williamchess
-
PopeBeanie replied to the topic Quantum Mechanics – Pilot Wave proposals in the forum
Science — the kind that requires evidence and reason. 7 years, 9 months agoAw-ww, Beanie. Quantum entanglement? Stuff popping in and out of existence?
My apologies for a couple of things.
True, I need to avoid the “in and out of existence” meme. It’s too hyperbolic and smacks of the same attention-grabbing meme as “something from nothing”, which too easily misrepresents the physics to lay people.
Secondly, I posted my…[Read more]
-
Reg the Fronkey Farmer replied to the topic Quantum Mechanics – Pilot Wave proposals in the forum
Science — the kind that requires evidence and reason. 7 years, 9 months agoThe LIGO detectors are covered in the video I linked (about 23 minutes in but watch it all).
-
PopeBeanie replied to the topic Quantum Mechanics – Pilot Wave proposals in the forum
Science — the kind that requires evidence and reason. 7 years, 9 months agoReg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:
Your Holiness, I hope by “EUers” you mean “European Union members” and not “Electric Universe” proponentsHaha, nooooo. I hope you have that backwards!
Tom, thank you, I didn’t know that about Newton and the speed of gravity. However, you do know (of course) because of the consistently physical nature of waves, that…[Read more]
-
Reg the Fronkey Farmer replied to the topic Quantum Mechanics – Pilot Wave proposals in the forum
Science — the kind that requires evidence and reason. 7 years, 9 months agoParticles do pop in and out of existence, if only for an instance (or a Planck unit of Time). This has been observed and tested. Introduction here.
I am not sure what you mean Tom by the “speed of gravity”. Gravity is the “warping” caused by SpaceTime which happens when massive objects (or subatomic particle) stop traveling in a straight…[Read more]
-
Reg the Fronkey Farmer replied to the topic Quantum Mechanics – Pilot Wave proposals in the forum
Science — the kind that requires evidence and reason. 7 years, 9 months agoYour Holiness, I hope by “EUers” you mean “European Union members” and not “Electric Universe” proponents 🙂
-
tom sarbeck replied to the topic Quantum Mechanics – Pilot Wave proposals in the forum
Science — the kind that requires evidence and reason. 7 years, 9 months agoAw-ww, Beanie. Quantum entanglement? Stuff popping in and out of existence?
Einstein did not start the anti-empiricism of our time but with his thought-experiments, his hatred of laboratory work, and his arbitrary limit on the speed of light, he gave scifi a boost. Isaac Newton’s religiosity may have blinded him to a speed of gravity that is o…[Read more]
-
PopeBeanie started the topic Quantum Mechanics – Pilot Wave proposals in the forum
Science — the kind that requires evidence and reason. 7 years, 9 months agoNo need to click on the links I provide here, unless you’re really interested in going deeper into the physics. In fact I recommend non-geeks to just skim down to “Deterministic Quantumness: Probable Baloney”.
I’m not a physicist, nor have I ever passed a calculus class. (Statistics, yes, and my father and I made a “wave machine” at home, like…[Read more]
-
tom sarbeck posted an update in the group
Science — the kind that requires evidence and reason. 7 years, 9 months agoClaim:
The hot bang best matches our observations,
Debunk:
The hot bang results from:
1) a hypothesis without evidence that because red shift (light) is a Doppler effect (sound), the universe is expanding, and
2) its expansion began from an imagined infinitely small and infinitely hot point. (LeMaitre’s ‘primeval atom).
None of that was obs…[Read more] -
-
Lars joined the group
Bookish atheists 7 years, 9 months ago -
-
tom sarbeck posted an update in the group
Science — the kind that requires evidence and reason. 7 years, 9 months agoNeil deGrasse Tyson opens the first chapter of his book “Astrophysics for People in a Hurry” with:
“In the beginning, nearly 14 billion years ago, all the space and all the matter and all the energy of the known universe was contained in a volume less than one trillionth the size of the period that ends this sentence.”I don’t see that as eviden…[Read more]
-
Hi Tom,
“I don’t see that as evidence. Do you?”
No. In itself it’s not purported to be evidence – it’s a statement of fact. I’m confident that NGT would love for you (or anyone else) to challenge the evidence behind this statement. As I’m not physicist of or a cosmologist I’m not going to waste my time trying. At this point it’s a matter of t…[Read more]
-
I’m not a diehard banger. It’s just that they seem to have the best ideas for what to research next in the quest to understand the univers, and a large enough community willing to spend time on it and try to educate us. I can’t even get straight talk from you about what kind of research you think the scientific community should work on next. All I…[Read more]
-
Take a cue from your father, PB.
The Bang is a bunch of math-inclined folk who, to keep their taxpayer funding, are using a Genesis-like origin story to win allies in Congress.
-
-
-
-
-
williamchess joined the group
Bookish atheists 7 years, 9 months ago -
michaelmoats joined the group
Bookish atheists 8 years ago -
PopeBeanie replied to the topic Writers, tell about your offerings here in the forum
Bookish atheists 8 years agoNOMA NOMA!!
-
eljay joined the group
Bookish atheists 8 years ago -
Lisa joined the group
Science — the kind that requires evidence and reason. 8 years ago -
Lisa joined the group
Bookish atheists 8 years ago - Load More
Well, as for your first point it’s a wonder that the thousands of airborne weather RADARs I have designed over the years are able to detect turbulence and windshear as they do by looking for opposing doppler shifts of the electromagnetic pulse that we transmit. We then alert you pilot so he or she doesn’t kill you. Its not like we are an audio…[Read more]
Robert, you say the radars you designed looked for opposing doppler SHIFTS. How certain are you that the radars did not look for doppler EFFECTS?
Scroll down to the Brain Cox-Darwin interview you posted five months back. One month later (just above it), I posted Edwin Hubble’s use of both terms. You will see they are not synonomous.
Further, Robert, the Zwicky I cited in my below reply to Pope Beanie said tired light accounts for what Bangers refer to as doppler shifts.
In short, doppler shifts do not exist in electromagnetism, but legions of Bangers insist that they do exist.
Similar misuse of language was standard practice among people working in the Apollo program. They…[Read more]
Then what causes red shift? (I dare you to evade yet another reasonable question!)
First, PB, a reply that requires some knowledge of physics.
“Zwicky suggested that photons might slowly lose energy as they travel vast distances through a static universe by interaction with matter or other photons, or by some novel physical mechanism. Since a decrease in energy corresponds to an increase in light’s wavelength, this effect w…[Read more]
Continuing the above where interupted by a fingertip’s accidental touch.
…As the Wiki article says, longer wave lengths survive their journey better than short wave lengths. The surviving wave lengths APPEAR to have been shifted. Bangers, having studied neither art nor electricity, gets things all wrong.
BTW, I ignored your previous q…[Read more]
OK, I see now that (at least some) physicists differentiate between the terms “doppler effect” and “doppler shift”. So, you’re not actually saying that recession of a star or galaxy does not cause redshift, but you’re saying that there is more than one possible cause of redshift. Right? (The physicist that I just read:…[Read more]
Beanie, the physicist you cite assumes the truth of expansion, aka recession.
He assumes he sees all the wavelengths and concludes they are stretched,
Instead, the shorter wavelengths do not survive their journey so he sees only the longer wavelengths.
Then, like religious folk, he tells a story.
Read carefully what Edwin Hubble said:
If … a Doppler shift, a curiously small, dense, suspiciouly young universe.
If … not Doppler effects, a universe extended indefinitely in space and time.
Bye bye Big Bang.
Tom, why don’t you just explain the difference between an electromagnetic doppler shift and a doppler effect, since I know a RADAR return is frequency shifted in either direction, proportionate to the velocity and direction of the target and that velocity is calculated by the doppler equation. Yes, the calculation for mechanical soundwaves are…[Read more]
Robert, this discussion is about light on a one-way trip, not a radar signal on a two-way trip.
It’s also about the loss of some of the light being interpreted as a frequency shift. I don’t know if some of the radar signal is being lost.
As to a distinction between doppler shift and doppler effect, check Edwin Hubble’s use of the terms in my…[Read more]