New IJMS article: Hollis R. Johnson, "One Day to a Cubit"

[_Analytics]

Well, you may be right Analytics. according to wiki:

"In special relativity, a faster than light particle would have space-like four-momentum,[1] in contrast to ordinary particles that have time-like four-momentum. It would also have imaginary mass. Being constrained to the spacelike portion of the energy-momentum graph, it could not slow down to subluminal speeds.[1]"

You might stop laughing when you see that God would have imaginary mass under this theory, so the idea has some truth to it.



(get it, "imaginary mass" since he doesn't exist outside our imagination)

I do find that part of the theory to be quite eloquent, snort.

Anyway, this wiki explanation says that faster than light under Lorentz invariance has space-like "four-momentum" rather than time-like "four-momentum"

That's got to be it; what Cook is thinking, and is consistent with the Alvin Benson quote.

Agreed. Tvedtnes should have said “According to speculations about hypothetical faster-than-light tachyons…” rather than, “According to Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity…”

It's kind of funny because Holis is being pretty generous here as an astronomer, while Tvedtnes is way out of his depth and asserting his authority.

Exactly. My jaw drops every time I read, “I was not referring to Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, but to his Special Theory of Relativity...” I’m like Dude! The Special Theory of Relativity is a simple special case of the theory of relativity in general.

[_Analytics]

It *MUST* truly be EMPHASIZED that tachyons are a mere supposition and possible hypothesis. There is no reality to them in any manner whatsoever of any possible form. It is something the math simply allows as we fool around with the equations. It is so truly impossible to get anything to even approach the speed of light, let alone reach it. The equations show that the energy goes into making the object which moving at such tremendous speeds HEAVIER, and hence it takes more energy until it is infinite, LITERALLY in order to make any kind of mass go light speed....

The irony is that these hypothetical particles have less energy the faster they go; it would take an infinite amount of energy to slow them down to the speed of light. But going infinitely faster than the speed of light? No problem!

[_Gadianton]

Here was T correcting Hollis after he dismissed the relativity interpretation (for the lurkers):

You misunderstood my comment. I was not referring to Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, but to his Special Theory of Relativity, which is tied to the Lawrence-Fitzgerald transforrmation formula. I was not suggesting that Kolob’s day wasn’t 1,000 earth years. I suggest you re-read my original posting and check on the ST and its assertion that time becomes distance and vice-versa as one approaches the speec of light. by the way, Kolob may not be a planet as we know them, since it is said to govern various planets. Nor is it, as many believe, the residence of God, but only “nigh unto the throne of God.”

Really shows the presumptive kind of thinking of Mopologetics. Hollis has a Phd in Astrophysics and is a faithful member of the Church. And he's being told to "go look up Special Relativity and the 'Lawrence-Fitzgerald transformation formula'" that you know, asserts "time becomes distance" as one approaches the speed of light. I could see if it were a critic, since the apologists just assume critics are stupid, or if it were a believing LDS without a science background. But talking down like this to a professional scientist who is a faithful member, just assuming he don't get it is a bit....well, I really don't know what to think.

[_Kishkumen]

Really shows the presumptive kind of thinking of Mopologetics. Hollis has a Phd in Astrophysics and is a faithful member of the Church. And he's being told to "go look up Special Relativity and the 'Lawrence-Fitzgerald transformation formula'" that you know, asserts "time becomes distance" as one approaches the speed of light. I could see if it were a critic, since the apologists just assume critics are stupid, or if it were a believing LDS without a science background. But talking down like this to a professional scientist who is a faithful member, just assuming he don't get it is a bit....well, I really don't know what to think.

Indeed, Dean Robbers. A modicum of respect to a professional scientist and fellow Latter-day Saint would seem to be in order here, but Tvedtnes doesn't seem to be offering any.

[Guest]

Here was T correcting Hollis after he dismissed the relativity interpretation (for the lurkers):

You misunderstood my comment. I was not referring to Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, but to his Special Theory of Relativity, which is tied to the Lawrence-Fitzgerald transforrmation formula. I was not suggesting that Kolob’s day wasn’t 1,000 earth years. I suggest you re-read my original posting and check on the ST and its assertion that time becomes distance and vice-versa as one approaches the speec of light. by the way, Kolob may not be a planet as we know them, since it is said to govern various planets. Nor is it, as many believe, the residence of God, but only “nigh unto the throne of God.”

Really shows the presumptive kind of thinking of Mopologetics. Hollis has a Phd in Astrophysics and is a faithful member of the Church. And he's being told to "go look up Special Relativity and the 'Lawrence-Fitzgerald transformation formula'" that you know, asserts "time becomes distance" as one approaches the speed of light. I could see if it were a critic, since the apologists just assume critics are stupid, or if it were a believing LDS without a science background. But talking down like this to a professional scientist who is a faithful member, just assuming he don't get it is a bit....well, I really don't know what to think.

Looks as if someone over there finally got their anterior and posterior wired together. Now there is this (from Roger Loomis) , which is quite correct and reflects the views of the several folks who have commented on the physics involved on this board.

Roger Loomis on February 20, 2013 at 9:04 am said:

Hi John,

I don’t believe Dr. Johnson misunderstood what you said—he was just being polite in response to a post that, frankly, doesn’t make sense. First, note that Einstein’s “Theory of Relativity” entails both the Special Theory and the General Theory.

Second, the famous transformation in the Special Theory of relativity is called the “Lorentz” transformation, not “Lawrence”. Third, the Lorentz transformation doesn’t transform speed into distance—it transforms length as observed near the speed of light to length as observed at rest, and it transforms the passage of time as observed near the speed of light to the passage of time as observed at rest.

Melvin Cook had the unrivaled mental-gymnastic ability to radically twist scientific understanding to support his preconceived notions of how the world works, and he was certainly capable of coming to the unique interpretation that the reason why the Lorentz transformation takes place is because length somehow equals time. But Einstein certainly didn’t interpret it that way.

Not to belabor the point, but the Lorentz factor (gamma) can be correctly applied to determine relativistic contraction along the direction of travel, time dilation, mass, and momentum as follows:

Time dilation: delta t' = gamma delta t

Relativistic mass: m = gamma mo

Length contraction (already described) reduces to:
delta x' = gamma delta x

Relativistic momentum: mv = gamma mov

Most of these relativistic effects have been mentioned already by others on this board, and I provide the very simple math behind the basic equations to show how the Lorentz factor is used in each of these calculations.

Again, simple dimensional analysis here should make clear that distance does not become time at relativistic speeds.

Having said that, relativity does allow one to think of, or described, the rest mass of a particle in terms of its energy.

And the concept of a four dimensional spacetime is also part and parcel of relativity. This does not mean, however, that space (distance) and time are in any way interchangeable or that one somehow magically morphs into the other at relativistic speeds.

[_DrW]

A final thought, for today anyway, on Prof. Cook's disturbing apologetic:

It is one thing to misinterpret geological and fossil evidence (related to the age of the Earth, for example) because of religious bias.

It is something altogether different to misinterpret physics based on one's preconceived notions (as to the interchange of distance and time of special relativity, for example), especially when one decides that mathematics can be violated in the process.

[_Gadianton]

Thanks Dr. with,

Did you have a chance to look at some of the other posts about tachyons?

In special relativity, a faster than light particle would have space-like four-momentum,[1] in contrast to ordinary particles that have time-like four-momentum

there's a theory that cook's theory is envisioning some kind of inversion between space and time above the speed of light, not when approaching it (another link I shared earlier interprets cook this way in contrast to Tvedtnes), and Tvedtnes isn't representing it correctly (because he never took the time to understand science, as long as there's an apologetic in there, it's all rote). So he likely invented the idea of SR "transforming" space into time on his own.

so, curious if you have an explanation for the difference between space-like four-momentum and time-like four-momentum.

this is all beyond me.

[_DrW]

Thanks Dr. with,

Did you have a chance to look at some of the other posts about tachyons?

In special relativity, a faster than light particle would have space-like four-momentum,[1] in contrast to ordinary particles that have time-like four-momentum

there's a theory that cook's theory is envisioning some kind of inversion between space and time above the speed of light, not when approaching it (another link I shared earlier interprets cook this way in contrast to Tvedtnes), and Tvedtnes isn't representing it correctly (because he never took the time to understand science, as long as there's an apologetic in there, it's all rote). So he likely invented the idea of SR "transforming" space into time on his own.

so, curious if you have an explanation for the difference between space-like four-momentum and time-like four-momentum.

this is all beyond me.

Philo Sofee's post on tachyons includes pretty much everything that is important to know about them at the level of this discussion.

If they exist, which is highly unlikely for the reasons already cited, they would not be accessible, or even detectable, from the 4D spacetime in which we exist.

What is amusing to me about their tachyon theory is that, as has been mentioned on this board, the physical reality of tachyons is ruled out, at least in this universe, by the same Special Relativity that these guys claim can transform space into time and vice versa.

[_Gadianton]

I don't disagree at all with the tachyon assessment. there are so many basic objections possible from even a elementary understanding.

but if Cook himself didn't claim that SR transforms space to time, and if his claim is that time and space are "opposites" of some kind when comparing tachyons to normal matter, then it's possible that while his theory is abject pseudoscience of the lamest kind that he did not hold a trivial misunderstanding of special relativity. That is the domain of Tvedtnes.

i suppose we'll find out for sure after Analytics gets the book and reads it.

[_DrW]

<Snip>
i suppose we'll find out for sure after Analytics gets the book and reads it.

Indeed.

Analytics obviously knows what he is talking about here and considering that he has actually met Prof. Cook, I am anxiously waiting for him to return and report.