Tag Archives: Fizik

Denemeler, Dergi Makaleler, Tartışma Forum Mesajlar…

Unreal Evren — Discussion with Gibran

Hi again,You raise a lot of interesting questions. Let me try to answer them one by one.

You’re saying that our observations of an object moving away from us would look identical in either an SR or Galilean context, and therefore this is not a good test for SR.

What I’m saying is slightly different. The coordinate transformation in SR is derived considering only receding objects and sensing it using radar-like round trip light travel time. It is then kabul that the transformation laws thus derived apply to all objects. Because the round trip light travel is used, the transformation works for approaching objects as well, but not for things moving in other directions. But SR assumes that the transformation is a property of space and time and asserts that it applies to all moving (inertial) frames of reference regardless of direction.

We have to go a little deeper and ask ourselves what that statement means, what it means to talk about the properties of space. We cannot think of a space independent of our perception. Physicists are typically not happy with this starting point of mine. They think of space as something that exists independent of our sensing it. And they insist that SR applies to this independently existing space. I beg to differ. I consider space as a cognitive construct based on our perceptual inputs. There is an underlying reality that is the cause of our perception of space. It may be nothing like space, but let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that the underlying reality is like Galilean space-time. How would be perceive it, given that we perceive it using light (one-way travel of light, not two-way as SR assumes)? It turns out that our perceptual space would have time dilation and length contraction and all other effect predicted by SR. So my thesis is that the underlying reality obeys Galilean space-time and our perceptual space obeys something like SR. (It is possible that if I assume that our perception uses two-way light travel, I may get SR-like transformation. I haven’t done it because it seems obvious to me that we perceive a star, Örneğin, by sensing the light from it rather than flashing a light at it.)

This thesis doesn’t sit well with physicists, and indeed with most people. They mistake “perceptual effects” to be something like optical illusions. My point is more like space itself is an illusion. If you look at the night sky, you know that the stars you see are not “Gerçek” in the sense that they are not there when you are looking at them. This is simply because the information carrier, yani ışık, has a finite speed. If the star under observation is in motion, our perception of its motion is distorted for the same reason. SR is an attempt to formalize our perception of motion. Since motion and speed are concepts that mix space and time, SR has to operate on “space-time continuum.” Since SR is based on perceptual effects, it requires an observer and describes motion as he perceives it.

But are you actually saying that not a single experiment has been done with objects moving in any other direction than farther away? And what about experiments on time dilation where astronauts go into space and return with clocks showing less elapsed time than ones that stayed on the ground? Doesn’t this support the ideas inherent in SR?

Experiments are always interpreted in the light of a theory. Öyle her zaman a model based interpretation. I know that this is not a convincing argument for you, so let me give you an example. Scientists have observed superluminal motion in certain celestial objects. They measure the angular speed of the celestial object, and they have some estimate of its distance from us, so they can estimate the speed. If we didn’t have SR, there would be nothing remarkable about this observation of superluminality. Since we do have SR, one has to find an “explanation” for this. The explanation is this: when an object approaches us at a shallow angle, it can appear to come in quite a bit faster than its real speed. Thus the “Gerçek” speed is subluminal while the “belirgin” speed may be superluminal. This interpretation of the observation, Bana göre, breaks the philosophical grounding of SR that it is a description of the motion as it appears to the observer.

Şimdi, there are other observations of where almost symmetric ejecta are seen on opposing jets in symmetric celestial objects. The angular speeds may indicate superluminality in both the jets if the distance of the object is sufficiently large. Since the jets are assumed to be back-to-back, if one jet is approaching us (thereby giving us the illusion of superluminality), the other jet has bet receding and can never appear superluminal, sürece, elbette, the underlying motion is superluminal. The interpretation of this observation is that the distance of the object is limited by the “fact” that real motion cannot be superluminal. This is what I mean by experiments being open to theory or model based interpretations.

In the case of moving clocks being slower, it is never a pure SR experiment because you cannot find space without gravity. Ayrıca, one clock has to be accelerated or decelerated and GR applies. Aksi halde, the age-old twin paradox would apply.

I know there have been some experiments done to support Einstein’s theories, like the bending of light due to gravity, but are you saying that all of them can be consistently re-interpreted according to your theory? If this is so, it’s dam surprising! Demek istediğim, no offense to you – you’re obviously a very bright individual, and you know much more about this stuff than I do, but I’d have to question how something like this slipped right through physicists’ fingers for 100 Yıl.

These are gravity related questions and fall under GR. Benim “teori” doesn’t try to reinterpret GR or gravity at all. I put theory in inverted quotes because, bana, it is a rather obvious observation that there is a distinction between what we see and the underlying causes of our perception. The algebra involved is fairly simple by physics standards.

Supposing you’re right in that space and time are actually Galilean, and that the effects of SR are artifacts of our perception. How then are the results of the Michelson-Morley experiments explained? I’m sorry if you did explain it in your book, but it must have flown right over my head. Or are we leaving this as a mystery, an anomaly for future theorists to figure out?

I haven’t completely explained MMX, more or less leaving it as a mystery. I think the explanation hinges on how light is reflected off a moving mirror, which I pointed out in the book. Suppose the mirror is moving away from the light source at a speed of v in our frame of reference. Light strikes it at a speed of c-v. What is the speed of the reflected light? If the laws of reflection should hold (it’s not immediately obvious that they should), then the reflected light has to have a speed of c-v as well. This may explain why MMX gives null result. I haven’t worked out the whole thing though. I will, once I quit my day job and dedicate my life to full-time thinking. :-)

My idea is not a replacement theory for all of Einstein’s theories. It’s merely a reinterpretation of one part of SR. Since the rest of Einstein’s edifice is built on this coordinate transformation part, I’m sure there will be some reinterpretation of the rest of SR and GR also based on my idea. Yine, this is a project for later. My reinterpretation is not an attempt to prove Einstein’s theories wrong; I merely want to point out that they apply to reality as we perceive it.

Genel, it was worth the $5 I payed. Thanks for the good read. Don’t take my questions as an assault on your proposal – I’m honestly in the dark about these things and I absolutely crave light (he he). If you could kindly answer them in your spare time, I’d love to share more ideas with you. It’s good to find a fellow thinker to bounce cool ideas like this off of. I’ll PM you again once I’m fully done the book. Yine, it was a very satisfying read.

Teşekkürler! I’m glad that you like my ideas and my writing. I don’t mind criticism at all. Hope I have answered most of your questions. Değilse, or if you want to disagree with my answers, feel free to write back. Always a pleasure to chat about these things even if we don’t agree with each other.

– Best regards,
– Manoj

Anti-relativity and Superluminality

Leo wrote:I have some problems with the introductory part though, when you confront light travel effects and relativistic transforms. You correctly state that all perceptual illusions have been cleared away in the conception of Special Relativity, but you also say that these perceptual illusions remained as a subconscious basis for the cognitive model of Special Relativity. Do I understand what you mean or do I get it wrong?

The perceptual effects are known in physics; they are called Light Travel Time effects (LTT, to cook up an acronym). These effects are considered an optical illusion on the motion of the object under observation. Once you take out the LTT effects, you get the “Gerçek” motion of the object . This real motion is supposed to obey SR. This is the current interpretation of SR.

My argument is that the LTT effects are so similar to SR that we should think of SR as just a formalization of LTT. (Aslında, a slightly erroneous formalization.) Many reasons for this argument:
1. We cannot disentagle the “optical illusion” because many underlying configurations give rise to the same perception. Başka bir deyişle, going from what we see to what is causing our perception is a one to many problem.
2. SR coordinate transformation is partially based on LTT effects.
3. LTT effects are stronger than relativistic effects.

Probably for these reasons, what SR does is to say that what we see is what it is really like. It then tries to mathematically describe what we see. (This is what I meant by a formaliztion. ) Daha sonra, when we figured out that LTT effects didn’t quite match with SR (as in the observation of “belirgin” superluminal motion), we thought we had to “take out” the LTT effects and then say that the underlying motion (or space and time) obeyed SR. What I’m suggesting in my book and articles is that we should just guess what the underlying space and time are like and work out what our perception of it will be (because going the other way is an ill-posed one-to-many problem). My first guess, doğal, was Galilean space-time. This guess results in a rather neat and simple explantions of GRBs and DRAGNs as luminal booms and their aftermath.

Daily Mail'de üzerine tartışma,en (İngiltere)

Daily Mail forumunda, bir katılımcı (denilen “neyin-a-isim”) hakkında konuşmaya başladı Unreal Evren Temmuzda 15, 2006. Bu forumda oldukça şiddetle saldırıya uğradı. Bir Web arama sırasında görmek oldu ve adım ve onu savunmak için karar.

15 Temmuz, 2006

tarafından gönderildi: neyin-in-a-adı 15/07/06 at 09:28 AM

Ah, Kek, sen bana ne yapmaları gerektiğini avunmak için başka bir sebep verdik- ve ben şu anda daha ilginç olduğunu söyleyebilirim.Ben bazı fikirler formüle çalışıyordum ve bir gelecek var- ama bit size vermek gerekecek.Ben pseudoscience dalmak istiyorsanız veya kuantum teorisi ile her şeyi açıklamak söylüyor woo-ish yol yapmayız, ama burada başlatmayı deneyin: http://theunrealuniverse.com/phys.shtml

The “Dergi Makalesi” alt kısmındaki bağlantı biz başka yerlerde tartışılan bazı noktaları dokunuyor. Bu konu dışı biraz gider, ama aynı zamanda bulabilirsiniz “Felsefe” üstündeki bağlantı ilginç sol.

tarafından gönderildi: patopreto üzerinde 15/07/06 at 06:17 PM

Web sitesi wian.One bu cümle geçmiş EAD gerek olmadığını ilgili –

Fizik teorileri gerçekliğin bir açıklaması vardır. Gerçeklik bizim duyu okumalarının yaratılır. duyularımız tüm çalışma aracı olarak ışık kullanarak bilerek, ışığın hızı, bizim gerçekte temel öneme sahip olduğunu bir sürpriz?

O tis web sitesine gerçekleştirmek için tam cahil saçmalık olduğunu. Ben bu noktada durdu.

16 Temmuz, 2006

tarafından gönderildi: neyin-in-a-adı 16/07/06 at 09:04 AM

Ia € ™ sadece dikkatle daha o biraz okumak için geri kaldın. Ben yazar bunu böyle phrased neden bilmiyorum ™ € dona ama kesinlikle o ne demek olduğunu:(i) “Neyin Bizim algı gerçek duyularımız okumalarının dışında oluşturulur edilir.”Ben tartışmak ™ çoğu fizikçi wouldnâ € düşünüyorum  onlar olur? biz anlamak olarak kuantum düzeyinde gerçeklik azından € ™ t var doesnâ; Sadece parçacıklar başka fazla yerde veya devlet var olma eğilimi daha var olduğunu söyleyebiliriz.(ii) Biz optik ya da radyo teleskoptan gelen pick up bilgiler, gama-ışını detektörleri ve benzeri, onlar geçmişte uzak nesnelerin devlet vardı gösterir olarak, radyasyon geçiş süresi nedeniyle. uzayda derinine nedenle evrenin tarihinin geri ileri bakmamızı sağlıyor.Bu noktayı ifade etmek alışılmadık bir yoldur, katılıyorum, ama orada diğer bilgileri devalüasyon değil. Özellikle oldukça fazla detaya gitmek diğer gazetelere bağlantılar vardır, ama ben daha genel bir görünüm sunuyordu şeyle başlamak istedim.

Ben fizik öğrenim benimkinden çok daha gelişmiş olduğu izlenimini almak- Daha önce söylediğim gibi ben sadece bir amatör kulüpler, Ben belki de en fazla biraz daha ilgimi geçtiniz rağmen. Benim akıl herhangi kusurlu olup olmadığını düzeltilmesi için mutluyum, Oldukça basit şeyler ne olduğunu ben şimdiye kadar söylediğim rağmen.

Ben Keka en meydan yanıt olarak ifade etmeye çalışıyorum fikirler yine benim kendi ve vardır, Ben sizin veya bir başkasının onları aşağı vurmak için oldukça hazırım. Hala benim düşüncelerimi formüle ve ben fizikçilerin maddenin doğası kullanmak modeli esas alınarak başlamak istedim, Plank mesafesi ve kuantum belirsizlik de uzay-zamanın grenli yapısı aşağı gidiş.

Bir veya iki gün içinde bu geri gelmek gerekecek, ama sizin veya bir başkasının karşıt görünüm sunmak istiyor bu arada eğer, lütfen yap.

tarafından gönderildi: patopreto üzerinde 16/07/06 at 10:52 AM

Ben yazar bunu böyle phrased neden bilmiyorum ™ € dona ama kesinlikle o ne demek olduğunu:

Ben yazma net çıkmak olduğunu düşünüyorum! WIAN – Eğer o farklı bir şey demek ne diyor yeniden yazdım.

yazar oldukça açıktır – “biz bu yer ve zaman kabul ettikten sonra beyin tarafından oluşturulan bilişsel modelin bir parçası olan, ve bu özel görelilik bilişsel modeli için geçerlidir, Biz modelin arkasındaki fiziksel nedenleri üzerinde düşünmek olabilir, Mutlak gerçeklik kendisi.”Â

Blah Blah!

Yazar, Eller Thulasidas, OCBC Singapur banka ve bir çalışanı kendini tarif edilmektedir “amateur philosopher”. Ne diye yazıyor bir dini etkisinde tekbenci felsefesi başka bir şey gibi görünüyor. Solipsism felsefi açıdan ilginç ama çabuk yıkılır. Manoj açıklama olmadan böyle titrek gerekçesiyle yaptığı argümanlar başlatabilirsiniz, o zaman ben gerçekten olarak kendini onun açıklamalarını kabul etmek daha almak için başka bir ders var “amatör”.

Belki geri MEQUACK için!