The ABSOLUTE REFERENCE and the "c" absolute speed

[socratus]

Max Planck. "Scientific Autobiography".

I have reread the Planck’s article "Scientific Autobiography".
It is a small article of 10 pages, but how honesty and modest,
wise and beautiful it is.
I cannot give a whole deep explanation of this article,
therefore I will concentrate attention on a small part of it.
1.
In the beginning Planck wrote, that " From young years....
the search of the laws, concerning to something absolute,
seemed to me the most wonderful task in scientist’s life."
And after some pages Planck wrote again, that
" the search for something absolute seemed to me the
most wonderful task for a researcher."
And after some pages Planck wrote again, that
“ the most wonderful scientific task for me was
searching of something absolute."
2.
And as for the relation between “relativity and absolute”
Planck wrote, that the fact of "relativity assumes the
existence of something absolute" ;
"the relativity has sense when something absolute resists it.”
Planck wrote that the phrase " all is relative " misleads us,
because it is nonsense, because there is something
absolute in SRT.
And the most attractive thing in SRT was for Planck
“to find something absolute that was hidden in its foundation.”
3.
And later Planck explained what there are absolute in the physics:
a) The Law of conservation and transformation energy.
b) The negative 4D continuum.
c) The speed of light quanta.
d) The maximum entropy which is possible
at temperature of absolute zero: T=0K.
========.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. Socratus.
===.

[Metazoan]

Hi Arising,

Touchy isn't he.

I think it may be going a little too far to ascribe his reaction to touchiness, I did wrap my message in a quite thorny coating which I am sure will be difficult to swallow.

The post did contain a number of challenges but they were mostly implicit and as much psychological as philosophical.


_________________

[Metazoan]

Hi nameless,

Authorship : The origin or originator or a written work or plan.

Of course, it should have read:-

Authorship : The origin or originator of a written work or plan.

Thanks for picking that up, and it is a quote from my Collins English Dictionary.

I am the 'author' of a book. The words are typed by me yet I am not the Source. Therefore I am the author, yet not the originator or origin. Therefore your definition is inaplicable.

This would seem to highlight to me the importance on agreeing on meanings to words.

You appear to be directly contradicting the definition in my dictionary.

To me, someone who types the words of a book for the originator is a secretary; the author is the person who takes credit for originating a work.

In a world without free will the word 'author' has the same meaning as 'secretary'. Therefore when speaking to those who believe in free will, using any word that is preloaded with a heavily creative meaning is simply going to make your meaning harder to see.

In a world without free will the concept of 'author' is redundant, so why do you insist on using it?

Your lack of understanding and word games does not make for my delusion.

I don't recall making such an assertion. From my perspective it looked like simple deductive reasoning.

My lack of understanding is why I am here.

From my experience of this forum so far, if you do not like word games, philosophy may not be for you.

You claim that I claim to be the "originator" of something; link me or stand down.

To my mind 'author' and 'originator' are synonymous in the context of everyday life.

I claim 'authorship' not 'ownership'.

I took it to mean that you were claiming to be the originator because that is what 'author' means according to references to hand. Words have no intrinsic meaning but rely on agreeing on a common meaning. This is why I suggested that you use less emotive words.

For you to separate them the credit must remain with 'originator' thereby demoting 'author' to mean 'secretary'.

If you refuse to dereference the squiggle: 'author' in a manner that allows mutual understanding of your meaning then I will simply have to keep pushing you.

This trite and pedantic word crap is getting boring.

Then consider not provoking such responses.

Your lack of understanding is not my problem.

I am pleased that you do not find my quest to understand you a problem.

You personal ad-hominem attack highlights your inability to refute and/or deal philosophically with what I present.

Naw.. those were not personal attacks, maybe the odd tweak of your soft spots, just to let you know that you are showing them.
The message is simple: speak plainly to me and I will speak plainly to you.
Stick your ego in my face and I may react accordingly. Your choice.
Respect is a two way street.

Fine. I won't wast another post on ye.

So I look forward to many un-wasted posts from now on.

The rest of your post has been *snipped*...

It served its purpose and the points will, no doubt, resurface.

...because it has no value.

Perspectives differ.

Its petulant,

Too true, thank you for giving me something to remind myself that I am human.

childish,

If I could write like that when I was a child then my school reports would not be ash.
However, I would agree that my Adult allowed my Child more freedom than usual in this instance.

disrespectful

You are simply reaping that which you sow.

and simply too boring to bother with.

Then engage in a more mutually interesting manner.

We obviously have nothing else to say to each other.

I disagree.


_________________

[Metazoan]

Hi nameless,

There is one Universe, hence the 'Uni-'.

Would this be for a similar reason that I might argue that there is only one snowflake while standing in a blizzard?

_________________

You will find me where zero meets infinity.

[morbidslug]

Hi, I am just goign to jump ion here, read the first few posts till it got silly.

Does Light Exist Between Events?

not observably, unless you falliciously posit that it's two defining events as ones in which other interactions occur inbetween. Also, a photon itself doesn't see itself moving at the speed of light, all it sees is two events. The point where it was emitted and the point at which is recieved (to use the crappy language we are trapped in, english is not good for physics). The rest of the 'time' it is isolated (cold and lonely, aw, poor thing) and playing with itself, as a boson it must balance its weak existence from the outside world internally (not suggesting that it has 'structure' like other particles).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hahn%E2%80 ... ch_theorem

this tells us something about the idea of separation, also read up on sober spaces if you have time.

If Einstein should have considered the VOLUME SPEED, it should be exactly 3×10^8 m s^-1.

you are using the idea that the universe cares about our understanding and our way of interacting with it. It does not. Just because the speed of light happens to be close to a nice number does not mean anything at all other than its ease of reproduction in high school text books. The same applies to your base ten math involving angstroms, which are based on an arbitrary choice of distance unit, the meter.

So called 'events' are discrete, as are photons.

Photons may be discrete but this does not isolate them to be discrete in energy, consider red shift, bremstralung, pair production/annihilation doppler effect etc.

It is 'memory/thoughts' which perceive apparent 'motion'.

come on man, INFORMATION, there IS a metaphysics thread here...

Those who perceive know, those who do not, do not.

this is belief, not perception.

All moments/percepts are perceived/manifested synchronously, simultaneously. Not 'FTL' but instantaneously, the same moment.

this is true, but NOT electromagnetically! I think the point has been missed here. Electromagnetic communicatio of information is not instantaneous, gravitational information, apparently, is. You come up with a way to interpret gravimetric data without measuring the relative motions of the entire universe and I will be so chuffed.

(It's all about the he said she said...)

Quote:
Quote:
Is one's brain 'entangled' with the foot? It can be seen that way, or we can be perceived as one integrated 'unit', a harmonious 'whole' wherein one differing feature means everythig must be different.

Perhaps, but there's no hint of quantum entanglement going on in the physical sense.

Sure there is. There are many instances of such 'hocus pocus' and 'phenomena'. But where they were discounted and ignored due to the ignorance of 'classical physics', modern QM theories are integrating those 'holistic events'.
Besides, do you not consider photons to be "physical" (whatever that might be)? What do you think that 'physical' means? To what does it refer? Are our perceived thoughts and dreams 'physical'?

No a brain is not entangled with a foot, just because they are part of the same system. There is some evidence of entanglement in the brain from region to region, though I have just had a quick search for it and can't find it now. You can't just decide what you mean by entanglement and ignore its real meaning. Hmm, are thoughts 'physical'? Good question, no experiments providing answers right now, though there are some pretty damning indications to suggest that, yes, they are. (I don't like that, any more than you may, but as a scientist you haz to go with the dataz.)

Viewed from another Perspective the moment wherein i say 'hello' and the moment where you say 'hello' can be perceived simultaneously, as, perhaps, an instantaneous occurrence.

i blame blame is being generous with his

this is almost true

. This is, almost certainly, untrue. They are events which occur separately. Let us consider that a photon can interact with the outside world upon its travel and passes the initiator of the conversation as he states 'hello', the wave then travels down a wire, at reduced c (due to the physical existence of some imperfect conductor) we then observe the signal (if we suddenly decide that the phton can stop and start wherever we want.) arriving at the end of the phone line and a response from the reciever ('hello') comes after the initiators signal has arrived. We can arrive before the signal from the initiator, but not change the order of events. There is such a thing as causality.

Let us instead consider particle decay, this system is much nicer and easier (no worrying about phone lines n data transmission)

We have some muon bibbing along at some non-relativistic speed. It decays and emits an electron, most probably travelling away at some relativistic speed, but this is a nice 3-body decay so lets decide for the sake of convenience that the two neutrinos take most of the momentum, we are our pretty snazzy photon who has the ability to do pretty much anything we want, and has a nice new paint job.

We travel parallel to our electron and pass it, it appears to be travelling backwards relative to us, does it reform into a muon? No, as we witness the muon decaying earlier, a long way back. The only difference is the time stamp, geometry and direction of the muon prior to its decay.

The action of these events is unchanged and order cannot be changed either, and simultenaity of events destroys this law. The action of an event or group of events remains invarient under the known transforms which model physical reality. I am not discounting that there may be more symmetries we don't know about in physics, but I am saying that you can't abserve ALL events as simultaneous as there needs to be a timelike dimension for all particle motions (governed by their LaGrangians) to be integrated within the bounds of to make physical sense of the reality you are describing.

Only as a naive assumption due to appearances.

supply rhetoric at least.

It's all perception (of 'mindstuff')...

there IS a metaphysics thread......

However I would be very interested in seeing your theory formally expressed so please start the thread as you suggested.

I second the motion.

When you can tweak a photon on earth, and an 'entangled' photon, or the same one (superposition), on the other side of the Universe is found to instantly 'respond', predictably, there must be some means of the one 'communicating' with the other, instantaneously.

there is no 'response' the fact is that the information was always there, encoded in that form just waiting to be observed. We have already defined the bounds of the experiment when we tweak the photons, we say, one is like this and the other is like that, there is no informative traffic as we already 'know' the outcome. Any other fiddling with the isolated photons destroys the entanglement by removing the system bounds.

It comes via 'me'. Happy?
I claim 'authorship' not 'ownership'. Do you understand the difference?
It comes 'through me' not from me. Understand?

quite frankly this reeks of insanity, and quite an angry one too. Though I understand the feeling expressed, I often have to write stuff down as though there is no conscious thought in it at all, as though the universe is putting pen to paper for me (and I enjoy it) but I have always told my brain to think about the things that I am writing a few days prior to this. Is it possible that you just love physics and have inadvertantly trained your brain to process data in the background. That's how I do it.

Feel free to read and attempt to understand my posts. They, in sum, express the nuts and bolts.

nameless, you are not some kind of jesus figure leaving cryptic clues for the future generations to follow, your ideas have some merit but production of some sort of mathematical framework is requierd by Physicists to actually give credence to your arguments, so that they can formulate hypothesis and test them. All else is hyperbole.

your nebulous attack is old news and boring

You have posited a nebulous theory, expect retorts of the same kind.

All that is perceived, exists.

I have, too, eaten magic mushrooms. Trust me, not all that is percieved is in existence, at least to others. Thing is, perception is not reality, lots of people have hurt themselves and others in this belief.

I support what I offer.

OK. What IF you're wrong? Now, please don't get uppity, if you were serious about this you would be happy for it to be put to the test, and be happy to be proved wrong, in the pursuit of a ToE or GUT or whatever anyone wants to call it.

metazoan: is it constructive to be so analytical?

Aaaaaaanyway. I hope that I have not offended you nameless, and please don't retort with some high and mighty assumtion that you know more than me and it is my perspective that is flawed, I can see quite well here from the gutter.

<3

[Metazoan]

Hi morbidslug,

Welcome.

metazoan: is it constructive to be so analytical?

I am not sure that I see what you mean by this and would be interested to explore the notion.


_________________

[morbidslug]

it was sarcasm, and I applaud you for you wit.
^this is not sarcasm. ^

Thanks for the welcome.

[mrblue]

I'm not exactly sure what the post was about in the first place. I saw a bunch of 'ABSOLUTES' and then a long and arduous tennis match to see who could lob the ball out of the other's court. I applaud the regulars for their contributions, but I can't help but feel they were trying to use buckets to save a sinking luxury cruise. Sorry for my own rant, but I much prefer talking about hard science.