Religious athletes perform betterOr some such nonsense. www.conservapedia.com/Sports_performance:_Religious_faith_vs._atheism
Oh, and if you're in any doubt of the power of conservatism, relativity is debunked as a theory (or should I say 'theory'). www.conservapedia.com/Theory_of_relativity
(Oh, and if you're in any doubt of the power of conservatism, relativity is debunked as a theory (or should I say 'theory'). www.conservapedia.com/Theory_of_relativity
Ghoti Fingers,
Tue 14 Aug 2012, 23:09,
archived)
This'll be fun[Load of boring shit wiped by B3ta's HTML parser. Feel free to ignore the rest of this too. I do apologise.]
"More generally, and also unlike most of physics, the theories of relativity consist of complex mathematical equations relying on several hypotheses."
Has this idiot never seen the standard model of particle physics? What a fucking stupid thing to write. I think his "physics" stopped with the zeroth law of thermodynamics which states "If A=B and B=C then A=C" which is fucking remedial level maths.
"The equations for special relativity assume that it is forever impossible to attain a velocity faster than the speed of light and that all inertial frames of reference are equivalent, hypotheses that can never be fully tested."
1) Special relativity does not assume that it is impossible to attain a velocity faster than the speed of light; this is a consequence of the theory. Special relativity instead assumes that all physical observers traveling in vacuum at a constant velocity will observe the same speed of light, regardless of their own velocity. This sounds absolutely crazy, and it is, but it's forced on us by both theory -- Maxwell's equations do not specify a particular reference frame implying either that the speed of light is an absolute constant, that there is an aether, or that the equations are wrong; and electromagnetism is basically the best theory we possess (so the equations are most likely not wrong) -- and experiment (the Earth's velocity through the aether is zero, implying either that the Earth is at rest with respect to the aether, which is clearly farcical given that the Earth rotates, or that there is no aether).
2) SR does indeed assume that all inertial frames are equivalent. This is a consequence of the above.
"Relativity rejects Newton's action at a distance, which is basic to Newtonian gravity and quantum mechanics."
The most accurate theory known to humanity is quantum electrodynamics. QED is a "second quantised" theory, more fundamental than quantum mechanics, and is intrinsically (special) relativistic. This comment is facile. Who gives a fuck if action at a distance is basic to Newtonian gravity (which is wrong) and quantum mechanics (which is a non-relativistic limit of relativistic QM)?
"The mathematics of relativity assume no exceptions, yet in the time period immediately following the origin of the universe the relativity equations could not possibly have been valid."
..... what? Is he commenting on the fact that relativity breaks down at the big bang? The response to that is 'so what?' No-one ever pretended relativity is the ultimate answer to everything (including this guy's crippling BO problems). It's not a quantum theory of gravity; it's very unlikely to act as an accurate description of anything when you're looking at length scales of the order of 10^{-36} metres.
"Relativity has been met with much resistance in the scientific world."
No it hasn't.
"To date, a Nobel Prize has never been awarded for Relativity.[6]"
This is because Nobel prizes require direct experimental proof, something which is increasingly out of reach of theoretical physics and has always been out of reach of relativity. Personally, I think Einstein and Eddington should have shared a Nobel prize for relativity in the 1920s, but since then it has been impossible. Likewise, Stephen Hawking, if he lives long enough, can expect a Nobel prize if we manage to detect Hawking radiation (an intrinsically relativistic effect, by the by). Unfortunately doing this involves finding a motherfucking black hole and sitting close the horizon with a Geiger counter and I've got no intention of doing that even if we found a hole.
Also there have been Nobel prizes awarded for cosmology, which is bound inextricably to GR. You can't build the current cosmological model without GR, and yet Nobel prizes have now *twice* gone to modern physical cosmology. So in a very real way, this statement is grossly inaccurate -- and, as we should now expect, entirely unsourced.
"Louis Essen, the man credited with determining the speed of light, wrote many fiery papers against it such as The Special Theory of Relativity: A Critical Analysis.[7]"
So what? If he were still alive now he wouldn't, because experimental and theoretical evidence is all in favour of both SR and GR being extremely good theories within their (well-known) bounds of validity.
"Relativity is in conflict with quantum mechanics,[8]"
This is well-known by every physicist and never denied.
"and although theories like string theory and quantum field theory have attempted to unify relativity and quantum mechanics, neither has been entirely successful or proven."
This is well-known by every physicist and never denied. It also does not even begin to counter GR, which after all is a theory defined in its own regime of validity, and that regime is not the quantum regime.
"Unlike Newtonian physics,"
Remind me why I give the slightest shit about Newtonian physics? I'm getting the impression this prick is arguing against relativity because his brain aches if he thinks of something more complicated than "derrr that car went past me at 60mph and i'm going at 50mph so derrr i guess it derrrrrr moved at 50mph relative to me, amiright?" What a fucking moron.
"in which space and time intervals are each invariant as seen by all observers, in SR the only invariant quantity is a quadratic combination of space and time intervals (x2 - c2 t2). The (assumed) instantaneous transmission of Newtonian gravitational effects also contradicts special relativity."
Yes. Is there a problem?
"In quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principle suggests that virtual particles can sometimes travel faster than the speed of light which would violate causality,"
There is nothing profound about the uncertainty principle. It crops up in classical physics whenever you do a Fourier transform. Nothing special about it. And yes, QM does predict this.
"but "[t]he only known way to resolve this tension involves introducing the idea of antiparticles."[9]"
Eh? The citation is to a Nobel lecture by Frank Wilczek. He at least knows what he's talking about so I imagine he said something a hell of a lot less incoherent than this.
"Quantum field theory, a generalization of quantum mechanics, is fully compatible with special relativity but not with general relativity, and still lacks a vital piece: evidence of the graviton."
Now I'm really confused. He seems to have stopped attacking relativity at all and is just saying - repeatedly - "Quantum mechanics is not compatible with general relativity", which is one of the shittiest surprises I've ever had, and speaks neither against GR nor against the standard model.
Oh, I've run out of introduction. I must confess to not being very impressed.
("More generally, and also unlike most of physics, the theories of relativity consist of complex mathematical equations relying on several hypotheses."
Has this idiot never seen the standard model of particle physics? What a fucking stupid thing to write. I think his "physics" stopped with the zeroth law of thermodynamics which states "If A=B and B=C then A=C" which is fucking remedial level maths.
"The equations for special relativity assume that it is forever impossible to attain a velocity faster than the speed of light and that all inertial frames of reference are equivalent, hypotheses that can never be fully tested."
1) Special relativity does not assume that it is impossible to attain a velocity faster than the speed of light; this is a consequence of the theory. Special relativity instead assumes that all physical observers traveling in vacuum at a constant velocity will observe the same speed of light, regardless of their own velocity. This sounds absolutely crazy, and it is, but it's forced on us by both theory -- Maxwell's equations do not specify a particular reference frame implying either that the speed of light is an absolute constant, that there is an aether, or that the equations are wrong; and electromagnetism is basically the best theory we possess (so the equations are most likely not wrong) -- and experiment (the Earth's velocity through the aether is zero, implying either that the Earth is at rest with respect to the aether, which is clearly farcical given that the Earth rotates, or that there is no aether).
2) SR does indeed assume that all inertial frames are equivalent. This is a consequence of the above.
"Relativity rejects Newton's action at a distance, which is basic to Newtonian gravity and quantum mechanics."
The most accurate theory known to humanity is quantum electrodynamics. QED is a "second quantised" theory, more fundamental than quantum mechanics, and is intrinsically (special) relativistic. This comment is facile. Who gives a fuck if action at a distance is basic to Newtonian gravity (which is wrong) and quantum mechanics (which is a non-relativistic limit of relativistic QM)?
"The mathematics of relativity assume no exceptions, yet in the time period immediately following the origin of the universe the relativity equations could not possibly have been valid."
..... what? Is he commenting on the fact that relativity breaks down at the big bang? The response to that is 'so what?' No-one ever pretended relativity is the ultimate answer to everything (including this guy's crippling BO problems). It's not a quantum theory of gravity; it's very unlikely to act as an accurate description of anything when you're looking at length scales of the order of 10^{-36} metres.
"Relativity has been met with much resistance in the scientific world."
No it hasn't.
"To date, a Nobel Prize has never been awarded for Relativity.[6]"
This is because Nobel prizes require direct experimental proof, something which is increasingly out of reach of theoretical physics and has always been out of reach of relativity. Personally, I think Einstein and Eddington should have shared a Nobel prize for relativity in the 1920s, but since then it has been impossible. Likewise, Stephen Hawking, if he lives long enough, can expect a Nobel prize if we manage to detect Hawking radiation (an intrinsically relativistic effect, by the by). Unfortunately doing this involves finding a motherfucking black hole and sitting close the horizon with a Geiger counter and I've got no intention of doing that even if we found a hole.
Also there have been Nobel prizes awarded for cosmology, which is bound inextricably to GR. You can't build the current cosmological model without GR, and yet Nobel prizes have now *twice* gone to modern physical cosmology. So in a very real way, this statement is grossly inaccurate -- and, as we should now expect, entirely unsourced.
"Louis Essen, the man credited with determining the speed of light, wrote many fiery papers against it such as The Special Theory of Relativity: A Critical Analysis.[7]"
So what? If he were still alive now he wouldn't, because experimental and theoretical evidence is all in favour of both SR and GR being extremely good theories within their (well-known) bounds of validity.
"Relativity is in conflict with quantum mechanics,[8]"
This is well-known by every physicist and never denied.
"and although theories like string theory and quantum field theory have attempted to unify relativity and quantum mechanics, neither has been entirely successful or proven."
This is well-known by every physicist and never denied. It also does not even begin to counter GR, which after all is a theory defined in its own regime of validity, and that regime is not the quantum regime.
"Unlike Newtonian physics,"
Remind me why I give the slightest shit about Newtonian physics? I'm getting the impression this prick is arguing against relativity because his brain aches if he thinks of something more complicated than "derrr that car went past me at 60mph and i'm going at 50mph so derrr i guess it derrrrrr moved at 50mph relative to me, amiright?" What a fucking moron.
"in which space and time intervals are each invariant as seen by all observers, in SR the only invariant quantity is a quadratic combination of space and time intervals (x2 - c2 t2). The (assumed) instantaneous transmission of Newtonian gravitational effects also contradicts special relativity."
Yes. Is there a problem?
"In quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principle suggests that virtual particles can sometimes travel faster than the speed of light which would violate causality,"
There is nothing profound about the uncertainty principle. It crops up in classical physics whenever you do a Fourier transform. Nothing special about it. And yes, QM does predict this.
"but "[t]he only known way to resolve this tension involves introducing the idea of antiparticles."[9]"
Eh? The citation is to a Nobel lecture by Frank Wilczek. He at least knows what he's talking about so I imagine he said something a hell of a lot less incoherent than this.
"Quantum field theory, a generalization of quantum mechanics, is fully compatible with special relativity but not with general relativity, and still lacks a vital piece: evidence of the graviton."
Now I'm really confused. He seems to have stopped attacking relativity at all and is just saying - repeatedly - "Quantum mechanics is not compatible with general relativity", which is one of the shittiest surprises I've ever had, and speaks neither against GR nor against the standard model.
Oh, I've run out of introduction. I must confess to not being very impressed.
boris the spider,
Tue 14 Aug 2012, 23:48,
archived)
"LOL @ conservapedia"
That was a hell of a wall of text. I apologise.
Edit: Fucking hell, it was an even bigger wall of text before the B3ta filters wiped out half of it.
(That was a hell of a wall of text. I apologise.
Edit: Fucking hell, it was an even bigger wall of text before the B3ta filters wiped out half of it.
boris the spider,
Tue 14 Aug 2012, 23:53,
archived)
Incorrect, and what appears to be correct is just quoted out of context. Now fuck off back to GCSE physics you peasant - consider that a direct order from your social and scientific superior.
(,
Tue 14 Aug 2012, 23:59,
archived)
Do you even understand why the zeroth law of thermodynamics is called the zeroth law of thermodynamics? And before you answer I don't mean the rhetoric, and I don't mean the fuzzy bedtime stories. I mean...do you understand the implication of this?.......and why the response to this very question is a simple one, and also a direct and relevant case in point as to why the two pages of contextual flatulence and verbal diarrhea you just posted is flawed in a very fundamental sense? And why your arguments in response to everything that guy just said is nothing but affirmation of what he said? Because I think you have demonstrated that you really don't understand any of this at all.
(,
Wed 15 Aug 2012, 0:07,
archived)
I like youYou remind me of prodigy.
Do I understand the zeroth law? Yes. Do I know why it's called the zeroth law? Yes. (Actually it was because it was formulated after the first and second laws. I don't know if the third came before it or not. But the zeroth law is more fundamental than the first, so it's the zeroth law.) Do I understand the implications? Yes. Was everything I posted an affirmation of what he said? No. Some of what he said was valid - basically it boiled down to "general relativity is not compatible with quantum mechanics", which is hardly a surprise. The rest of what he said was simply inaccurate.
Edit: That's a lie. Some of it wasn't actually inaccurate but instead irrelevant to his thesis "the theory of relativity is wrong".
(Do I understand the zeroth law? Yes. Do I know why it's called the zeroth law? Yes. (Actually it was because it was formulated after the first and second laws. I don't know if the third came before it or not. But the zeroth law is more fundamental than the first, so it's the zeroth law.) Do I understand the implications? Yes. Was everything I posted an affirmation of what he said? No. Some of what he said was valid - basically it boiled down to "general relativity is not compatible with quantum mechanics", which is hardly a surprise. The rest of what he said was simply inaccurate.
Edit: That's a lie. Some of it wasn't actually inaccurate but instead irrelevant to his thesis "the theory of relativity is wrong".
boris the spider,
Wed 15 Aug 2012, 0:13,
archived)
Eh? Prodge can't string together a coherent
Ham o' Shatner -.-- --- ..- .-. / .- .-.. .-.. / --. .- -.--,
Wed 15 Aug 2012, 0:18,
archived)
uncalled for..well done troll
(
prodigy69 broke b3ta and made everyone leave,
Wed 15 Aug 2012, 9:35,
archived)
You have just demonstated that you are "coached" : i.e. a product of a generation of dumbed-down scientific education. Taught to repeat parrot-fasion rather than discover and interpret for themselvs. You fail - but it is not you I blame.
(,
Wed 15 Aug 2012, 0:19,
archived)
That's generous of youI'd hate for you to blame me. I am, after all, merely a poor sap who was brainwashed by those fiendish lecturers.
( boris the spider,
Wed 15 Aug 2012, 0:22,
archived)
Says the one who never includes any proof with his wild arguments.
(
Mu Dinofiddler,
Wed 15 Aug 2012, 0:22,
archived)
To be fair to the man (assuming he's a man)I didn't provide any citations or proofs either, merely my own assertions. I do have a firm basis for my assertions - though I must confess I don't work in quantum gravity, although I have published a paper on the cosmological consequences of a particular, possible result of such - but there's little point clogging up the board with that kind of thing.
(Which is why I also made that horrible wall of text megasmall.)
((Which is why I also made that horrible wall of text megasmall.)
boris the spider,
Wed 15 Aug 2012, 0:24,
archived)
I do not need to prove that that [genuine and competent] self-styled "modern" physicists should "give the slightest shit about Newtonian physics" any more than I need to prove that Mr Blobby is the real messenger of the Islamic religion....and that's just one of the cringe-worthy things he said.
(,
Wed 15 Aug 2012, 0:30,
archived)
But when you refer to yourself as someone's "social and scientific superior"and accuse them of "contextual flatulence and verbal diarrhea" without a single word of corroborating evidence, you come across as a non-scienific, attention seeking twat.
( Mu Dinofiddler,
Wed 15 Aug 2012, 0:36,
archived)
You can trust me on that one - I really am your social and scientific superior.
(,
Wed 15 Aug 2012, 0:39,
archived)
Because you've done nothing since you arrived here but make friends and make clear and scientifically sound assertions.
(
Mu Dinofiddler,
Wed 15 Aug 2012, 0:44,
archived)
Unfortunately for you what you think doesn't constitute a sound scientific argument.
(
Mu Dinofiddler,
Wed 15 Aug 2012, 0:52,
archived)
Yes but I'm right aren't I? Like when I sit on the bog and strain from a bit, but not ever really knowing for sure that it was shit comming out of my arse making that loud splash, and without using any scientific methodology at all...I just know it's shitGot the point yet, peasant?
(,
Wed 15 Aug 2012, 1:14,
archived)
That because you refuse to look at your own shit your undiagnosed bowel cancer will claim you within 3 months?
(
Mu Dinofiddler,
Wed 15 Aug 2012, 1:17,
archived)
HAHA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAHA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA real world lols
(
arrangedletters,
Thu 16 Aug 2012, 3:05,
archived)
It is when a scientist (me) is arguing with a toilet cleaner (you). Q.E.D.
(,
Wed 15 Aug 2012, 1:19,
archived)
No, not really. That would mean an underlying assumption that all scientists are scientfic all the time.And my occupation has absolutely no effect on whether your assertions are sound.
( Mu Dinofiddler,
Wed 15 Aug 2012, 1:24,
archived)
For a scientist you're showing a critical lack of critical thinking.
(
Mu Dinofiddler,
Wed 15 Aug 2012, 1:26,
archived)
I'd just like to drop in here and say that I am your sexual superior.
(
gronkpan @vomitinglarry.bsky.social,
Wed 15 Aug 2012, 3:31,
archived)
Now you're taking things out of contextIn the context of the page, Newtonian physics is introduced in contrast to relativity. When we're discussing relativity - and particularly when we're discussing that relativity is "wrong", whatever that means in a physical theory - Newtonian physics is utterly irrelevant. What I meant by that phrase, as I have no doubt you're perfectly aware, is that Newtonian physics bears no relevance to whether relativity is, or isn't, an accurate theory of gravity and motion. I should maybe add that it is a necessary condition of all relativistic theories that they reduce, in weak gravitational fields, low energies and slow motion, to Newtonian physics. I assumed that this point be taken as read.
I'm very sorry I criticised your sainted Newtonian physics. Does it help that when discussing any alternatives to general relativity (which is, after all, entirely "wrong", for very different reasons to the ones given on Conservapedia) I'm very happy to say "I don't give the slightest shit about general relativity"?
(I'm very sorry I criticised your sainted Newtonian physics. Does it help that when discussing any alternatives to general relativity (which is, after all, entirely "wrong", for very different reasons to the ones given on Conservapedia) I'm very happy to say "I don't give the slightest shit about general relativity"?
boris the spider,
Wed 15 Aug 2012, 0:39,
archived)
Oh dear oh dear....where to start with you kids on the basics.......what gave us calculus (and I don't mean getting a take away bargain bucket of KFC and not brushing your teeth before going to bed in your mummy's council flat where you live). Yep - The ancient Greeks.
But what made us adept in calculus? Newtonian physics. What other field is highly dependant on this stepping-stone? Quantum Physics.
And there's more. Unfortunately for you, you are not my responsibility.
(,
Wed 15 Aug 2012, 0:45,
archived)
But what made us adept in calculus? Newtonian physics. What other field is highly dependant on this stepping-stone? Quantum Physics.
And there's more. Unfortunately for you, you are not my responsibility.
Thank you for dripping me what little wisdom you deign toI will be forever grateful
( boris the spider,
Wed 15 Aug 2012, 0:47,
archived)
I only wish you could even begin to understand the basics that I am trying to drum into you. You need to stop regurgatating and start *thinking*. Read back what that guy said to you - read back your response...............................and even those you stand by play Devil's Advocate with - and when you do, free your mind of your investement in your knee-jerk responses and decouple yourself of all emotion. Maybe then you will learn something - because on balance, what he says makes more sense than your rebukes.
(,
Wed 15 Aug 2012, 0:53,
archived)
I like Star Trek. Ham o' Shatner -.-- --- ..- .-. / .- .-.. .-.. / --. .- -.--,
Wed 15 Aug 2012, 0:56,
archived)
Some people have a habit of answering the question they wanted to be asked rather than the question they were asked:Bronze Medal : Chloe Smith, Silver Medal: James T Kirk, Gold Medal : Boris The Spider.
(,
Wed 15 Aug 2012, 0:59,
archived)
Ah, but you haven't asked me any questionsYou've called me names, but you haven't asked me any questions, other than "Do you understand the zeroth law of thermodynamics". I answered, "Yes, I do."
( boris the spider,
Wed 15 Aug 2012, 1:06,
archived)
I'm a doctor, Jim, not a brick layer. Ham o' Shatner -.-- --- ..- .-. / .- .-.. .-.. / --. .- -.--,
Wed 15 Aug 2012, 1:17,
archived)
Hmmmthis is why narcissism and coke is a bad mix.
G'night all.
(G'night all.
FeralCatMan Unusual disease collector.,
Wed 15 Aug 2012, 1:00,
archived)
Out of genuine interestwhat are you trying to ask me to do?
Read the rhetoric of someone who, for his own personal reasons, has a beef against general relativity? I'm perfectly happy with people having a beef against general relativity - it's very obviously not a complete theory; some of the reasons for this are in the Conservapedia article, while others aren't. My problem with his article was that he's misrepresenting GR, and making falacious and inaccurate arguments to argue against it - he is arguing from a pre-conceived position of prejudice and trying to bring in arguments to support this.
You may not believe me, and it's of little consequence to me whether you do or not, but I can assure you I've gone through special and general relativity from the first principles up to practical applications, and am well aware of the shortcomings of the theories, which are plentiful, and the successes of the theories, which are also plentiful.
I would comment that simply because Newton developed his form of calculus for his theory of mechanics, and simply because the most familiar form of quantum mechanics is the Schroedinger equation, which is a differential equation, this does not suggest that these are somehow special and inviolable as opposed to general relativity, which is what your logic suggests. The immediate response is that general relativity is nothing more, and nothing less, than differential geometry with a second-order equation relating a metric to the distribution of matter; since even in the Schroedinger formulation QM is a marriage of "calculus" and linear algebra, one could use your logic to suggest that GR is actually more pure than QM.
Thankfully we don't have to follow such logic; from both theoretical and experimental evidence, we can say with safety that neither Newtonian physics, nor general relativity, and nor quantum mechanics, form a complete description of physics and instead are all valid within their own regimes. Newtonian physics is a limit of both quantum theory and relativity, so we can take these theories as being more fundamental. Neither QM nor relativity is fundamental.
As for what is more fundamental than QM and relativity, obviously this is an open question. The most accurate current theory remains QED, which is a special relativistic, quantised theory of the interactions between electrons and photons. However, it has as yet proven impossible to satisfactorily include gravity in such a description of nature -- while it has been known for a very long time that a massless, spin-2 particle would act as a graviton and in the classical limit produces relativity, quantising this is an intractable problem. Progress is being made, certainly. Given the number of avenues people have pursued, at least some of them are certainly going the wrong way. Personally, I think following the entire idea of a graviton is going the wrong way, and we're likely to at least gain some insights following recent work in the emergent nature of gravity -- describing gravity as a thermodynamical construct, not a fundamental one. There is a neatness in symmetries emerging, rather than the usual approach of symmetries breaking, as we approach our common regimes.
But all this is kind of beside the point. I'm not sure what you're asking me to do here, because I'm not particularly aware of "regurgitating", nor of failing to "think". I am however aware of an impressive level of bile and abuse and unsubstantiated assertions from your side.
(Read the rhetoric of someone who, for his own personal reasons, has a beef against general relativity? I'm perfectly happy with people having a beef against general relativity - it's very obviously not a complete theory; some of the reasons for this are in the Conservapedia article, while others aren't. My problem with his article was that he's misrepresenting GR, and making falacious and inaccurate arguments to argue against it - he is arguing from a pre-conceived position of prejudice and trying to bring in arguments to support this.
You may not believe me, and it's of little consequence to me whether you do or not, but I can assure you I've gone through special and general relativity from the first principles up to practical applications, and am well aware of the shortcomings of the theories, which are plentiful, and the successes of the theories, which are also plentiful.
I would comment that simply because Newton developed his form of calculus for his theory of mechanics, and simply because the most familiar form of quantum mechanics is the Schroedinger equation, which is a differential equation, this does not suggest that these are somehow special and inviolable as opposed to general relativity, which is what your logic suggests. The immediate response is that general relativity is nothing more, and nothing less, than differential geometry with a second-order equation relating a metric to the distribution of matter; since even in the Schroedinger formulation QM is a marriage of "calculus" and linear algebra, one could use your logic to suggest that GR is actually more pure than QM.
Thankfully we don't have to follow such logic; from both theoretical and experimental evidence, we can say with safety that neither Newtonian physics, nor general relativity, and nor quantum mechanics, form a complete description of physics and instead are all valid within their own regimes. Newtonian physics is a limit of both quantum theory and relativity, so we can take these theories as being more fundamental. Neither QM nor relativity is fundamental.
As for what is more fundamental than QM and relativity, obviously this is an open question. The most accurate current theory remains QED, which is a special relativistic, quantised theory of the interactions between electrons and photons. However, it has as yet proven impossible to satisfactorily include gravity in such a description of nature -- while it has been known for a very long time that a massless, spin-2 particle would act as a graviton and in the classical limit produces relativity, quantising this is an intractable problem. Progress is being made, certainly. Given the number of avenues people have pursued, at least some of them are certainly going the wrong way. Personally, I think following the entire idea of a graviton is going the wrong way, and we're likely to at least gain some insights following recent work in the emergent nature of gravity -- describing gravity as a thermodynamical construct, not a fundamental one. There is a neatness in symmetries emerging, rather than the usual approach of symmetries breaking, as we approach our common regimes.
But all this is kind of beside the point. I'm not sure what you're asking me to do here, because I'm not particularly aware of "regurgitating", nor of failing to "think". I am however aware of an impressive level of bile and abuse and unsubstantiated assertions from your side.
boris the spider,
Wed 15 Aug 2012, 1:05,
archived)
Again you are regurgatating...I've read everything you have just written before. You are failing to think objectively. Go back and try again.
(,
Wed 15 Aug 2012, 1:16,
archived)
Thank you for taking the time to respond to my pointsIt means a lot to me
( boris the spider,
Wed 15 Aug 2012, 1:17,
archived)
You spend too much time dumping out large volumes of what you think you know, rather than what is asked of you. You display no evidence of independant thought or adaptability.That is why you fail.
(,
Wed 15 Aug 2012, 1:22,
archived)
"Do you even understand why the zeroth law of thermodynamics is called the zeroth law of thermodynamics? And before you answer I don't mean the rhetoric, and I don't mean the fuzzy bedtime stories. I mean...do you understand the implication of this?..."READ the question, UNDERSTAND it. Then when you think you have understood it, read it 5 times more. Then THINK - THEN answer.
(,
Wed 15 Aug 2012, 1:29,
archived)
The answer was"yes". It's not his fault your question was shit.
( Mu Dinofiddler,
Wed 15 Aug 2012, 1:34,
archived)
If a body A is in thermal equilibrium with a body B, and the body B is in thermal equilibrium with a body C, then A is in thermal equilibrium with C.
I know you'd view that as "regurgitation", but that's because that's what the zeroth law of thermodynamics says. If two systems are in thermal equilibrium with each other, one of which is in thermal equilibrium with a third, all three are in thermal equilibrium with each other. Meaning no energy passes between them. This is what the zeroth law of thermodynamics says. What you want it to say is a different matter and one which isn't of very much significance.
It is called the zeroth law because it is more fundamental than the first law. The zeroth law is about bodies in thermal equilibrium, when no energy is being transferred. The first law of thermodynamics concerns the conservation of energy. As a result, the zeroth law is more fundamental than the first. It has nothing to do with the number "zero" in any physical sense; it is merely the law that comes before the first law. If you're digging extra meaning out of this then good luck and I look forward to the paper.
None of this is rhetoric, none of it is "fuzzy bedtime stories" (though if your bedtime stories consisted of pointless debates online about the zeroth law of thermodynamics then you have my pity), it's simply how the laws are defined.
That's genuinely the only thing you've asked me, though you have littered it with plenty of self-aggrandising abuse, which has certainly proved diverting.
(I know you'd view that as "regurgitation", but that's because that's what the zeroth law of thermodynamics says. If two systems are in thermal equilibrium with each other, one of which is in thermal equilibrium with a third, all three are in thermal equilibrium with each other. Meaning no energy passes between them. This is what the zeroth law of thermodynamics says. What you want it to say is a different matter and one which isn't of very much significance.
It is called the zeroth law because it is more fundamental than the first law. The zeroth law is about bodies in thermal equilibrium, when no energy is being transferred. The first law of thermodynamics concerns the conservation of energy. As a result, the zeroth law is more fundamental than the first. It has nothing to do with the number "zero" in any physical sense; it is merely the law that comes before the first law. If you're digging extra meaning out of this then good luck and I look forward to the paper.
None of this is rhetoric, none of it is "fuzzy bedtime stories" (though if your bedtime stories consisted of pointless debates online about the zeroth law of thermodynamics then you have my pity), it's simply how the laws are defined.
That's genuinely the only thing you've asked me, though you have littered it with plenty of self-aggrandising abuse, which has certainly proved diverting.
boris the spider,
Wed 15 Aug 2012, 1:36,
archived)
Again you are answering the question you want to be asked and not the question you asked. Read it again.
(,
Wed 15 Aug 2012, 1:38,
archived)
"Do you even understand why the zeroth law of thermodynamics is called the zeroth law of thermodynamics?"
Yes. It's because it is more fundamental than the first law. I've now said this two or three times and it's growing tiring.
"I mean...do you understand the implication of this?"
Yes, yes, I do. I have also explained this, in the post you replied to, rather obnoxiously.
I'm growing rather tired of this, not least as I have to work in the morning, and internet debates with someone who appears to have a different definition of "Do", "you", "understand", "zero" and "thermodynamics" is not a particuarly productive use of either of our time. I wish you luck in your scientific career and look forward to reading your research.
(Yes. It's because it is more fundamental than the first law. I've now said this two or three times and it's growing tiring.
"I mean...do you understand the implication of this?"
Yes, yes, I do. I have also explained this, in the post you replied to, rather obnoxiously.
I'm growing rather tired of this, not least as I have to work in the morning, and internet debates with someone who appears to have a different definition of "Do", "you", "understand", "zero" and "thermodynamics" is not a particuarly productive use of either of our time. I wish you luck in your scientific career and look forward to reading your research.
boris the spider,
Wed 15 Aug 2012, 1:41,
archived)
Please don't make me embarrass you by making me elaborate further.
(,
Wed 15 Aug 2012, 1:41,
archived)
god, fuck!i thought moggy was dull
(
real i'm not happy 'til you're not happy,
Wed 15 Aug 2012, 2:07,
archived)
Boris, I'm a physicistand I still didn't read all that.
Might do tomorrow though.
(Might do tomorrow though.
An Egg ,D,
Wed 15 Aug 2012, 4:31,
archived)
and you fail cos you are a supercilious cuntif he fails it's only as a scientist, not as a human being. I think he comes out better in the end
( simbosan is too tired,
Wed 15 Aug 2012, 1:33,
archived)
you've just gotten out of a gcse physics lesson, haven't you?
(
real i'm not happy 'til you're not happy,
Wed 15 Aug 2012, 2:37,
archived)
he is rather good at winding people up, he does the same thing over on youtube, in fact a quick scan for his user name revealed that he's used some of the same lines on here as he has on youtube. just sayin'.
( quackpipe swings like a pendulum do,
Wed 15 Aug 2012, 4:09,
archived)
haha, 'your' not wrong(that should get him going!)
( simbosan is too tired,
Wed 15 Aug 2012, 14:24,
archived)
well done on mentioning my name for no reason other than to please the trolls
(
prodigy69 broke b3ta and made everyone leave,
Wed 15 Aug 2012, 9:38,
archived)
i was just messing around, it wasn't meant to be taken badly
(
boris the spider,
Wed 15 Aug 2012, 10:02,
archived)
well done, great job. *slow clap*
prodigy69 broke b3ta and made everyone leave,
Wed 15 Aug 2012, 10:05,
archived)