Re: In search of the perfect Disassembler

Beth wrote:
> T.M. Sommers wrote:
>> Beth wrote:
>>> T.M. Sommers wrote:
>>>
>>>> Normal matter cannot exceed the speed of light.  If
>>>> tachyons exist, broken speed limits will be the least of
>>>> our worries.
>>>
>>> Actually, re-read your physics textbooks and you will note
>>> a _very crucial_ "semantic" in the way it's phrased...
>>
>> I suggest you re-read yours.  Taylor and Wheeler is a good
>> place to start.  Come back after you have mastered it.
>
> Ooh, get you...it's "handbags" time, eh? ;)

Let's see: you *tell* me to re-read my physics books, I *suggest*
that you re-read yours, but I'm the one with the Lady Bracknell
attitude.  Well, here's something else she said that suits you to
a T: "I do not approve of anything that tampers with natural
ignorance.  Ignorance is like a delicate exotic fruit; touch it
and the bloom is gone."  (I assume the 'handbag' is a reference
to Lady Bracknell; otherwise I have no idea what you are talking
about.)

Also note that, despite what you say below, you were addressing
me in the second person here.

>> Thank you for the elementary physics lecture.  I see that
>> with you to guide me through the mysteries of modern physics
>> there was no point in taking all those graduate physics
>> courses.  (That is an example of irony, a form of sarcastic
>> remark in which the real meaning is the opposite of the
>> surface meaning.)
>
> Aww, diddums..."big authority man" is offended...

I do find your condescending attitude offensive.  You need to
stop assuming, like an adolescent, that you are the only one in
the world who knows anything.

> I was, in fact, as I made perfectly clear _SECONDING_ what you
> said...and specifically said "Sorry, T.M.'s on the money here"
> to _BACK YOU UP_...

Had you considered that I did not need backing up by you?  Of
course you hadn't.

> And as I referred to you in the _THIRD PERSON_ throughout the
> posting,

Except when you didn't.

> ...why, indeed, you may the "foremost authority" on the matter
>
Of course, that is your invention.  I have never made such a
claim.  Just because I know more about physics than you do does
not make me a "foremost authority"; you don't know enough to make
that true.

> ...but as you didn't bother to _EXPLAIN_ anything -

I assume that the person I responded to, who had mentioned
tachyons, knew what they were.  I also assume that everyone else
either knew, didn't care, could look it up and get a better
explanation than I would give, or could ask.  Unlike you, I do
not assume that everyone is waiting breathlessly for me to
lecture them on topics I know little about (and you call *me* an
egomaniac).

> simply being "bowed to" and "believed inherently" for being
> "superior" seems to satisfy your "ego", it seems

You are being delusional again.

> I _KNOW_ I'm not any "foremost authority" by any means...I
> took no "courses" in the subject...it should NOT be me trying
> to help the group's understanding because I'm not fully
> qualified to do so

Knowing that, why do you do it?  You do no-one any favors by
giving out wrong information, as you too frequently do when you
talk about subjects you know little about.

> ...it appears _YOU_ are, though...so, it's quite sad when
> someone with your learning, wisdom and experience seems to
> deem it "elitist members only club" when it comes to sharing
> that learning...

Coming from you, considering how you react whenever anyone dares
point out your errors, that is a laugh.

> 1. I referred to you in the _THIRD PERSON_; If you don't know
> what that means regards who the post was addressing, then may
> I suggest a similar "course" in the English language to match
> your clear understanding of physics...

I suggest you need that course more than I do: 'you' is second
person, not third.

> 2. I was _SECONDING_ what you said;

Yet you started out telling me to re-read my physics books, and
generally disagreeing.  With support like that, who needs opposition?

> I come in peace;

No, you didn't.  You came on aggressively, insultingly, and
obnoxiously.  If you doubt that, consider your own reaction when
I parrotted your opening back to you.

> Oh, I give up...if I handed you a million dollars, you'd find
> some way to be "offended" by it...whatever...you're determined
> to "dislike" me

*You* are the one who began the ad hominem remarks a long time
ago.  *You* are the one who gets offended and throws a hissy fit
every time one of your egregious errors is pointed out.

> Eventually, you will learn...I will NOT give a single bit of
> "respect"

Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn.

> Oh, no, wait...I get it...you don't want my "respect", just my
>  "obedience"

Are you high?  When have I ever given you an order?  *You*
ordered me to re-read my physics books; I merely suggested that
you re-read yours.  But I'm the one demanding obedience?

> ...well, sorry, screw you...it'll never happen...if you don't
> want to be disappointed by that, set your sights at a civil,
> reasonable and respectful target

You certainly are civil, aren't you?  You sound more like Betov
all the time.

> ...and, sorry, this is, in part, your own fault as the fact
> that I do not have any such problems or conflicts with others
> on the group demonstrates

Sorry, but I have seen you fly off the handle when others have
pointed out your errors.  What makes me different from them is
that I am stupid enough to keep coming back for more.

> ...you are "offended" by me being "unreasonable"...guess what?
> I'm doing nothing more than paying you back in kind...you'd
> stop being "offended", you know, the second you stop posting
> to do nothing but "offend" me

In other words, you will stop the unprovoked personal attacks on
me when I stop pointing out your errors.  You seem to be
admitting that the ad hominem comments you keep making about me
are designed to silence me.

How's this for an idea?  Next time you get an urge to post, check
your facts before hitting the send button.  Better yet, don't
post unless it is on a topic you know well.

>>> Anyway, the "revelation" about Einstein's work - from an
>>> "overall" and "scientific" point of view - is actually
>>> more to do with him starting the whole "grand unified
>>> theory" stuff
>>
>> Sorry, but Maxwell unified electricity and magnetism before
>> Einstein was born.
>
> Yes, a good point; But then, in a certain sense, Newton
> "unified" the motion of the planets with the falling of
> objects on the surface of the Earth, by proposing "gravity"
> that applied to Earth as much as the Heavens...

Yes, he did.

> Obviously, I was talking about specifically the notion of
> "grand unification"...not just any old "unification"...

'Unification', 'grand unification', it's all the same general
idea.  The term 'grand unification' did not come into use until
almost 20 years after Einstein's death, and refers specifically
to the unification of the strong force with the electroweak force.

> What is your major problem with me, T.M.? And I mean the _REAL
> REASON_, not such "excuse" masquerading...because this is
> clearly "personal" in the way you attack...if only "concerned
> for technical accuracy" then you'd "correct" without the
> "personal attack" involved

I used to do that, but you kept responding with personal attacks
on me.  Eventually I got tired of those attacks, and decided not
to make any effort to be civil in return.

>>> You'll note that once all the physicists agreed that light
>>> was a constant, they measure it and, oh dear, it appears
>>> it's not as "constant" as first imagined...and it's
>>> changed over time
>>
>> Citation, please.
>
> I thought I'd given it, in fact...I did mention an article in
> "New Scientist", 19th March 2005 about "13 things that don't
> make sense", which included "not-so-constant constants"...

That article, which I looked at before replying, talks about the
fine structure constant, not the speed of light per se.  It
certainly does not claim that anyone measured a different speed
of light from normal, which is what you claimed.

> The article also cites "Physical Review D, volume 69,
> P.121701" regards Los Alamos National Laboratory measuring a 4
> per cent decrease in Alpha since Oklo in Gabon (a natural
> nuclear reactor, active 2 billion years ago), which is also
> equally registering a similar "change in Alpha" that Webb's
> team measured...

See: the fine structure constant, not c.

> Using "John Webb" and "speed of light" in Google, I found the
> following:

I'll take a look at them.

>> Normal matter--that is, matter with real mass--is also the
>> only matter ever observed.
>
> Weird, totally weird...you're trying to "sound disagreeable"
> even when you're not...

But I was only seconding you, and explaining what you left out.

> You are weird...this is some personality disorder or
> something...

Talking to the mirror, again, I see.

>>> As for tachyons, I don't see there's an actual problem
>>> with them existing
>>
>> Then please explain the physical meaning of imaginary mass,
>> and where the infinite energy radiated by a charged tachyon
>> comes from, and ...
>
> If the Higgs boson exists and is responsible for giving things
> "mass" then "supersymmetry" would suggest that the Higgs field
> could be capable of both "positive" and "negative" mass...

Negative mass is bad enough, but at least it is real; tachyons
must have imaginary rest masses.

What this has to do with tachyons is beyond me, though.

> Anyway, have you not detected the _subjectivity_ of saying "I
> don't see there's an actual problem" rather than "there is no
> actual problem"...that is a statement of opinion, not fact...

And I asked you to back up your opinion, which you apparently
cannot do.  I even said 'please'.

>> You are making the unwarranted assumption that the past can
>> be changed, even granted that it can be visited.
>
> Second, yes, this is an assumption I'm making.
>
>> What happened in the past already happened.  If you decide
>> next week to visit me last Christmas, I could show you the
>> snaps today, because you were already there (Don't worry:
>> you weren't really there).  It doesn't matter about all that
>> air you breathe in your visit to the past, because you
>> already did it.
>>
>> If you can visit the past, then not only does the past
>> already exist, but the future already exists, too, otherwise
>> there is no place for the time traveller to come from.
>
> Yes, which is the fundamental "paradox" of backwards time
> travel...

You are missing the point.  There is no paradox, at least no
physical paradox, because you cannot change the past (assuming
you can get there, of course).  You can't go back and kill your
grandfather, because you didn't.  Nothing prevented you from
doing it, you just didn't.  There is only one past, unchangeable,
and in it you didn't kill your grandfather, so when you visit it
you won't kill him.

The only paradox, if there is one, is linguistic, not physical.
Just because you can string words together in a superficially
meaningful sentence does not mean that that sentence corresponds
to anything in the real world.  We can argue all day long about
whether or not the present king of France is bald, but the
argument is all gibberish, because there is no king of France.
Likewise, you can talk all you want about killing your
grandfather or otherwise changing the past, but that does not
mean that you can do it.  You can also talk about squaring the
circle, but you can't do it, either.  See Russell's essay "On
Denoting" for a fuller explanation; it's on the web somewhere.

> You personally appear to be unable to differentiate between
> your own personal opinion and the truth, though...hence, you
> have probably judged the various "hypotheses" that contradict
> your worldview as being "untrue"...this may very well be
> exactly the case...but until _PROVED_, the door is
> open...Stephen Hawking is one who has changed his mind back
> and forth as to whether such "time travel" truly is or isn't
> possible...let me guess, you want to claim greater "authority"
> on the matter than Stephen Hawking? "Ego, doest thou know no
> bounds!"...

Is it any wonder that I am sometimes rude to you after having to
put up with tripe like this?

First, everyone in the world thinks that what they think is true
is true, and what they think is false is false.  Or do you think
that your opinions are false?

Second, I expressed no opinion on the possibility of travel into
the past, by whatever means.  I *did* say that *if* it is
possible, the past can't be changed.  That is the general opinion
of physicists who are interested in the topic.

>> The ability to change the past, as envisioned in typical
>> science fiction, implies an extra time dimension.  The past
>> was something, and not it is something else.  'Was' and
>> 'now' imply time, but obviously it can't be the same time as
>> we know, since that would make no sense at all.  So there
>> must be another time dimension.  There is obviously no
>> evidence that such an extra dimension exists.
>
> True, there is no evidence of such...but, at the same time:
> "absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence"

That is a much-misused saying.  It does not mean that you can
assume that anything at all exists just because there is no
evidence against it:  "There is no evidence that there are little
green men on the moon."  "Absence of evidence is not evidence of
absence."

> ...there are three "space" dimensions, after all...who's to
> say?

I could provide you with a citation to the only paper I know of
that discusses the question analytically, but when I provide you
with references you get offended, so I won't.  (Anyway, the book
that cites it is in the other room, and I don't feel like getting
up to get it.)  The paper finds that there are problems with
time-like geodesics and with causality if there are more than one
time dimension.  I have not read the paper itself, but a book I
have mentions it.

> wasn't that Einstein's "biggest blunder" to "not believe" in a
>  universe where "chance" could play a part?

Einstein considered the cosmological constant to be his biggest
blunder.

> Also, the "Many Worlds" hypothesis of quantum collapse
> suggests "infinite alternate dimensions", in which all
> possible quantum collapses occur in one of these "infinite
> other dimensions"...as such, this could function as your
> "extra dimension of time", even though this is not supposed to
> be any actual "dimension of time" but more "alternate
> realities"...

The many-worlds theory and multidimensional time are entirely
different.  In the former one cannot change the past because
every possible past already exists in different universes, so
changing the past is more a matter of jumping from one universe
to another.

Multidimensional time is just what the name suggests: an extra
time dimension, making a 5-dimensional world (ignoring for a
moment all those extra dimensions in various string theories).  I
could cite a paper on the problems with multidimensional time,
but since you throw a fit every time I supply a reference, I
won't bother.

> I'm a firm believer that no-one is beyond all Hope...though,
> it is, indeed, not possible to help someone who refuses to
> admit they have a problem...you must get over your "denial"
> that your attacks on me aren't "personal", when they are...or
> you'll never find the subconscious "root cause" for your anger
> and resentment against me...I'll happily be the "punchbag" in
> your potential quest to discover what motivates this
> deep-seated "insecurity"...but you have to admit that you've
> got this "insecurity" issue or no-one can help you...

Give me a break.

--
Thomas M. Sommers -- tms@xxxxxx -- AB2SB


.