same author elsewhere presents a competing model that he says is more accurate.

3. As I said before, there were some at least potential problems with the MM experiment itself, not just with the math. Any paper that figures out a way for their results to show the expected orbital velocity of the Earth is suspicious for that reason alone. In short, if someone has good reason to believe that the experiment will show the presence and the aether then set it up and run the experiment and show the results. Of all the things I've seen that what to suggest that the MM experiment actually shows an aether, this is the one thing that they all universally have in common. They never rerun the experiment, which would not be that expensive to do, by the way.

Yeah. I think that is an excellent challenge. We should redo the M&M experiment using modern precision engineering to make their device super accurate. And use the math properly, of course.

So, having said all of that, I want to emphasis that I do not dismiss it out of hand. I'm merely skeptical. The first thing I ever read that really got me wondering about the MM experiment was this article about the work done by Dayton Miller. It is to this day, the most persuasive thing I've seen on the subject. Still, it just seems way too conspiratorial to think that the last century of science including the success of Einstein's theories in producing real world practical things like the GPS system and the ability to calculate anomalous orbits of real planets has all been faked somehow or at the least is some sort of miraculous coincidence.

I think the success you speak of — and Einstein's work has brought success — has insulated people against investigation. That might explain the seeming "conspiracy."

I'm always surprised at the visceral response to challenges issued to relativity theory. Heck, it's just spacetime. It's not like it's the religion of Darwinism or anything. :chuckle:

Article about the work done by Dayton Miller

Got a link?

 

[Right Divider]

Perhaps a new thread on this topic would be appropriate.

 

[Idolater]

I'm always surprised at the visceral response to challenges issued to relativity theory. Heck, it's just spacetime. It's not like it's the religion of Darwinism or anything. :chuckle:

I think that this reveals that people are just not as informed on the matter as they need to be in order to deftly deflect /defuse challenges to the theory. If they knew the theory better, if the theory is truly solid, then they ought to be able to calmly address any of the challenges, without bogging down in mind numbing mathematical details /jargon, but largely, they just cannot.

It's the same in other areas where conventional wisdom is challenged, like 'flat earth' theories. If people are having as you say a 'visceral response,' then they themselves are exposed as just not knowing very well what they claim to know.

And it is like that with religion too.

 

[Clete]

I'm fairly certain Steven has had this paper published. I know he has had others. Maybe at https://www.aip.org?

EDIT: Published by Galilean Electrodynamics in May/June 2008.

Cool

Accuracy doesn't mean that a mathematical model should be accepted as a perfect description of real life.

Moreover, the same author elsewhere presents a competing model that he says is more accurate.

More accurate than what?

And yes, accurately predicting previously unobserved phenomena and the ability to explain previously unexplained phenomena is a very real and very valid means of testing a theory.

The more such tests fail to falsify a theory, the more likely it becomes that you've gotten something right.

Yeah. I think that is an excellent challenge. We should redo the M&M experiment using modern precision engineering to make their device super accurate. And use the math properly, of course.

Any physics department in any school in the country, if not the world, that even proposed it would immediately get their funding pulled and the chief of staff replaced.

I think the success you speak of — and Einstein's work has brought success — has insulated people against investigation. That might explain the seeming "conspiracy."

Well that's pretty good insulation, if you ask me. The problem is that it's just as likely to be scientific establishment group think as anything else.

I'm always surprised at the visceral response to challenges issued to relativity theory. Heck, it's just spacetime. It's not like it's the religion of Darwinism or anything. :chuckle:
the scientific community is just as susceptible to group think and political correctness as is every other aspect of human endeavor.

Got a link?

Well, yeah. I thought I posted it with that last post. I don't know what happened.
Article about the work done by Dayton Miller

 

[Stripe]

More accurate than what?

Relativistic calculations.

Accurately predicting previously unobserved phenomena and the ability to explain previously unexplained phenomena is a very real and very valid means of testing a theory.

Absolutely.

However, being accurate does not make a theory sacrosanct. A scientist must always allow the possibility that a better idea might arise.

Any physics department in any school in the country, if not the world, that even proposed it would immediately get their funding pulled and the chief of staff replaced.

:chuckle:

Article about the work done by Dayton Miller

Thanks. I'll give it a look.

 

[Clete]

Relativistic calculations.

I flatly do not believe that - period.

Even civilian grade GPS can give results as good as +-.08% given the right conditions and commercial grade (i.e. survey grade) GPS can get accuracies within a centimeter and there's no telling how accurate the military version can get and virtually all of that error has to do with things like atmospheric interference and many satellite signals are being received and has nothing at all to do with the relativistic calculations.

And that level of accuracy is just NOTHING compared to the accuracy achieved in testing E=mc². These calculations are so precise that they're able to detect differences in the mass of an occasional hydrogen atom (i.e. some hydrogen atoms don't weigh exactly the same as all the other hydrogen atoms). Any "more accurate" than that and you're getting even further into the quantum level where things start going kookoo.

Absolutely.

However, being accurate does not make a theory sacrosanct. A scientist must always allow the possibility that a better idea might arise.

No one suggested otherwise.

 

[Stripe]

No one suggested otherwise.

You've been touting accuracy. Why? I agree with you, relativity gives accurate results.

 

[Clete]

You've been touting accuracy. Why? I agree with you, relativity gives accurate results.

Because people where calling it an "approximation" and referring to it as a mere mathematical construct and it's anything but that.

 

[Stripe]

Because people where calling it an "approximation" and referring to it as a mere mathematical construct and it's anything but that.

E=mc² is an approximation. It's derived from the first term in a Taylor series. This is incontrovertible.

 

[Aimiel]

For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.


This is incontrovertible, also.

 

[Clete]

E=mc² is an approximation. It's derived from the first term in a Taylor series. This is incontrovertible.

No.

Okay, let's start this entire thing again! Why not!

This symbol " = " is the equals sign. It's sort of a single letter word that means "is equal to".

Thus the equation E=mc² read like this...

Energy is equal to mass times the speed of light squared.

It DOES NOT read like this...

Energy is approximately equal to mass times the speed of light squared.

If one wanted to write that, then there's a different symbol for that. It looks like this ≈

Einstein DID NOT use ≈, he used = and not only did he do so on purpose, thousands of people have tested the veracity of that equation in countless different ways over the last 100 years and no one yet has found one scintilla of reason to doubt that it is quite true.

The values that you put into the equation might be approximate values depending on the accuracy of the equipment used or just because only a certain level of precision is needed but that does not make the equation an approximation.

Now, you can call it whatever you like but your personal opinion does not change reality. If you want to disprove Einstein then I invite you to try it but I'm certainly not going to be here holding my breath while you make the attempt.



Stubbornness like what you are displaying is not only sinful but a display of what is truly the worst sort of stupidity. You cling to meaningless nonsense for no reason and for no benefit other than to pretend you know something that someone else doesn't. It's absolute, asinine, slobbering stupidity!

In fact, don't even bother responding to this. I just realized that there can be no profit in even discussing such things with idiots, especially stubborn ones.

Good bye!

:wave2: