"Sue..." wrote in message
oups.com...
|
| Androcles wrote:
| "LEFTY" wrote in message
| oups.com...
|
| | So, any object can be said to exist, or not exist, depending on
how
| you
| | observe that object. I have a car parked outside. I can observe
the
| car
| | just fine because I'm observeing it for signifigant periods of
time -
| | much greater than Planck time. But if I could take a picture of it
| | using a camera that has a shutter speed of say (1/100) *
PlanckTime,
| | then the car would not show up in the photo. It would vanish, like
| | Dracula when he looks in the mirror.
|
| Uh huh... You might get lucky with one. Write it up as your own
| page, publish it on the web and I'll nominate you for crank.net.
|
| I have been looking all week for something to agree with you
| on... just to ocassionally be civil. [Argggggh!]
|
| I will even contibute my photos of Michael Jackon sleeping
| inside inductors and capacitors (we all know the time is
| different there) to alter his ageing rate. ;-)
|
| Sue...
I've told you that doesn't work. What you need is a fibre
optic, LED and small battery. You can make a hula hoop,
necklace or bangle, as long as you twirl the LED around
as the light travels along the fibre you will not age as much.
You are not permitted to observe c+v, its a LAW of
physics. Now get busy making one and sell it to Michael
Jackson. If Michael gets too tired twirling, fit it to his desk fan.
I take 50%, it's my idea, you do your share and we'll be
in business.
Androcles

"LEFTY" wrote in message
oups.com...
| heh heh -
|
| This site is the most excellent thing i've seen on the web
| http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin.../lectures.html
|
|
| Seriously, it really does make sense to use nonexistence as a genuine
| natural phenomena. You can demonstrate nonexistence in the lab very
| easily using trivialities. Basically, the proof is trivial. And it's
| also constructible with a very subtle tweak to Planck Time.
|
| Consider any physical object which really does exist. The Earth, your
| car, Los Angeles, whatever. I ask you to make an observation of that
| object using whatever method you wish - but you MUST make your
| observation very quickly, you must complete the observation in LESS
| than PlanckTime. You will not be able to observe anything, and must
| report back to me that these things are "unobservable". You cannot
| confirm whether they exist, or not.
|
| It's all a matter of relative scales.
|
|
| Is that so cranky ?

As you can see, normal people believe any rubbish. To be a crank,
you have to abnormal like me. I can't possibly support normal
people aspiring to crankdom.
Here is an example of how to fish.
The needle is the hook, the plate is the sinker, the line is the one
I spin. Then you spot a normal fish with a Ph.D. swimming and
cast your bait, which is swallowed hook, line and sinker.
Reel it in slowly if it's a big fish, or land it fast and throw it back
if it's a minnow.

"Timo Nieminen" wrote in message
...
| On Sat, 8 Oct 2005, Androcles wrote:
|
| [incorrect attributions corrected]
|
| [Nieminen wrote:]
One very traditional way to measure permittivity is using a parallel
plate
capacitor. Neglecting edge effects, the capacitance is C=eA/d
where e is the permittivity, A is the area, and d is the distance
between
the plates. Measure the capacitance, and you have the permittivity.

[Nieminen wrote:]
Given that the electric field of any charged particle extends to an
infinite distance (or, if the particle came into existence a time t
ago, extends to tc), then there isn't any empty space anywhere in the
vicinity of matter. Oh, look, there's light in intergalactic space!
Look,
the microwave background radiation is everywhere!


Androcles casts his line:
Ok, Now reduce the area to a point, say one atom at the end of a
needle.
Apply some large voltage (say 1,000,000V) between the needle and a
plate (any area).
Start with d large, say 1 kilometre. Gradually reduce d. What happens?

Nieminen:
Well, the connnection between your question and the quoted text is
unclear to me (other than both involving capacitors), and the connection
with our previous discussion where you claimed that permittivity (e) and
permeability (m) of free space are zero, and that the Maxwell equations
other than (the modified) Ampere's law are correct, is also unclear.
What is your point?


Androcles:
To try to clarify what is unclear.

Nieminen:
Anyway, I'd say that about the same thing would happen if you brought
them together in empty space as if you brought them together in air,
until
the fields became large enough to get fun stuff like arcing, ion wind
etc.


Androcles cranks his reel:
You would, huh?
That ends the discussion, then, my TV needs a vacuum to operate.

See? Fish landed, too small, thrown back in the pond. Easy.
This is what a fish looks like:
http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
Gawd help Queensland.
Androcles.

"Sue..." wrote in message
oups.com...
|
| LEFTY wrote:
| heh heh -
|
| This site is the most excellent thing i've seen on the web
| http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin.../lectures.html
|
|
| Seriously, it really does make sense to use nonexistence as a
genuine
| natural phenomena. You can demonstrate nonexistence in the lab very
| easily using trivialities. Basically, the proof is trivial. And it's
| also constructible with a very subtle tweak to Planck Time.
|
| Consider any physical object which really does exist. The Earth,
your
| car, Los Angeles, whatever. I ask you to make an observation of that
| object using whatever method you wish - but you MUST make your
| observation very quickly, you must complete the observation in LESS
| than PlanckTime. You will not be able to observe anything, and must
| report back to me that these things are "unobservable". You cannot
| confirm whether they exist, or not.
|
| It's all a matter of relative scales.
|
| Not at all.
| The Chevy may observe the Ford to have no motion.
| The Ford may observe the Chevy to have no motion.
| But at end of 1/4 mile, the fuel remaining in the
| tanks will indicate the race car with less mass.
|
| Metaphysical musings don't get us any closer to
| the notion of time than a couple of kids can
| measure with a fuel can on a Sunday afternoon.
|
| Sue...


LEFTY can't aspire to crankhood by agreeing with the majority
like that. His idea is likely to get a Nobel Prize. Thanks for the
demo, Sue, but I'm not sure he'll ever be one of us.
Androcles.

Not at all. The Chevy may observe the Ford to have no motion.
The Ford may observe the Chevy to have no motion.
But at end of 1/4 mile, the fuel remaining in the
tanks will indicate the race car with less mass.

Metaphysical musings don't get us any closer to
the notion of time than a couple of kids can
measure with a fuel can on a Sunday afternoon.


Sue...


But neither the Ford nor the Chevy can make an observation in less than
Planck time.

You have 3 things going on here.
1) Observability of time
2) Observability of length
3) Observability of motion, which is a composition of (1) and (2).

Ford observes Chevy, and Chevy observes Ford. But this requires t
PlanckTime, otherwise they cannot make an observation at all.


LEFTY can't aspire to crankhood by agreeing with the majority
like that. His idea is likely to get a Nobel Prize. Thanks for the
demo, Sue, but I'm not sure he'll ever be one of us.
Androcles.


Nobel would be in big trouble today for making dynamite. I'm not sure
that I could ever accept money or medals from someone who so obviously
flaunts the law. The world has surely been turned on it's head to deify
a man who does such things.

"LEFTY" wrote in message
oups.com...
| Not at all. The Chevy may observe the Ford to have no motion.
| The Ford may observe the Chevy to have no motion.
| But at end of 1/4 mile, the fuel remaining in the
| tanks will indicate the race car with less mass.
|
| Metaphysical musings don't get us any closer to
| the notion of time than a couple of kids can
| measure with a fuel can on a Sunday afternoon.
|
|
| Sue...
|
|
| But neither the Ford nor the Chevy can make an observation in less
than
| Planck time.
|
| You have 3 things going on here.
| 1) Observability of time
| 2) Observability of length
| 3) Observability of motion, which is a composition of (1) and (2).
|
| Ford observes Chevy, and Chevy observes Ford. But this requires t
| PlanckTime, otherwise they cannot make an observation at all.
|
|
| LEFTY can't aspire to crankhood by agreeing with the majority
| like that. His idea is likely to get a Nobel Prize. Thanks for the
| demo, Sue, but I'm not sure he'll ever be one of us.
| Androcles.
|
|
| Nobel would be in big trouble today for making dynamite. I'm not sure
| that I could ever accept money or medals from someone who so obviously
| flaunts the law. The world has surely been turned on it's head to
deify
| a man who does such things.

Egads... what a truly cranky thing to say! You sure are learning fast.
Androcles.

LEFTY wrote:
Not at all. The Chevy may observe the Ford to have no motion.
The Ford may observe the Chevy to have no motion.
But at end of 1/4 mile, the fuel remaining in the
tanks will indicate the race car with less mass.

Metaphysical musings don't get us any closer to
the notion of time than a couple of kids can
measure with a fuel can on a Sunday afternoon.


Sue...


But neither the Ford nor the Chevy can make an observation in less than
Planck time.

You have 3 things going on here.
1) Observability of time
2) Observability of length
3) Observability of motion, which is a composition of (1) and (2).

Ford observes Chevy, and Chevy observes Ford. But this requires t
PlanckTime, otherwise they cannot make an observation at all.

The reason I specified a Ford and Chevy is because
everyone knows they come with special brackets for
suspending a physics laboratory between a pair. :-)
Nobel 1998 Robert B. Laughlin, Horst L. Störmer, Daniel C. Tsui
http://www.warwick.ac.uk/~phsbm/fqhe.htm
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/alpha.html

Sue...



LEFTY can't aspire to crankhood by agreeing with the majority
like that. His idea is likely to get a Nobel Prize. Thanks for the
demo, Sue, but I'm not sure he'll ever be one of us.
Androcles.


Nobel would be in big trouble today for making dynamite. I'm not sure
that I could ever accept money or medals from someone who so obviously
flaunts the law. The world has surely been turned on it's head to deify
a man who does such things.

LEFTY wrote:
Not at all. The Chevy may observe the Ford to have no motion.
The Ford may observe the Chevy to have no motion.
But at end of 1/4 mile, the fuel remaining in the
tanks will indicate the race car with less mass.

Metaphysical musings don't get us any closer to
the notion of time than a couple of kids can
measure with a fuel can on a Sunday afternoon.


Sue...


But neither the Ford nor the Chevy can make an observation in less than
Planck time.

You have 3 things going on here.
1) Observability of time
2) Observability of length
3) Observability of motion, which is a composition of (1) and (2).

Ford observes Chevy, and Chevy observes Ford. But this requires t
PlanckTime, otherwise they cannot make an observation at all.

Why da ya think Feynman didn't have a BMW ?
"Is it true," she asked, "that your daddy had a car with drawings
all over it?"

Carl Feynman acknowledged that there once was a 1974 Ford van,
California license plate "Quantum," covered with the pictograph-like
Feynman diagrams for which his father won the Nobel Prize in 1965.
"People would sometimes come up to us and ask, 'Why do you have Feynman
diagrams on your van?' and we'd say, 'Well, we're the Feynmans.'"
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/1998/feynman-0520.html

Sue...




LEFTY can't aspire to crankhood by agreeing with the majority
like that. His idea is likely to get a Nobel Prize. Thanks for the
demo, Sue, but I'm not sure he'll ever be one of us.
Androcles.


Nobel would be in big trouble today for making dynamite. I'm not sure
that I could ever accept money or medals from someone who so obviously
flaunts the law. The world has surely been turned on it's head to deify
a man who does such things.

OMG that is funny.

I saw a documentary about Richard Feynman, and also remember his
investigations into Challenger disaster. I think that he's pretty much
the consummate 20th centiry scientist.

And I think that if he were here, posting on this thread, he'd probably
give a pretty good argument against what I'm saying simply because it
seems ridiculous to treat nonexistence as a physical phenomena. I think
that even Einstein felt that way if I'm not mistaken.

Feynman's math seems to make a tenuous dance around the idea of
nonexistence, always careful not to step on it.

LEFTY wrote:
OMG that is funny.

I saw a documentary about Richard Feynman, and also remember his
investigations into Challenger disaster. I think that he's pretty much
the consummate 20th centiry scientist.

And I think that if he were here, posting on this thread, he'd probably
give a pretty good argument against what I'm saying simply because it
seems ridiculous to treat nonexistence as a physical phenomena. I think
that even Einstein felt that way if I'm not mistaken.

Feynman's math seems to make a tenuous dance around the idea of
nonexistence, always careful not to step on it.

If the universe doesn't exist, then we don't need to study it.
If the universe does exits then we must be, at the very least,
some kind of electrical disturbance in it.

Our opinions OTOH, probably don't have as much substance. :-)

Sue...

"Sue..." writes:

LEFTY wrote:
OMG that is funny.

I saw a documentary about Richard Feynman, and also remember his
investigations into Challenger disaster. I think that he's pretty much
the consummate 20th centiry scientist.

And I think that if he were here, posting on this thread, he'd
probably give a pretty good argument against what I'm saying simply
because it seems ridiculous to treat nonexistence as a physical
phenomena. I think that even Einstein felt that way if I'm not
mistaken.

Feynman's math seems to make a tenuous dance around the idea of
nonexistence, always careful not to step on it.

If the universe doesn't exist, then we don't need to study it.

Neither do we need to study it if it exists. But in either case, it
is fun doing so.

--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum