Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

About interest and competence in Physics

  1. Dec 17, 2003 #1
    I am supremely disappointed in this forum! I was hoping to find some people to talk to who understand physics and mathematics. So far, the only responses to my posts have been by people having no decent education in math and physics to speak of. Now, I do not mind explaining things to interested people with no background in physics but I was hoping to talk to someone on a little higher level.

    My first complaint was the fact that my original posts were moved to the "Theory Development" thread when there is nothing theoretical at all in any of my posts. Apparent whoever moved it did not read it, at least not carefully. It is entirely based on the current state of physics. There is absolutely nothing in my post which even suggests that Relativity or Quantum Mechanics is invalid so it certainly can not be shunted aside under the "we do not debate the validity of Relativity or Quantum Mechanics here". Neither do I feel that I have any better ideas then those taught at any University. I just have a perspective entirely consistent with the entire field and would like to discuss it with someone competent.

    This is already posted on the "Theory Development" thread but apparently no one competent has either read it or thought about it.
    That is, solve the problem and analytically represent the relativistic correct solution. There is no argument with Relativity here at all! If you can not see that, you do not understand Relativity.
    Again, there is nothing here in contradiction to any Physics taught at any University in the world and anyone competent in Physics would know that. We are doing nothing but making a careful examination of the experiment you the reader have proposed.
    If representing lines in a geometry through a parameteric notation is beyond your experience, your understanding of mathematics is far to limited to understand the above step and you will have to drop out of this discussion. If you have any competence in Physics, you should find no difficulty with that step.
    Anyone competent in Physics already knows that so, if you find the statement confusing, you just are not sufficiently knowledgeable in Physics to follow what I am talking about. In particular, I again say there is nothing here which is not perfectly understood physics by anyone decently trained in the field.
    By the way, is there anyone out there who really believes that a clock attached to the entity whose path we are following would not read exactly the invariant interval along the path? If so, you need to go back to school.

    We now have all the information we need to explicitly examine the exact nature of those trajectories, including, by the way, the nature of the original geometry itself through the explicit relationship between all of the various [tex]tau_p[/tex] defined by the various trajectories defined by [tex](x,y,z)_p[/tex] (through the fact that we know that tau constitutes the integral of the metric).
    Is this true or false; is it in anyway a misrepresentation of Modern Physics as taught in any school in the World?
    Once again, I state that there is no new physics here at all. There is nothing here but a rather strange perspective which I doubt anyone has ever taken and I would like to discuss the consequences with someone competent in Modern Physics.

    If, in the over four thousand members, there is no one out there with sufficient training to follow that rather streight forward thought experiment, I will not bother anyone at this forum again as it is clearly a waste of time. If this post is removed from the "General Physics" forum, I will take it as a sign that the people in charge are not interested in physics.

    Have fun -- Dick
    Last edited: Dec 17, 2003
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 17, 2003 #2


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    We are not worthy.
  4. Dec 18, 2003 #3


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Man, that's classic right there. I almost died laughing!

    - Warren
  5. Dec 18, 2003 #4


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I don't intend to start a flame thread, particularly not in the Feedback & Announcements forum, so this will be my only response to your concern.

    I am the mentor responsible for moving your thread to Theory Development (I think). I had absolutely every reason to do so. Our general policy is to move any posts in which a person challenges accepted, mainstream scientific material without properly adhering to the scientific method. In other words, people who try to use PF as a soapbox for promoting their own unorthodox views will find their posts moved indescriminantly to the Theory Development forum.

    Your post, and the website linked therein, makes some immediate, unmistakable crackpot claims:

    1) "In the same vein, I hold that Einstein’s error (an error which has plagued science for almost 100 years already) was that he assumed clocks measured time."

    No one cares what you think the word "clock" should mean. It already has a precise definition in physics -- a clock is a device which can be used to measure the passage of time. If you don't like that definition, you're welcome to argue it, but only in the Theory Development forum. It's not physics, it's philosophy.

    2) Your sloppiness with words like "metric" (versus the correct term, "line element") is followed by your assertion that [itex]ds = ic\,dt[/itex], which is utter nonsense. It is indicative that you have no idea what a line element is, or how it's used. You then proceed to attack this strawman "metric" at length.

    When someone comes onto our forum and asks a question, they are (hopefully) well received. When someone comes onto our forum and attempts to tell us that the mathematical entities we use everyday are really something they aren't -- we move that person's posts to Theory Development.

    3) You go on to assert that the possibility of tachyons, as a result of the presence of extraneous solutions, means the theory of relativity is somehow flawed. Many, many theories permit extraneous solutions -- including basic Newtonian mechanics -- but you seem to be defending them.

    4) You then go on to attack relativity by some arguments about measurement precision. Arguments about measurement precision are to be applied to experiments, not theories. Theories produce crisp predictions, and it's perfectly reasonable (and in fact, correct) to assume ideal apparatus when calculating a prediction. You have thus demonstrated that you don't understand the difference between theory and experiment.

    I could continue pointing out flaws, but I've now grown quite tired of reading your work.
    Probably because the people here who understand math and physics (e.g. me) have no interest in discussing your philosophy.
    Several of our members are dignified, published, professional researchers. There are no higher authorities to whom to appeal.
    It was not shunned for that reason. By the way, the conflict between (general) relativity and quantum mechanics has nothing to do with the definition of the word "clock," no matter what you might think. I also suggest that you use the term "general relativity" when appropriate. There is absolutely no conflict between special relativity and quantum mechanics.
    Blah blah blah. We're all too stupid to understand your arguments, eh? Wrong. We're all too smart to fall for them.
    See ya, Dick.

    - Warren
  6. Dec 18, 2003 #5
    Still looking for intelligent correspondence.

    Neither do I; I wish only to find someone competent to talk to!
    And exactly what mainstream scientific material have I challenged? Everyone seems to utterly lose control of their intellect when I say "clocks don't measure time". Anyone competent in physics knows that a clock measures time only its own rest frame! Bringing attention to that fact is not challenging accepted, mainstream scientific material!
    So the standard operating procedure on this forum is name calling?
    It is not philosophy; it is close examination of accepted, mainstream scientific facts! When a scientists says, "clock is a device which can be used to measure the passage of time", he generally omits to mention that the clock must be at rest in the frame of reference of interest. He omits this because he presumes it to be understood. Anyone who understands physics, should comprehend that, from an exact perspective, all real clocks are fundamentally in error because they are not at rest in the reference frame of interest (and it makes no difference what reference frame you are interested in). This fact has subtle consequences. Your position that "only a crackpot would wish to examine those consequences" is anti-science in the extreme!
    What assertion are you referring to here? And are you trying to put forth the idea that the line element in a geometry is not obtained via the metric? How do you propose to calculate a line element?
    I take that to mean that you do not believe that clocks (using the precise definition you give) measure exactly the invariant interval along their space-time path? If that is true, you seriously need to talk to some of those qualified experts you know.
    I do not assert that the possibility of tachyons means the theory of relativity is flawed. In fact, I at no time assert that the theory of relativity is flawed in any way. What I said is that I think the assertion that Einstein's space-time continuum is the only reasonable perspective amounts to tunnel vision. That tunnel vision is a consequence of Einstein's error of not making a careful examination of the physical problems associated with using the "precise" definition of clocks accepted by the scientific community. The difficulty is totally analogous to Newton's error of presuming clocks could be synchronized. That fact has some very subtle consequences and, had it been pointed out to Newton, I think he would have given it some serious thought.
    I don't mind the existence of extraneous solutions, but I do think that one should understand exactly where and why those extraneous solutions arise. I "seem to be defending them" to you because you don't understand what I am talking about.
    The assumption that all clocks can be synchronized was not defeated by a physical experiment; it is defeated by a gedanken experiment, a thought experiment. Your comment would imply that it would be perfectly reasonable to assume the ideal apparatus of set of universally synchronized clocks. That, my good sir, is a crackpot proposition if I ever heard one.
    I don't understand that as you apparently have done little but glance at it. In particular, I notice that you have made no comments on the thought experiment I proposed in this thread. You instead decided to vilify me on other issues apparently based on my reputation "as you see it".
    And exactly where did you get that fabulous education in math and physics you lay claim to? So far your abilities haven't impressed me.
    Yeah, I was hoping I would run into some serious thinkers but that seems to be a remote possibility at this point!
    Why don't you say "the apparent conflict". The central issue of my post is that the conflict is only apparent and not real at all (that's why no experiments can resolve the issue). What I am offering is a slightly askew perspective. I explain my perspective from the position of special relativity. If anyone can manage to follow that, I will explain exactly how general relativistic phenomena appear from that perspective (though anyone competent in mathematics and geometric representation should be able to do it on his own).
    Again, a completely unsupported statement put forth as fact! This is a very poor representation of rational discourse.
    If you are representative of the mental acuity of this forum, I would have to agree with you. For the moment, I will presume you are the extreme!

    I still have hopes of reaching someone rational.

    Have fun -- Dick
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook