[Physics] Physics Digest, Vol 19, Issue 5

Doug Marett dm88dm at gmail.com
Thu Nov 29 16:59:58 CET 2018 

Hi Tufail,

    Yes, I am sure you are pre-determined not to become a nihilist. If I
keep on talking like this, I might become one instead... : )

Doug

On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 1:54 AM Tufail Abbas <tufail.abbas at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Hi Doug,
>
> I agree with James that:
>
> "A totally different dynamic that involves dimensional translations and
> 'performance space' is going to be the resolving key concept and
> relationship(s)"
>
> I would like to comment, that relativity or any other theory of physics,
> does not distinguish between living and non-living matter. Free-will as we
> observe, seems to be the exclusive property of living matter, and You
> writing the email are a living matter. Life is a bit complex under the
> domain of other subject of science, and any theories of physics has not
> explained it. Physics theories can only say whether  freewill( or life) can
> effect small scale changes, allowed within an Universe changing
> deterministically at large scale.  For Example: No matter, how many emails
> You write, it will not change the fact that Earth will complete one trip
> round Sun every year, which is a large scale change. And Universe is much
> bigger than the Solar System.
>
> So,  am I saved from mental decay?
> :)
>
> Regards,
>
> Tufail Abbas
>
> On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 at 01:50, Doug Marett <dm88dm at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Tufail and James,
>>
>>     I think the relativistic implication is much more stark than that -
>> if the future co-exists then it is already "set in stone" - it is just
>> another frame of a filmstrip that has already been filmed.
>> So the future is preordained, set, immovable. There is no "possibility",
>> there is no"free will"...what I write in this e-mail is "inevitable" as
>> goofy as that may sound  :)
>>     So anyone who believes in free-will should feel compelled to reject
>> the notion of the space-time continuum - otherwise you might end up in a
>> form of mental decay that we could call, with a little humour,
>> "relativistic nihilism" where you conclude that whatever you do doesn't
>> matter since the future is inevitable, so you just pine away in inaction...
>>
>> Doug
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 3:38 PM Tufail Abbas <tufail.abbas at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Doug,
>>>
>>> Yes I agree that it is hard to believe unless we make it simpler.
>>> Einstein has made this very complex. :)
>>>
>>> Past is memory, Present is observable
>>> and Future is a possibility.In this way all three can co-exist as piece
>>> of information at *different coordinates of space.*
>>>
>>> Past is information which we cannot interact with except to the extent
>>> that we can bring it to the present, through some retrieval process.
>>> Present is the information that we are currently accessing.
>>> Future is the information which cannot be accessed unless conditions are
>>> fulfilled to make it present as an outcome of processes of naturally
>>> evolving universe.
>>>
>>> Keyword here is information, and information needs storage device!!
>>> Infact we need three different kind of storages namely Past, Present and
>>> Future.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Tufail Abbas
>>>
>>> On Wed, 28 Nov 2018, 22:20 Doug Marett <dm88dm at gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Tufail,
>>>>
>>>>     Glad you liked the videos!
>>>>
>>>> To answer your questions, if the disk and magnet rotate in the opposite
>>>> direction, the current direction reverses, so it would be negative. If the
>>>> magnet and disk are reversed in position, the current direction remain the
>>>> same if the magnetic field direction through the disk remains the same, if
>>>> the magnet is flipped over, the current reverses. So in every case it obeys
>>>> the left hand rule for electrons in the disk moving across a stationary
>>>> magnetic field if you take the Maxwellian stance; current is generated via
>>>> the Lorentz force.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I think I follow on your other point - I am just trying to think
>>>> of a better example - perhaps the relativistic idea that the past and
>>>> future co-exist with the present is something impossible to test in
>>>> principle, since there is currently no known way for an observer to visit
>>>> the past and prove that it co-exists. I was thinking the other day about
>>>> the implausibility of the space-time continuum and the big bang theory - if
>>>> Einstein were right and the future and past co-exist, then immediately
>>>> after the big bang, as soon as the arrow of time started, all places and
>>>> events until the end of time would need to be conjured into existence all
>>>> at once! The entire time-space continuum would need to suddenly "exist" ! I
>>>> personally find this very hard to believe. : )
>>>>
>>>> Doug
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 11:13 AM Tufail Abbas <tufail.abbas at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hello Doug,
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for those videos!!
>>>>>
>>>>> You did an interesting experiment, though I feel, that perhaps all
>>>>> cases are not discussed.
>>>>>
>>>>> I wonder if it would be beneficial to discuss those cases.
>>>>>
>>>>> I wonder what would happen if both magnet and disc are co-rotating but
>>>>> in opposite/ counter clockwise direction. Will it give a negative or
>>>>> positive voltage?.
>>>>>
>>>>> I wonder what would happen if position of magnet and disc is
>>>>> interchanged and all cases are repeated.
>>>>>
>>>>> However I would like to clarify when I said that "it cannot be measured
>>>>> *"*,  I mean the *absolute impossibility *of measuring/ detecting.
>>>>> Not that it is not measurable by using one method but possible to measure
>>>>> by using another method.
>>>>>
>>>>> Speed of light *(as we observe at present moment/era)* is so
>>>>> fundamental to the nature of reality , that without it space-time will
>>>>> cease to *evolve and expand*, which becomes a motion-less Universe.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hence time (which is detected from motion) and space (which is
>>>>> measured only when time is available) are no more detectable, though they
>>>>> may exist as information/knowledge on *landscape of all possibilities
>>>>> *untill such time Universe chooses to evolve in one way or the other
>>>>> with a particular reality. And landscape of all possibilities is not
>>>>> a physical object.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>>
>>>>> Tufail Abbas
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 27 Nov 2018, 23:39 Doug Marett <dm88dm at gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Tufail,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      Yes, perhaps that is another interpretation...not really
>>>>>> relativistic or Lorentzian. But that does lead into the other point that
>>>>>> you mention, which is " if anything cannot be measured then it is no more a
>>>>>> physical object or phenomenon" - which sound relativistic. I think a
>>>>>> Lorentzian view would be that certain phenomenon can't be measured because
>>>>>> there are equal and opposite effects occurring at the same time that cancel
>>>>>> out. A good example of this is electromagnetic induction with the Faraday
>>>>>> unipolar dynamo. I have a couple of videos I produced with an experimental
>>>>>> demonstration of the paradox, and in part 2 reach the conclusion that there
>>>>>> is experimental evidence to support the notion that electromagnetic
>>>>>> induction can occur even when there is no relative motion between the
>>>>>> parts. For reference, here are the links to the two YouTube videos:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Part 1: The Paradox   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gduYoT9sMaE
>>>>>> Part 2: The solution
>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5wgmTGi5pU&t=6s
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The point of the exercise is show that what should not exist
>>>>>> according to relativity might actually be detectable...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Doug
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 1:17 PM Tufail Abbas <tufail.abbas at gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hello Doug,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, this question had  bothered me.
>>>>>>> Now it does not bother me anymore.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Speed of light is the factor  by which space and time are related
>>>>>>> and separated from each other. In absence of such a factor, space and time *cannot
>>>>>>> be distinguished from each other *in this Universe , hence cannot
>>>>>>> be measured. And if anything cannot be measured then it is no more a
>>>>>>> physical object or phenomenon.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To cut the story short: For me space , time and speed of light *are
>>>>>>> equally fundamental*. Either they all (physically) exist or all of
>>>>>>> three(3) vanishes and ceases to exist.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tufail Abbas
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, 22 Nov 2018, 22:03 Doug Marett <dm88dm at gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>   I recently have found a couple of relativistic concepts that I
>>>>>>>> have found logically disturbing and thought I would throw them out there.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The first is Einstein's redefinition of time as "that which a clock
>>>>>>>> measures" which differs in a dramatic way from the more classical
>>>>>>>> definition of time as being "the duration between events" or "the duration
>>>>>>>> of an event". To give an example, if three observers watch a sunrise on
>>>>>>>> earth, then two of them fly in opposite directions around the earth while
>>>>>>>> the third stays put, and meet back at the same place where they then watch
>>>>>>>> the sunset, all three will disagree on the elapsed time for sunrise to
>>>>>>>> sunset using clocks they have carried with them. In other words, according
>>>>>>>> to Einstein, there is no actual constant duration between the sunrise and
>>>>>>>> sunset, even though all witnesses are present in the same velocity frame
>>>>>>>> for the start and finish. Further, the idea that the number of ticks on the
>>>>>>>> clock defines how far you have progressed into the future would also be
>>>>>>>> wrong according to Einstein, since all the clocks would have different
>>>>>>>> ticks even though the share the same present at the start and finish. Why
>>>>>>>> are these contradictions not fatal to Einstein's theory?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The second has to do with the statement
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> “indeed that the speed of light is actually more fundamental than
>>>>>>>> either time or space”
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>> http://www.exactlywhatistime.com/physics-of-time/relativistic-time/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> However, the speed of light depends on both “time” and “space
>>>>>>>> (distance)" = distance/time
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is this not a circular argument – that a phenomenon that depends on
>>>>>>>> time and space is more fundamental than time and space?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is a bit like saying the speed of sound in air is more
>>>>>>>> fundamental than air and time.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Anyone else bothered by this ??
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Doug
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 11:46 PM Ruud Loeffen <rmmloeffen at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hello Hans.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> My comment at Vixra on Mass- and Field Deformation:
>>>>>>>>> Dutch scientists play a big roll in theories about Gravitation and
>>>>>>>>> the (expanding) universe. Your paper is an interesting approach and may be
>>>>>>>>> put in line with these scientists. I agree with the comment of Rodney
>>>>>>>>> Savidge: It would be rewarding to include a glossary providing clear
>>>>>>>>> definitions of (in effect justifying the use of) the many esoteric terms
>>>>>>>>> (e.g., hop landings, modules, etc.).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Best regards.
>>>>>>>>> Ruud Loeffen.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 1:40 AM Hans van Leunen <
>>>>>>>>> jleunen1941 at kpnmail.nl> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Please read "Mass and Field Deformation";
>>>>>>>>>> http://vixra.org/abs/1809.0564
>>>>>>>>>> All massive objects are recurrently regenerated and the volume of
>>>>>>>>>> the universe keeps expanding.
>>>>>>>>>> Greathings,
>>>>>>>>>> Hans van Leunen
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >----Origineel Bericht----
>>>>>>>>>> >Van : ilja.schmelzer at gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>> >Datum : 31/10/2018 19:33
>>>>>>>>>> >Aan : physics at tuks.nl
>>>>>>>>>> >Onderwerp : Re: [Physics] Physics Digest, Vol 19, Issue 5
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>> >> I have a related question for you. Since the universe is
>>>>>>>>>> expanding,
>>>>>>>>>> >> that means that all matter is growing larger. Since the tools
>>>>>>>>>> that we
>>>>>>>>>> >> use are also getting larger, how would we notice?
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>> >No, what is held together by forces (including the gravitational
>>>>>>>>>> >force) remains of the same size.
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>> >So, the size of everything on Earth, but also the Solar system,
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> >galaxies, and even the galaxy clusters remains unchanged in size.
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>> >> Is this why fossils
>>>>>>>>>> >> from millions of years ago seem larger than today?
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>> >Certainly not.
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>> >_______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> >Physics mailing list
>>>>>>>>>> >Physics at tuks.nl
>>>>>>>>>> >http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> Physics mailing list
>>>>>>>>>> Physics at tuks.nl
>>>>>>>>>> http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> *Ruud Loeffen*
>>>>>>>>> Paardestraat32
>>>>>>>>> 6131HC Sittard
>>>>>>>>> http://www.human-DNA.org
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> Physics mailing list
>>>>>>>>> Physics at tuks.nl
>>>>>>>>> http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> Physics mailing list
>>>>>>>> Physics at tuks.nl
>>>>>>>> http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Physics mailing list
>>>>>>> Physics at tuks.nl
>>>>>>> http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Physics mailing list
>>>>>> Physics at tuks.nl
>>>>>> http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
>>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Physics mailing list
>>>>> Physics at tuks.nl
>>>>> http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Physics mailing list
>>>> Physics at tuks.nl
>>>> http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Physics mailing list
>>> Physics at tuks.nl
>>> http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Physics mailing list
>> Physics at tuks.nl
>> http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Physics mailing list
> Physics at tuks.nl
> http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20181129/13871352/attachment.html>

More information about the Physics mailing list