@metal-brain saidDon't know what? And what 'jargon'? Apart from common plain English words such as "and" and "if" etc, I used exactly the same terms as you such as "ether' and "waving" and 'relativity' etc. and no terms more technical than that so if you don't understand what I am saying then that logically means you don't understand what you are saying. Give just one example of word or term I said that you don't understand...
You have an interesting way of saying you don't know with a lot of jargon.
@humy saidYou can start by saying what kind of "different ether" you are talking about. You are avoiding being specific because you fear I will prove you wrong again. That is why you resort to jargon, to avoid being specific.
Don't know what? And what 'jargon'? Apart from common plain English words such as "and" and "if" etc, I used exactly the same terms as you such as "ether' and "waving" and 'relativity' etc. and no terms more technical than that so if you don't understand what I am saying then that logically means you don't understand what you are saying. Give just one example of word or term I said that you don't understand...
Your knowledge of ether theory is seriously limited and you know it. You are out on a limb.
3 edits
@metal-brain said"different ether" isn't jargon and isn't even a technical term. Is it the word "different" you don't understand there or is it the word "ether"?
You can start by saying what kind of "different ether" you are talking about. You are avoiding being specific because you fear I will prove you wrong again. That is why you resort to jargon, to avoid being specific.
And I wasn't referring to any specific one ether theory as that would be completely irrelevant to what I was saying; But yet again apparently you cannot understand plain English.
Your knowledge of ether theory is seriously limitedin what way "seriously limited"? My understanding of it is apparently far greater than yours as you apparently didn't even know there is more than one ether theory.
@humy saidAgain, another long winded way of saying you don't know. You have no point. Einstein used Lorenz's math. You defended that by referring to a specific ether theory, unlike now.
"different ether" isn't jargon and isn't even a technical term. Is it the word "different" you don't understand there or is it the word "ether"?
And I wasn't referring to any specific one ether theory as that would be completely irrelevant to what I was saying; But yet again apparently you cannot understand plain English.
[quote] Your knowledge of ether theory is seriously li ...[text shortened]... ently far greater than yours as you apparently didn't even know there is more than one ether theory.
Let me know if you ever get the courage to revisit that debate.
@bunnyknight saidYes, it is amazing. But I would not be to sure about matter disappearing into "nothingness".
So actual matter appears, hangs around for a while, then vanishes into nothingness?
Do you realize the implications of that? It's beyond amazing .... it should blow your socks off.
There is the chance that such matter can traverse in and out of other dimensions.
@earl-of-trumps saidYes, exactly ... that's one possible implication which makes it so amazing. My gut feeling is that our knowledge of the universe is merely a tiny sliver of the tip of the iceberg. Truth may turn out to be stranger than fiction.
Yes, it is amazing. But I would not be to sure about matter disappearing into "nothingness".
There is the chance that such matter can traverse in and out of other dimensions.
@Metal-Brain
So what if he used Lorenz transforms and such. Are you implying Einstein was therefore a fraud?
You mean any scientist or math dude using previous work should be tarred and feathered?
You haven't heard of the process of building on previous work, leading to areas of thought not done by the original work done?
My god, Steven Hawking used CALCULUS for god's sake, WIPE OUT ALL HIS WORK BECAUSE HE USED NEWTON AND LIEBNIZ life work.
@sonhouse saidThere is a difference between building on anther Physicist's work and shamelessly taking credit for it.
@Metal-Brain
So what if he used Lorenz transforms and such. Are you implying Einstein was therefore a fraud?
You mean any scientist or math dude using previous work should be tarred and feathered?
You haven't heard of the process of building on previous work, leading to areas of thought not done by the original work done?
My god, Steven Hawking used CALCULUS for god's sake, WIPE OUT ALL HIS WORK BECAUSE HE USED NEWTON AND LIEBNIZ life work.
It is not only Lorentz. E=mc2 is Poincare's equation. He came up with it first.
6 edits
@metal-brain saidSo why don't you PROVE that to us by showing us when and where he took "shamelessly taking credit for it" (your quote) by showing us an Einstein quote where he CLAIMS he and HE ALONE was the one that came up with the E=mc^2 equation first when he knew full well he wasn't?
There is a difference between building on anther Physicist's work and shamelessly taking credit for it.
It is not only Lorentz. E=mc2 is Poincare's equation. He came up with it first.
If you refuse to do that we will all know why; You are just vomiting out your usual BS lies and/or ignorant delusional assumptions.
I read somewhere that Einstein once said he never looked at or read Poincare's work. If he said that then, given he didn't have a past history of lying, our default assumption should be he was telling the truth. If he didn't know about his work then he couldn't have knowingly taken "shamelessly taking credit for it" i.e. while KNOWING it was somebody else's work; But you have still yet to show us that Einstein specifically and explicitly claimed he was the first to come up with that specific E=mc^2 equation ...
4 edits
Like others before, Poincaré (1900) discovered a relation between mass and electromagnetic energy. While studying the conflict between the action/reaction principle and Lorentz ether theory, he tried to determine whether the center of gravity still moves with a uniform velocity when electromagnetic fields are included.[32] He noticed that the action/reaction principle does not hold for matter alone, but that the electromagnetic field has its own momentum. Poincaré concluded that the electromagnetic field energy of an electromagnetic wave behaves like a fictitious fluid (fluide fictif) with a mass density of E/c^2. If the center of mass frame is defined by both the mass of matter and the mass of the fictitious fluid, and if the fictitious fluid is indestructible—it's neither created or destroyed—then the motion of the center of mass frame remains uniform. But electromagnetic energy can be converted into other forms of energy. So Poincaré assumed that there exists a non-electric energy fluid at each point of space, into which electromagnetic energy can be transformed and which also carries a mass proportional to the energy. In this way, the motion of the center of mass remains uniform. Poincaré said that one should not be too surprised by these assumptions, since they are only mathematical fictions.
.
.
.
It was Albert Einstein's concept of mass–energy equivalence (1905) that a body losing energy as radiation or heat was losing mass of amount m = E/c^2 that resolved[45] Poincaré's paradox, without using any compensating mechanism within the ether.[46] The Hertzian oscillator loses mass in the emission process, and momentum is conserved in any frame. However, concerning Poincaré's solution of the Center of Gravity problem, Einstein noted that Poincaré's formulation and his own from 1906 were mathematically equivalent.[47]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Poincar%C3%A9#Poincar%C3%A9_and_Einstein
It sounds like Poincaré came up with m=E/c^2 from another angle shortly before Einstein, but only as an ad hoc mathematical device, and not as part of any wholly threshed out and self-consistent mathematical framework that spoke to the actual physics of a situation. Nevertheless Poincaré used his device to discover some valid physics.
Much ado about little.
@bunnyknight saidDrat, I still have trouble explaining what I think time is.
@lemon-lime
When they think they've finally figured out all the waves and particles, they will scratch their heads and ask "now what the heck is TIME and what is TIME made of?"
First of all time is not made up of anything, such as little time particles. It's possible a quantum physicist might disagree, but I'd probably be at a loss to understand the particle-wave duality of time no matter how well it's explained.
That was a wee joke by the way. And yes, I know... VERY wee.
Time is motion. And motion can be defined as obects continuously changing position in relation to other objects.
If there was no motion there would be no time. And if time wasn't variable (if it was a constant) there would be no warping of spacetime... in other words, no gravity.
Einstein calling spacetime a 'fabric' was a brillant analogy. Imagine this 'fabric' being woven from threads made of two different fibers... space, and time. One of the fibers is variable and the other isn't.
Now imagine tossing this fabric into the wash. One of the fibers shrinks but the other remains the same length. Because the two fibers are woven together the fabric becomes warped. Curvatures in spacetime are due to time variations, but this is where things can get confusing because some people will tell you gravity causes the time variations which in turn causes curvatures in spacetime.
@lemon-lime saidI shouldn't have started thinking about time because now I feel even dumber than before. The more I question, the less I know. I should just stick to making good coffee and carrot muffins.
Drat, I still have trouble explaining what I think time is.
First of all time is not made up of anything, such as little time particles. It's possible a quantum physicist might disagree, but I'd probably be at a loss to understand the particle-wave duality of time no matter how well it's explained.
That was a wee joke by the way. And yes, I know... VERY wee.
Time is m ...[text shortened]... eople will tell you gravity causes the time variations which in turn causes curvatures in spacetime.
1 edit
@bunnyknight saidIf it makes you feel any better you're not alone.
I shouldn't have started thinking about time because now I feel even dumber than before. The more I question, the less I know. I should just stick to making good coffee and carrot muffins.
Universal agreement is rare and there's plenty of "dumb" to go around.
@lemon-lime
Well the opinions expressed by the writers of that show are hardly to be taken seriously.
The question is still up in the air, is time discreet like quantified where there is only a jump from one time frame to another but on a plank scale timewise, like 1 to the minus 34 second per jump or some such.
If that were true it would be like time compared to a movie camera, the ones which show a series of shots some small time apart, whether that is 30 frames per second of a trillion frames per second of the latest cameras but time could be like that but that is just supposition for now since we have to way to access 10 to minus 34 second time slots or even close to that. Even the trillion frame per second camera is off by 22 orders of magnitude.
So real answers will not be forthcoming any time in THIS century for sure.
@humy said"I read somewhere that Einstein once said he never looked at or read Poincare's work."
So why don't you PROVE that to us by showing us when and where he took "shamelessly taking credit for it" (your quote) by showing us an Einstein quote where he CLAIMS he and HE ALONE was the one that came up with the E=mc^2 equation first when he knew full well he wasn't?
If you refuse to do that we will all know why; You are just vomiting out your usual BS lies and/or ignora ...[text shortened]... ecifically and explicitly claimed he was the first to come up with that specific E=mc^2 equation ...
How likely is that? Why is e=mc2 called Einstein's famous equation? Since Poincare came up with it first shouldn't it be called Poincare's famous equation?
Einstein came up with it second. When did people start getting credit for equations somebody else came up with first?
It is customary to at least give credit to the work you are building upon. Did Einstein do that with Lorentz or Poincare?