"Building Universes using Extreme Relativity" (TOE+)

[RainmanTime]

When all you can do is squirm and wriggle to try to get away from Darby's logic, that means you are losing John Thomas.

I notice you did not answer his question. Asking another question to avoid answering a direct question is generally frowned on here. It shows you are being less than serious, and amounts to you talking to yourself (rather than someone else), ostensibly to make you seem like a grand and wise sage. That may be how you see yourself, but others see your "dance" quite differently, and not at all flattering to you.

RMT

 

[Darby]

Serious question? Are you a fortune teller? No? Then how do you know no one will ever see an electron? You're making assumptions based on current technology.

No. It's not technology that is the limiting factor. The limiting factor is scale. To see something (and I'm using "see" in the most general possible sense) it takes some form of energy. To bring something into focus the wavelength of the energy must be many orders of magnitude smaller than the object being observed. Electrons are almost massless and are the smallest particle that has a rest mass (neutrinos might have some rest mass and if so will replace electrons as the smallest particle with rest mass). In order to "see" them the wavelength of the source energy must be, by definition and experimental verification, on the order of hard gamma rays or even cosmic rays. At those wavelengths the photons take on the properties of particles. The particles are traveling at the speed of light, are massive and will strike the electron like a cannon ball. The electron won't be there to be seen. It will be scattered away (Electron + photon involved in an inelastic collission = Compton Scattering).

This is physical reality. Physical reality is not subject to democracy and cares not a whit about what people want it to be. It is what it is and we have to live with it.

And you now have two questions that you've dodged. Both are still awaiting answer. I'm not a fortune teller but I'm fairly confident about the correct answer to the question about whether or not you ever took a course in physical science. (And I'm forming an opinion about college attendance. Note that I said attendance, not graduation. I have an opinion there as well.)

 

[John Thomas]

No. It's not technology that is the limiting factor. The limiting factor is scale. To see something (and I'm using "see" in the most general possible sense) it takes some form of energy. To bring something into focus the wavelength of the energy must be many orders of magnitude smaller than the object being observed. Electrons are almost massless and are the smallest particle that has a rest mass (neutrinos might have some rest mass and if so will replace electrons as the smallest particle with rest mass). In order to "see" them the wavelength of the source energy must be, by definition and experimental verification, on the order of hard gamma rays or even cosmic rays. At those wavelengths the photons take on the properties of particles. The particles are traveling at the speed of light, are massive and will strike the electron like a cannon ball. The electron won't be there to be seen. It will be scattered away (Electron + photon involved in an inelastic collission = Compton Scattering).

This is physical reality. Physical reality is not subject to democracy and cares not a whit about what people want it to be. It is what it is and we have to live with it.

And you now have two questions that you've dodged. Both are still awaiting answer. I'm not a fortune teller but I'm fairly confident about the correct answer to the question about whether or not you ever took a course in physical science. (And I'm forming an opinion about college attendance. Note that I said attendance, not graduation. I have an opinion there as well.)

I have degrees in English, History, Speech, Political Science and Psychology. I attended the Defense Language Institute, speak 4 launguages, and I am a cryptologist. My area is obviously not math and science. Obviously I went to High School where science and math were required electives. I am also aware that Titor said he lacked a formal High School education. But we've already established I am not him. So why are you interested in my background other than to establish that you understand physics better than I? I know some things about physics they would never teach you in school.

 

[John Thomas]

The abstract relationship I present? I can't assist you with your observation of time, Eric. I was refering to Darby's comments.

 

[Einstein]

Eric

John, I understand your statements about directly measuring physics to fit into mathematics to make models for predictive purposes. But almost nothing in physics is directly observable. We build instrumentation that can repeatedly interact with some set of properties in an environment. There are no absolutes, we make approximations within the limits of measurements. Even quantum mechanics is based upon approximations as sets of probabilities.

I disagree completely with your assessment. There are direct observational facts, that seem to me, are being deliberately ignored. So math models are fabricated that don't even describe what is actually happening.

Take a gravitational attraction for instance. A object undergoing a gravitational acceleration toward the center of the gravity source, in a vacuum, will accelerate in a weightless state. When that object comes to a stop, weight then becomes the dominate state. An object on the surface of the earth has weight with no visible acceleration present. Those are real facts. I haven't seen math that actually reflects those facts. To me, facts are the basic building blocks that need to be incorporated together to form a model of our reality. And there are enough facts present to observe to form that model. But those facts have been pushed aside. To me it's like a game of Chess. You really shouldn't try playing unless you know the rules. But the rules are right in front of your nose. Just look for yourself.

 

[Darby]

I have degrees in English, History, Speech, Political Science and Psychology. I attended the Defense Language Institute, speak 4 launguages, and I am a cryptologist. My area is obviously not math and science

Now you are making things up. Cryptology is 100% math and science. Cryptology is the study and development of the mathematics underlying cryptography and cryptanalysis. "My area is obviously not math and science," indeed.

 

[Skarpz]

Being cryptic can be done without math and science but you didn't seem to know that one. My handwriting is cryptic. Riddles are cryptic. Cryptology is not limited to math and science.

 

[Darby]

Being cryptic can be done without math and science but you didn't seem to know that one. My handwriting is cryptic. Riddles are cryptic. Cryptology is not limited to math and science.

That may be so, Skarpz, but you're not claiming the professional title of Cryptologist while simultaneously stating that you have no math background. The science of cryptology is the study of the mathematics underpinning cryptography and cryptanalysis. There's nothing to debate, nothing to guess at and nothing to mull over. It is the definition of the word. No math background = not a cryptologist. End of story.

If he says he is a cryptologist but has no math or science background he's not telling you the truth - not even close. Get it? Do you want me to spell it out for you using the three letter word that starts with "L"?

After Hugh Everett received his PhD he never returned to physics. He went stright to DoD and spent the rest of his professional career working on computer gaming theory...cryptology.

That's the caliber of person who is correctly called a crypyologist. Someone with a PhD in mathematics.

 

[Einstein]

Eric

If quantum entanglement is instantaneous, then during the "state" of entanglement, indirectly monitoring for systems changes may provide information about space, which through the absence of time may provide information about time because of normal spacetime relationships. This assumes a potentially separable nature of space and time existing as a result of quantum causality.

I accepts facts as the rules that we have to abide by in the real world. The above statements you made are pure fiction. Are you a fiction writer?