FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 ProfileProfile   PreferencesPreferences   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Relativity
Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 14 of 15 [215 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, ..., 12, 13, 14, 15 Next
Author Message
stephen@nomail.com
science forum Guru


Joined: 11 Sep 2005
Posts: 681

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 5:14 am    Post subject: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. Reply with quote

In sci.physics.relativity tomgee <tyropress@yahoo.com> wrote:

Quote:
stephen@nomail.com wrote:
In sci.physics.relativity tomgee <tyropress@yahoo.com> wrote:

Randy Poe wrote:
tomgee wrote:
stephen@nomail.com wrote:

The
whole idea behind dark matter is that it is massive,
and it attracts other objects via gravity. That is the
definition of "dark matter". No one is assuming that
dark matter is massless, other than you. That is
the point I have been repeatedly trying to make. Nobody
thinks that dark matter has zero or negative mass. It
is in fact defined to have positive mass.

You're making up facts, now, aren't you? If not, show us
that fact you claim exists where DM is defined to have
+mass.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter
"In cosmology, dark matter refers to matter particles, of unknown
composition, that do not emit or reflect enough electromagnetic
radiation (light) to be detected directly,"
"The dark matter component has vastly more mass than the
"visible" component of the universe"

Nothing in there about +mass.

Do you honestly believe that a negative mass can be more than
a positive mass?

Why not?

Because negative numbers are smaller than positive numbers?

Quote:

The visible component of the Universe
has a positive mass.

Yes, that's what I said, precisely.

So you are right about one thing.

Quote:

The dark matter component has more
mass than the visible component. A negative number cannot
be larger than a positive number. What do you think 'more'
means?

Obviously, you miscomprehended what you read. By
"component", the article refers to the total amount of
all the DM versus all the RM. He is not talking about
individual particles of matter. He should have said,
"The total amount dark matter mass is more than that
of the +mass." You have also misunderstood what
Dirac meant by "negative mass".

Dirac has nothing to do with this. Nobody but you
thinks that dark matter has anything to do with
Dirac's virtual sea of negative energy (yes Dirac
used the term 'negative energy'). If dark matter has
negative mass, than it cannot have more mass than
the visible component of the universe.

And nobody is talking about individual particles
of matter. How could anybody talk about individual
particles of dark matter when nobody knows exactly
what dark matter is made of? The only thing
that can be determined about dark matter is its mass.
It has more mass than the visible universe. The visible
universe has a positive mass. Therefore dark matter
must also have a positive mass.

Quote:
To him, an electron goes into an extraordinary state
when it loses energy to a level below its ground state.

According to Dirac, it goes into a negative energy state.

Quote:
At that point, the electron has lost its +mass and now
has mass less than zero, which Dirac called negative
mass, as compared to mass that has positive mass.
AFAIK, he made no reference to the amount of mass
involved, nor to any state of charge.

Electrons always had negative charge according to
Dirac. Even the electrons in the negative energy states.
When you elevated an electron out of a negative energy state,
it left a hole, that acted like a positively charged particle
with the same mass as an electron. Of course none of
this is considered to be a valid model of the Universe anymore,
and it never had anything to do with Dark Matter.

By the way, here is what Dirac himself had to say about
his theories. From
nobelprize.virtual.museum/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1933/dirac-lecture.pdf
An examination of the behaviour of these states in an electromagnetic
field shows that they correspond to the motion of an electron
with a positive charge instead of the usual negative one - what
the experimenters now call a positron. One might, therefore,
be inclined to assume that electrons in negative-energy states
are just positrons, but this will not do, because the observed
positrons certainly do not have negative energies. We can, however,
establish a connection between electrons in negative-energy states
and positrons, in a rather more indirect way.

We make use of the exclusion principle of Pauli, according to which
there can be only one electron in any state of motion. We now make
the assumptions that in the world as we know it, nearly all the
states of negative energy for the electrons are occupied, with
just one electron in each state, and that a uniform filling of
all the negative-energy states is completely unobservable to us.
Further, any unoccupied negative-energy state, being a departure
from uniformity, is observable and is just a positron.

Note that Dirac says
"One might, therefore, be inclined to assume that electrons
in negative-energy states are just positrons, but this will
not do, because the observed positrons certainly do not
have negative energies."
Positrons are not negative-energy states because they do
not have negative energies. Dirac's "Dark Matter", the electrons
in negative-energy states have negative energy. Of course Dirac
never called this "Dark Matter" and as far as I know he
never really thought about the dark matter astronomers worry about.


Quote:
Since it involves the total loss of energy, the mass
becomes invisible.

Why? Neutrinos have mass and energy but they are
invisible. You cannot see a neutrino.

Quote:
That is because for objects to be
visible to us, they must have energy.

No, for an object to be visible to us it must be able
to interact with light, and there must be some light
with which it can interact.

Quote:
To have energy,
they must have temperature, and for that, they must
have +mass, according to E=mc^2 and the Principle
of the Conservation of Mass and Energy. Those are
the objects we can see. The DM is the negative mass
matter Dirac refers to and which I propose is the DM
of today that is invisible to us.

What you propose has nothing to do with what the
rest of the world calls dark matter. You have
already agreed that your definition of dark matter
has nothing to do with the standard definition.
Dark matter has positive mass, and dark matter
gravitates just like any other matter. That is
how the term is defined. Your definition is also at
odd's with Dirac's where electrons can have negative energy.
You insist that your dark matter cannot have negative
energy, so it cannot be the same stuff Dirac was talking
about.

Stephen
Back to top
stephen@nomail.com
science forum Guru


Joined: 11 Sep 2005
Posts: 681

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 5:17 am    Post subject: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. Reply with quote

In sci.physics.relativity stephen@nomail.com wrote:
Quote:
Note that Dirac says
"One might, therefore, be inclined to assume that electrons
in negative-energy states are just positrons, but this will
not do, because the observed positrons certainly do not
have negative energies."
Positrons are not negative-energy states because they do
not have negative energies.

That should read
Positrons are not electrons in negative-energy states because
they do not have negative energies.
Quote:
Dirac's "Dark Matter", the electrons
in negative-energy states have negative energy. Of course Dirac
never called this "Dark Matter" and as far as I know he
never really thought about the dark matter astronomers worry about.

I imagine you will jump all over that typo anyway.

Stephen
Back to top
Bob Cain
science forum Guru


Joined: 07 Jun 2005
Posts: 360

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 8:08 am    Post subject: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. Reply with quote

kenseto wrote:

Quote:
If you want to talk about IRT you should read and understand IRT. In IRT the
quantity Fab is measured and if Fab is not constant a mean value is used in
the equation. In the case of the transverse doppler the mean value is at the
point where the source is directly over the observer.

Which has nothing at all to do with the point of the post you're
"responding" to. Endless evasion is your sole skill. Seto, you may
be a kook but you are also a fraudulent one. Even you must know what
your constant need to evade means.

You just do this for the fun of engaging people. Not an unusual need
and acting the fool is actually not an unusual way to fulfill it. Try
getting out more.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."

A. Einstein
Back to top
PD
science forum Guru


Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 11:38 am    Post subject: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. Reply with quote

tomgee wrote:
Quote:

No one should believe Encarta, nor any other reference work,
without comparison to what others say about the subject. You
believed one source that implied DM was not invisible, it is
just too dim for us to see it. Another shows DM is apparently
everywhere RM is not, so it is not a question of dimness but
of invisibility. Believe whichever one you want, but the latter
makes more sense to me, even if Encarta or any other source
said otherwise.


What's the source that "shows DM is apparently everywhere"?

PD
Back to top
AllYou!
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 1088

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 11:47 am    Post subject: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. Reply with quote

"tomgee" <tyropress@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1153275755.700181.197940@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...


Quote:
When opinions seem to agree, we can be content to accept
them as true unless and until we learn or come to think of
one that differs.

Then it's true that you're an idiot.


Quote:
We can seek opinions from others, but in
many cases, theirs are just copied or learned from others
without objective analysis of a valid kind.

How do you know?



Quote:
It is therefore up to
us as individuals to try to sort the real and whole truth from
those differing opinions.

And does data ever enter the picture?
Back to top
kenseto
science forum Guru


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 2151

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 12:32 pm    Post subject: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. Reply with quote

"Bob Cain" <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in message
news:mcqdnTGe058sdSDZnZ2dnUVZ_qGdnZ2d@giganews.com...
Quote:
kenseto wrote:

If you want to talk about IRT you should read and understand IRT. In IRT
the
quantity Fab is measured and if Fab is not constant a mean value is used
in
the equation. In the case of the transverse doppler the mean value is at
the
point where the source is directly over the observer.

Which has nothing at all to do with the point of the post you're
"responding" to. Endless evasion is your sole skill. Seto, you may
be a kook but you are also a fraudulent one. Even you must know what
your constant need to evade means.

You just do this for the fun of engaging people. Not an unusual need
and acting the fool is actually not an unusual way to fulfill it. Try
getting out more.

Idiot
Back to top
stephen@nomail.com
science forum Guru


Joined: 11 Sep 2005
Posts: 681

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 2:03 pm    Post subject: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. Reply with quote

In sci.physics.relativity tomgee <tyropress@yahoo.com> wrote:

Quote:
stephen@nomail.com wrote:
In sci.physics.relativity tomgee <tyropress@yahoo.com> wrote:
Wiki-wiki? You're using wiki-wiki the editable-by-anyone online
website for unsupported opinions? Even now that Encarta is free
online? What kind of simpleton would prefer to use a source that
he does not have to use and that any fool can edit and say
whatever he wants to in it?

Two things. First, Encarta is not free online. Parts of it are,
but if you want to see all the articles, you have to pay for
them. For example, one article you have to pay to see is
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761579459/Dark_Matter.html
So either you are misinformed, or you lied about the Encarta being
free. Second, according to you "Encarta leaves out a few important facts"
and "throws in a some opinions as facts." So why should anyone
believe Encarta? You apparently do not. So why recommend an
inaccurate source of information for which you have to pay?

No one should believe Encarta, nor any other reference work,
without comparison to what others say about the subject. You
believed one source that implied DM was not invisible, it is
just too dim for us to see it. Another shows DM is apparently
everywhere RM is not, so it is not a question of dimness but
of invisibility. Believe whichever one you want, but the latter
makes more sense to me, even if Encarta or any other source
said otherwise.

I have compared many sources. I quoted you many sources,
as did Randy. They all say that dark matter may consist of
objects such as brown dwarfs, neutron stars, gasses, etc. None
of the sources say or imply that dark matter is everywhere that
visible matter is not. What is your source for that? Or
is that just something you made up? If your answer is 'Dirac',
you are wrong, because he was not talking about dark matter.

There is no disagreement about the definition of dark matter.
All sources agree that dark matter is matter that we
cannot see but whose presence we can infer because of
its gravitational influence. We do not know why we
cannot see it. It may just be normal stuff that happens
not to be illuminated, or it may be something very different.
The latter opinion seems to be the predominant one. In
either case it has positive mass and energy and its
attractive gravity affects the objects we can see.

Stephen
Back to top
PD
science forum Guru


Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 2:28 pm    Post subject: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. Reply with quote

stephen@nomail.com wrote:
Quote:
In sci.physics.relativity tomgee <tyropress@yahoo.com> wrote:

stephen@nomail.com wrote:
In sci.physics.relativity tomgee <tyropress@yahoo.com> wrote:
Wiki-wiki? You're using wiki-wiki the editable-by-anyone online
website for unsupported opinions? Even now that Encarta is free
online? What kind of simpleton would prefer to use a source that
he does not have to use and that any fool can edit and say
whatever he wants to in it?

Two things. First, Encarta is not free online. Parts of it are,
but if you want to see all the articles, you have to pay for
them. For example, one article you have to pay to see is
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761579459/Dark_Matter.html
So either you are misinformed, or you lied about the Encarta being
free. Second, according to you "Encarta leaves out a few important facts"
and "throws in a some opinions as facts." So why should anyone
believe Encarta? You apparently do not. So why recommend an
inaccurate source of information for which you have to pay?

No one should believe Encarta, nor any other reference work,
without comparison to what others say about the subject. You
believed one source that implied DM was not invisible, it is
just too dim for us to see it. Another shows DM is apparently
everywhere RM is not, so it is not a question of dimness but
of invisibility. Believe whichever one you want, but the latter
makes more sense to me, even if Encarta or any other source
said otherwise.

I have compared many sources. I quoted you many sources,
as did Randy. They all say that dark matter may consist of
objects such as brown dwarfs, neutron stars, gasses, etc. None
of the sources say or imply that dark matter is everywhere that
visible matter is not. What is your source for that? Or
is that just something you made up? If your answer is 'Dirac',
you are wrong, because he was not talking about dark matter.

There is no disagreement about the definition of dark matter.
All sources agree that dark matter is matter that we
cannot see but whose presence we can infer because of
its gravitational influence. We do not know why we
cannot see it. It may just be normal stuff that happens
not to be illuminated, or it may be something very different.
The latter opinion seems to be the predominant one. In
either case it has positive mass and energy and its
attractive gravity affects the objects we can see.

Stephen

Here is TomGee's style of argument as applied in this case:
"I never claimed that Dirac was talking about dark matter. That was my
idea. Dirac said the negative energy sea was everywhere, and I simply
used that idea as support for my identification of the negative energy
sea with dark matter. You have said that dark matter is something else
entirely, being positive energy and not everywhere, and you have only
cited references that agree with that ridiculous idea. But you have not
overthrown my idea that it is negative energy and everywhere, and my
explanation of my own idea serves as support for the idea. There can be
no additional support for my idea, since the idea is mine and mine
alone, and no additional support is required. I do not claim to know
what I am talking about, but you do, and so the burden of overthrowing
my idea is on you. Until you do that, my opinion is as good as yours
and as good as the opinions of those you cite."

TomGee is, of course, an idiot, and not even a particularly unusual
idiot. This debating "tactic" of "I don't have to prove I'm right.
Prove I'm wrong!" is a common feature of many cranks, trolls,
pretenders, and idiots. TomGee feels somehow that debating about
physics is equivalent to doing physics, and that as long as he can
remain standing he has not lost the fight he imagines he's waging.
TomGee's specialness arises from his complete lack of shame, which
permits him to continue opening his mouth when most folks would cease
for fear of making themselves look even more idiotic.

PD
Back to top
stephen@nomail.com
science forum Guru


Joined: 11 Sep 2005
Posts: 681

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 2:48 pm    Post subject: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. Reply with quote

In sci.physics.relativity PD <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:

Quote:
Here is TomGee's style of argument as applied in this case:
"I never claimed that Dirac was talking about dark matter. That was my
idea. Dirac said the negative energy sea was everywhere, and I simply
used that idea as support for my identification of the negative energy
sea with dark matter.

Watch out!!!! TomGee is going to call you a liar because
he does not believe in negative energy. Of course Dirac
did believe in negative energy, and TomGee claims he is
using Dirac's ideas. So maybe Dirac was a liar also. :)

Stephen
Back to top
Sorcerer1
science forum Guru


Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 410

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 3:52 pm    Post subject: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. Reply with quote

"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153319296.351519.131870@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

[snip crap]

Hey, ignorant arsehole, how are you going to slow down my clock, you moron?
It's an ordinary wristwatch with this in place of the quartz crystal.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/lightclock.gif

Androcles.
Back to top
Sorcerer1
science forum Guru


Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 410

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 3:52 pm    Post subject: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. Reply with quote

<stephen@nomail.com> wrote in message news:e9lgo3$kjv$1@news.msu.edu...
| In sci.physics.relativity PD <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:
|
| > Here is TomGee's style of argument as applied in this case:
| > "I never claimed that Dirac was talking about dark matter. That was my
| > idea. Dirac said the negative energy sea was everywhere, and I simply
| > used that idea as support for my identification of the negative energy
| > sea with dark matter.
|
| Watch out!!!! TomGee is going to call you a liar because
| he does not believe in negative energy. Of course Dirac
| did believe in negative energy, and TomGee claims he is
| using Dirac's ideas. So maybe Dirac was a liar also. Smile
|
| Stephen
|

Phuckwit Duck is a proven liar, he doesn't believe in science.
Androcles.
Back to top
PD
science forum Guru


Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 4:04 pm    Post subject: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. Reply with quote

Sorcerer wrote:
Quote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153319296.351519.131870@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

[snip crap]

Hey, ignorant arsehole, how are you going to slow down my clock, you moron?
It's an ordinary wristwatch with this in place of the quartz crystal.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/lightclock.gif

Androcles.

What clock, Androcles? That isn't at all pertinent to my post.
If you want to ask a question, why don't you originate a post yourself,
so that it can be more visible to the crowd? Or are you ..... buck,
buck, buck, bucKAAAWWW?

PD
Back to top
Sorcerer1
science forum Guru


Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 410

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 4:18 pm    Post subject: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. Reply with quote

"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153325084.096379.54630@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| > "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:1153319296.351519.131870@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| >
| > [snip crap]
| >
| > Hey, ignorant arsehole, how are you going to slow down my clock, you
moron?
| > It's an ordinary wristwatch with this in place of the quartz crystal.
| > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/lightclock.gif
| >
| > Androcles.
|
| What clock, Androcles? That isn't at all pertinent to my post.

Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure.
Hey, ignorant arsehole, how are you going to slow down my clock, you moron?
It's an ordinary wristwatch with this in place of the quartz crystal.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/lightclock.gif


Androcles.
Back to top
PD
science forum Guru


Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 5:11 pm    Post subject: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. Reply with quote

Sorcerer wrote:
Quote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153325084.096379.54630@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| > "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:1153319296.351519.131870@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
|
| > [snip crap]
|
| > Hey, ignorant arsehole, how are you going to slow down my clock, you
moron?
| > It's an ordinary wristwatch with this in place of the quartz crystal.
| > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/lightclock.gif
|
| > Androcles.
|
| What clock, Androcles? That isn't at all pertinent to my post.

Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure.

I didn't respond to the original post. If you have a comment about the
original post, respond to that one.

Quote:
Hey, ignorant arsehole, how are you going to slow down my clock, you moron?
It's an ordinary wristwatch with this in place of the quartz crystal.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/lightclock.gif


Androcles.
Back to top
Sorcerer1
science forum Guru


Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 410

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 6:51 pm    Post subject: Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure. Reply with quote

"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153329067.364505.178670@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| > "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
| > news:1153325084.096379.54630@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
| > |
| > | Sorcerer wrote:
| > | > "PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
| > | > news:1153319296.351519.131870@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| > | >
| > | > [snip crap]
| > | >
| > | > Hey, ignorant arsehole, how are you going to slow down my clock, you
| > moron?
| > | > It's an ordinary wristwatch with this in place of the quartz
crystal.
| > | > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/lightclock.gif
| > | >
| > | > Androcles.
| > |
| > | What clock, Androcles? That isn't at all pertinent to my post.
| >
| > Re: Einstein said: Time is what the clock measure.
|
| I didn't respond to the original post. If you have a comment about the
| original post, respond to that one.

You are off topic, then. Fucking gossiping about Tomgee demonstrates
what an ignorant arsehole and old woman you are, obviously you don't
know any physics.
Wouldn't you be happier with a different newsgroup, say alt.morons or
alt.local.village.idiot?
Androcles.
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 14 of 15 [215 Posts] Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, ..., 12, 13, 14, 15 Next
View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Wed Aug 28, 2013 2:08 am | All times are GMT
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Relativity
Jump to:  

Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
No new posts For the Einstein worshipers and skeptics 3ality Relativity 3 Tue Oct 02, 2007 11:23 pm
No new posts Undestanding SR - examination time. Nicolaas Vroom Relativity 14 Thu Jul 20, 2006 4:00 pm
No new posts WHO KILLED PHYSICS: CLAUSIUS OR EINSTEIN? Pentcho Valev Relativity 7 Thu Jul 20, 2006 8:24 am
No new posts Space-time and time dilation Henry Haapalainen Relativity 40 Sun Jul 16, 2006 9:58 pm
No new posts Clock Properties dseppala@austin.rr.com Relativity 11 Sat Jul 15, 2006 11:24 pm

Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
Other DeniX Solutions sites: Electronics forum |  Medicine forum |  Unix/Linux blog |  Unix/Linux documentation |  Unix/Linux forums  |  send newsletters
 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.0767s ][ Queries: 16 (0.0304s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]