Ask any question you want about Physics

So, why are the tachyon dark matter theory and the preon theory so widely scoffed at, when there really hasn't (as far as I can find) been anything that strictly disproves them?

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: ErosA433
a reply to: Nochzwei

Yeah... iv got 4 years experience with a Masters in Physics with Astronomy, a PhD in Physics, and 6 years post-doctoral experience constructing a dark matter experiment... yep... i have a tiny little bit of an understanding of how engineering works (sarc), oh yeah and a tiny tiny bit about physics too

Inspite of all that you fail to understand the expt presented. Yeah right. Besides you will never find dark matter. Any wagers, only i alone in the world know what dark matter is and where it resides

Only you alone knows what it is?

Just like your "time machine"?

Maybe you should study some real science instead of learning it from pseudoscience websites.

Lolz. I will seek your advice when i need it. ty

You don't need my advice pal. You need psychiatric help.

dude i shall ask for it when i need it

And I shall respond when I feel the need to. Especially to someone who doesn't understand basic heat expansion.

Lolol wt do you know about coeff of linear expansion. first try to understand what that is and then think about posting to me

a reply to: dragonridr

Hey you better stick to teaching kindergarten kids. you are in the wrong place here

originally posted by: pfishy
So, why are the tachyon dark matter theory and the preon theory so widely scoffed at, when there really hasn't (as far as I can find) been anything that strictly disproves them?

I've never seen anybody disprove moogles theory, why wouldn't you prefer that?

You can start watching at 4 minutes for context, though Feynman gets to the meat of moogles theory at 5m10s which lasts about a minute:

Feynman on Scientific Method.


"Moogles do this and that more or less so I can sort of explain how this works. Then you see that theory is good because it can't be proved wrong." That's what Richard Feynman says in the video. If you're referring to Swanne's theories of preons and dark matter, by his own admission he's worked out little to no math which makes the theories extremely vague. If you have no math or equations how are you supposed to compare experimental results to predicted results that don't exist because the math doesn't exist? He said he's going to work on some math but I don't know why he would even publish such theories without the math in the first place.

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Lol, basic classes? Do you know wt it takes to get an engineering degree?

You keep implying you have an engineering degree but whether you do or don't, your mathematical skills displayed in your abuse of the E=mc^2 equation to attempt to turn c into a function of time rather than a constant are poor. Moreover in your expanding heater demo I had previously asked you how you calculated the predicted value for "h" in the following diagram based on various temperature changes and you replied something to the effect that you're an engineer so of course you can do the calculations, but you never showed them.



After seeing how you butchered E=mc^2 I seriously doubt that you can do the calculation to predict what values of h to expect in your device, which is why you're surprised by the result and attribute it to other sources. But if you want to prove me wrong and show your calculations, feel free to do so. Until you do your claims seem like only a tribute to your own lack of understanding, though not from lack of some folks here trying to help you understand what is going on in your experiment. You just stick your fingers in your ears and don't want to listen to what your experiment is really showing.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Lol. for a degree or less rise in temp, it is your understanding of expansion that is lacking, let alone the math

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: ErosA433
a reply to: Nochzwei

Yeah... iv got 4 years experience with a Masters in Physics with Astronomy, a PhD in Physics, and 6 years post-doctoral experience constructing a dark matter experiment... yep... i have a tiny little bit of an understanding of how engineering works (sarc), oh yeah and a tiny tiny bit about physics too

Inspite of all that you fail to understand the expt presented. Yeah right. Besides you will never find dark matter. Any wagers, only i alone in the world know what dark matter is and where it resides

Only you alone knows what it is?

Just like your "time machine"?

Maybe you should study some real science instead of learning it from pseudoscience websites.

Lolz. I will seek your advice when i need it. ty

You don't need my advice pal. You need psychiatric help.

dude i shall ask for it when i need it

And I shall respond when I feel the need to. Especially to someone who doesn't understand basic heat expansion.

Lolol wt do you know about coeff of linear expansion. first try to understand what that is and then think about posting to me

I know more about a box expanding due to heat than you do, apparently.

Here is an interesting take on Special Relativity, at least one of it's implications. I'm not going to comment on whether I believe it to be correct or not. Just thought some of you may find it entertaining. The person who did this video also has one about gravity being a repulsive force.
Length Contraction Debunked

a reply to: Nochzwei

Seriously? You believe a degree change in temperature doesn't cause linear expansion? that somehow you need a few degrees of change for any such effect?

Linear expansion/contraction occurs all the time, once a material is cut into any shape, it is only that shape and length at the temperature it was cut... now... given that machining causes material to heat up, for very very fine machining, this heating has to be accounted for to keep the final product within tolerances (if they are very very tight tolerance)

You can of-course make things out of specialized alloys that don't display any expansion (to a useful level) such as invar or inconel... the experiment I work for used Inconel bolts to hold its main vessel (made from Acrylic) to a stainless steel flange. it was required because we have to fill it with Liquid Argon, thus has be constructed at lab temperature and taken down by 170K or so, and still maintain correct torque... thus a specialized inconel alloy was selected to match the shrinkage of both acrylic and stainless steel and keep the flange tight.

And you are arguing about a box that looks brazed together with a heater inside and telling us that thermal expansion is not an engineering factor?


Again where did you get your degree? Mail order ones don't count by the way

originally posted by: Nochzwei
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Lol. for a degree or less rise in temp, it is your understanding of expansion that is lacking, let alone the math

A degree or less? Ok that brings me to my next point, such temperature measurements of the sheet metal on the top of the machine are conspicuously lacking from your video so I've seen no basis to conclude temperature changes are a degree or less.

The lights in the machine appear to be incandescent lights, which emit far more energy as heat than as light with filament operating temperatures over 2500 degrees C, so I find the "degree or less " claim to be implausible but again if you have data on the temperature of the sheet metal exactly how did you measure it, where, with what devices? Or are you just assuming all these lights aren't heating things up?

By the way this seems like a different answer than you gave before where you said an engineer like you could do the calculations. Now you're apparently saying the calculations aren't necessary because the temperature change is insignificant? Am I interpreting that right?

originally posted by: pfishy
Here is an interesting take on Special Relativity, at least one of it's implications. I'm not going to comment on whether I believe it to be correct or not. Just thought some of you may find it entertaining. The person who did this video also has one about gravity being a repulsive force.
Length Contraction Debunked

He's got some things right, but he's wrong about what A would observe, and he's trying to apply Euclidean geometry to a scenario which Einstein explained doesn't conform to Euclidian geometry on pages 66-67 of his book "The Meaning of General Relativity (pdf)":

"Imagine a circle drawn about the origin in the x'y' plane of K' and a diameter of this circle. Imagine, further, that we have given a large number of rigid rods, all equal to each other. We suppose these laid in series along the periphery and the diameter of the circle, at rest relatively to K'. If U is the number of these rods along the periphery, D the number along the diameter, then, if K' does not rotate relatively to K, we shall have U / D = π. But if K' rotates we get a different result. Suppose that at a definite time t, of K we determine the ends of all the rods. With respect to K all the rods upon the periphery experience the Lorentz contraction, but the rods upon the diameter do not experience this contraction (along their lengths!). It therefore follows that U / D > π .

It therefore follows that the laws of configuration of rigid bodies with respect to K' do not agree with the laws of configuration of rigid bodies that are in accordance with Euclidean geometry.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

hey the base of the machine is rising as much as the top. so your expansion debunking is unfortunately utterly butterly moot.

a reply to: Nochzwei

Pictorially that isn't even close to correct

Not only that but the stands of the box are right next to the corners, ENGINEERING would dictate these locations would flex and deform less than the centre...

Try again... you score 0 points

originally posted by: ErosA433
a reply to: Nochzwei

Pictorially that isn't even close to correct

Not only that but the stands of the box are right next to the corners, ENGINEERING would dictate these locations would flex and deform less than the centre...

Try again... you score 0 points

dud ewt bloody rubbish are you on about. the stands are made of springs. try again

a reply to: Nochzwei

Sure i see your point, but scientifically and engineering wise, you are favouring gravity reduction causing less force down on the springs, over the warping of a panel due to heat...

Soooooooo there is this thing called confirmation bias, you should look it up... you should also get a engineering text book and look up linear and volumetric thermal expansion.

Seriously, Nochzwei, if i didnt know any better id say you are just trolling

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Thanks for your input. I sort of thought he had a point, but it didn't quite seem accurate. He and I actually debated this little thought experiment in another format before he made that video. An issue I had with it is the observation by the stationary party must be made with some form of photons. If the experiment used a flashing lights and a physically moving system timed synchronously, the light from both would be equally effected for the stationary observation. I had suggested some form of quantum entanglement system for each timing device as a secondary information source to determine whether his supposition was correct or not.

So, if quantum entanglement can't be used to transmit information FTL, according to several things I have read about it, why is that? It does seem to be that if it IS an instantaneous action/reaction sequence between the entangled particles, the indirectly effected particle would show a measurable change which could be recorded and interpreted. Or is it that the nature of the effect on the entangled particle is unknowable without disturbing it and reversing or altering the effect? Does it fall under the realm of the Uncertainty Principle, perchance?

originally posted by: Nochzwei
a reply to: Arbitrageur

hey the base of the machine is rising as much as the top. so your expansion debunking is unfortunately utterly butterly moot.

As I said you picked the worst possible place to put your gauge if you wanted to prove what you're claiming. If you had put your gauge at the base of the machine then I would find your video more interesting because the base lifting up off the ground would be harder to explain.

Since you didn't show any such thing in the video, I'm filing this comment under "More fiction made up by Savvy", though if you want to point out where in the video you measured the base rising I'll reconsider.

originally posted by: pfishy
So, if quantum entanglement can't be used to transmit information FTL, according to several things I have read about it, why is that? It does seem to be that if it IS an instantaneous action/reaction sequence between the entangled particles, the indirectly effected particle would show a measurable change which could be recorded and interpreted. Or is it that the nature of the effect on the entangled particle is unknowable without disturbing it and reversing or altering the effect? Does it fall under the realm of the Uncertainty Principle, perchance?

Ever hear the expression "correlation doesn't necessarily infer causation"? It's not typically used for entanglement experiments but I think it applies. What we see is a correlation. While I don't like the "Many Worlds" interpretation, I can't prove it wrong, and it says that nothing really travels faster than the speed of light even in entanglement experiments, it only looks that way because if there are two options for how the entangled particles will correlate, there are two universes, one for each option, and you just don't know which universe you're in until you make the measurement. So if that interpretation is correct, it's pretty easy to explain why FTL communication isn't possible in spite of entanglement experiments. That's the interpretation the physicist in the OP video prefers, so you might want to watch that if you haven't already.

In the other interpretations which are more likely, it's not so easy to prove that FTL communication is impossible. There is a "no-communication theorem" but I'm not sure it's rock-solid proof without any loopholes. Neoholographic makes a thread here once a year saying FTL communication has been done and he doesn't know what he's talking about and he doesn't understand the experiments. It hasn't been done. I can't say it's impossible but it seems very unlikely. People are still trying to demonstrate FTL communication and if they ever succeed that will prove the no-communication theorem is wrong. I don't think that will happen.

If you want to dig into some details read the link to the no-communication theorem.

originally posted by: pfishy
Here is an interesting take on Special Relativity, at least one of it's implications. I'm not going to comment on whether I believe it to be correct or not. Just thought some of you may find it entertaining. The person who did this video also has one about gravity being a repulsive force.
Length Contraction Debunked

I watched the video. Thanks. Me thinks his premise with rails and train wheels with cogs is wrong because the rail and the wheel in this case are in the same frame of reference to him, to him as the one making drawing of what he sees as an outside observer (his frame of reference to the event he describes).

If I put time clicks and as the train approaches tangible fraction of c then I will notice that the train covers less distance between the my clock clicks. At c velocity train will get stuck motionless from my frame of reference. My conclusion also can be that the train gets shorter if it takes longer time to cover distance equal to previous clock click.

The number of revolutions of the wheel will match number of cogs on the rail because I can assume cogs act as clicks of the clock that is onboard the train. That and physical contact between the rails and wheels make me believe both are in the same frame of reference even though rail is static.

Anyway, my attempt to explain where he is wrong in that video.

cheers

originally posted by: pfishy
I had suggested some form of quantum entanglement system for each timing device as a secondary information source to determine whether his supposition was correct or not.

You're on the right track thinking about timing because that's a real issue with a relativistically rotating wheel. Time is progressing at different rates at different radii of the wheel. It turns out to not be so much of a real-world problem since wheels would tend to fly apart far below relativistic velocities.

originally posted by: greenreflections
I watched the video. Thanks. Me thinks his premise with rails and train wheels with cogs is wrong because the rail and the wheel in this case are in the same frame of reference to him, to him as the one making drawing of what he sees as an outside observer (his frame of reference to the event he describes).

He clearly describes two frames of reference for A and B observers, and his explanation of what B would observe is not far off. However his explanation of what A would observe is wrong, because he has A on a platform above the wheel and A would have to be on the wheel to observe what he describes.

So no he's not describing any reference frame of his own, he's comparing A's frame to B's frame, he's just wrong about what A would observe.

However the source I cited from Einstein explains the root of the Ehrenfest paradox which is along similar lines to what the you tuber is describing. Einstein basically says that a wheel rotating at relativistic speeds no longer has the shape of a wheel in Euclidean geometry. The Ehrenfest paradox isn't considered a falsification of length contraction or relativity, but it does highlight some problems with trying to apply Euclidean geometry to relativistic scenarios.

And of course the real world is usually more complicated than any simple model, which is certainly true in this case. While according to Einstein's model an observer on the wheel would observe contraction, in reality this is not what would happen because other models suggest centrifugal forces would cause expansion rather than contraction, so the two would offset each other with centrifugal expansion probably dominating contraction until the wheel would fly apart from centrifugal forces long before the circumference approached the speed of light.

his premise was wrong from get go. I skipped everything else because of that.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

While according to Einstein's model an observer on the wheel would observe contraction, in reality this is not what would happen because other models suggest centrifugal forces would cause expansion rather than contraction.

centrifugal is not a force. You mixing up terms. Thank you.

Otherwise, you have to predict that force carrier. No?