A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: mpalenik on 25 Feb 2010 12:50 On Feb 25, 12:42 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 24, 9:22 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > I've just responded to > > Mark who said that a theory with a 95% confidence should be accepted > > universally by all > > And I don't make any such claim. > For the record, as I said before, neither do I.
From: Paul Stowe on 25 Feb 2010 14:16 On Feb 25, 9:48 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 25, 9:40 am, PaulStowe<theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 25, 1:18 am, "Peter Webb" > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > >news:ab0ad038-f849-4d36-a73d-8bbb7bf7e366(a)t23g2000yqt.googlegroups.com.... > > > On 24 Feb, 17:37, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 24, 2:56 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Of course, I don't pretend to even have a > > > > > speculative account for what this variable may be. I will finish > > > > > however by saying that surely you accept that clocks that actually > > > > > exist must have some common principles at a fundamental level, and > > > > > that if the time dilation phenomenon operates at that level then it's > > > > > quite plausible that they would all react in the same way to time > > > > > dilation. > > > > > On this last point, I will simply conclude that, yes, indeed all > > > > clocks operate with a common principle at some level, and that time > > > > dilation operates at that level. That principle and that operation of > > > > dilation are PRECISELY what is described by special relativity, as far > > > > as we can tell from the evidence we have in hand. Congratulations. > > > > > Now, at this point, I imagine you might say, "But I don't BELIEVE in > > > > special relativity and hold faith that there is some OTHER principle > > > > and operation of dilation that is responsible for what is going on." > > > > That is, of course, a possibility. Anything is possible. However, > > > > among those models that have been tested and which do purport to > > > > account for the principle that drives dilation, special relativity is > > > > the demonstrated winner. You are free to put forward a new candidate > > > > to add to the race. There are others who are doing exactly the same > > > > thing this very day. > > > > As I say, I don't necessarily disbelieve SR. I just don't think it is > > > conceptually very clear. > > > > _____________________________ > > > Have you tried? Found a simple link or book explaining Minkowski space time > > > and tried to go through it? Where do you get stuck? > > > I think it's the lack of actual physics therein... The model is pure > > mathematics devoid of any physical basis... > > And for you, too, it's plain that what you've been exposed to is > either shallow popularization or full of mathematics, and you've > obviously not been exposed to the materials that go to length to > describe the physical basis of relativity. Then enlighten us, the 'physical basis' of Minkowski's equation is... > > Thus it cannot stand on > > its own, it needs an actual physical basis, just like Maxwell > > equations do. In 'isolation' both are neither right or wrong. Paul Stowe
From: PD on 25 Feb 2010 15:14 On Feb 25, 1:16 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 25, 9:48 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 25, 9:40 am, PaulStowe<theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 25, 1:18 am, "Peter Webb" > > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > > >news:ab0ad038-f849-4d36-a73d-8bbb7bf7e366(a)t23g2000yqt.googlegroups.com... > > > > On 24 Feb, 17:37, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Feb 24, 2:56 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Of course, I don't pretend to even have a > > > > > > speculative account for what this variable may be. I will finish > > > > > > however by saying that surely you accept that clocks that actually > > > > > > exist must have some common principles at a fundamental level, and > > > > > > that if the time dilation phenomenon operates at that level then it's > > > > > > quite plausible that they would all react in the same way to time > > > > > > dilation. > > > > > > On this last point, I will simply conclude that, yes, indeed all > > > > > clocks operate with a common principle at some level, and that time > > > > > dilation operates at that level. That principle and that operation of > > > > > dilation are PRECISELY what is described by special relativity, as far > > > > > as we can tell from the evidence we have in hand. Congratulations.. > > > > > > Now, at this point, I imagine you might say, "But I don't BELIEVE in > > > > > special relativity and hold faith that there is some OTHER principle > > > > > and operation of dilation that is responsible for what is going on." > > > > > That is, of course, a possibility. Anything is possible. However, > > > > > among those models that have been tested and which do purport to > > > > > account for the principle that drives dilation, special relativity is > > > > > the demonstrated winner. You are free to put forward a new candidate > > > > > to add to the race. There are others who are doing exactly the same > > > > > thing this very day. > > > > > As I say, I don't necessarily disbelieve SR. I just don't think it is > > > > conceptually very clear. > > > > > _____________________________ > > > > Have you tried? Found a simple link or book explaining Minkowski space time > > > > and tried to go through it? Where do you get stuck? > > > > I think it's the lack of actual physics therein... The model is pure > > > mathematics devoid of any physical basis... > > > And for you, too, it's plain that what you've been exposed to is > > either shallow popularization or full of mathematics, and you've > > obviously not been exposed to the materials that go to length to > > describe the physical basis of relativity. > > Then enlighten us, the 'physical basis' of Minkowski's equation is... What "Minkowski's equation"? And enlighten whom? You? I assume you're using the royal "us" above, since I don't know that others are as disadvantaged as you. There is a *structure* to space and time, which segregates pairs of events into those which can be causally related and those which cannot be causally related. This structure also constrains the measurements of distance and duration between those events, as seen by observers in relative motion. This structure is observable in nature, by virtue of measurements of those events. Our previous guess as to the structure, which was described by Newton (after Galileo) and codified into relations between measurements by Newton's comtemporary Descartes, did not feature that segregation of pairs of events. As a result, it got the relationship between measurements of distance and duration between pairs of events (as seen by observers in relative motion) almost right but not quite right, at least for pairs of events that could be measured between about 1600 and about 1900. However, it became obviously wrong for a class of measurements that were available after 1900. A paragraph like the above is appropriate for this newsgroup, and it is technically correct though certainly not pedagogically complete. If you'd like this expanded in more detail, I can certainly point you to books you can either buy or find in the library that will take a few dozen pages to more carefully lay this out in a way that is much easier to understand. The books that I would recommend would either have no math at all or would require no more than high school Algebra I and Geometry. > > > > Thus it cannot stand on > > > its own, it needs an actual physical basis, just like Maxwell > > > equations do. In 'isolation' both are neither right or wrong. > > Paul Stowe
From: Paul Stowe on 25 Feb 2010 15:47 On Feb 25, 12:14 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 25, 1:16 pm, PaulStowe<theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 25, 9:48 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 25, 9:40 am, PaulStowe<theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 25, 1:18 am, "Peter Webb" > > > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > > > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > > > >news:ab0ad038-f849-4d36-a73d-8bbb7bf7e366(a)t23g2000yqt.googlegroups..com... > > > > > On 24 Feb, 17:37, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 24, 2:56 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Of course, I don't pretend to even have a > > > > > > > speculative account for what this variable may be. I will finish > > > > > > > however by saying that surely you accept that clocks that actually > > > > > > > exist must have some common principles at a fundamental level, and > > > > > > > that if the time dilation phenomenon operates at that level then it's > > > > > > > quite plausible that they would all react in the same way to time > > > > > > > dilation. > > > > > > > On this last point, I will simply conclude that, yes, indeed all > > > > > > clocks operate with a common principle at some level, and that time > > > > > > dilation operates at that level. That principle and that operation of > > > > > > dilation are PRECISELY what is described by special relativity, as far > > > > > > as we can tell from the evidence we have in hand. Congratulations. > > > > > > > Now, at this point, I imagine you might say, "But I don't BELIEVE in > > > > > > special relativity and hold faith that there is some OTHER principle > > > > > > and operation of dilation that is responsible for what is going on." > > > > > > That is, of course, a possibility. Anything is possible. However, > > > > > > among those models that have been tested and which do purport to > > > > > > account for the principle that drives dilation, special relativity is > > > > > > the demonstrated winner. You are free to put forward a new candidate > > > > > > to add to the race. There are others who are doing exactly the same > > > > > > thing this very day. > > > > > > As I say, I don't necessarily disbelieve SR. I just don't think it is > > > > > conceptually very clear. > > > > > > _____________________________ > > > > > Have you tried? Found a simple link or book explaining Minkowski space time > > > > > and tried to go through it? Where do you get stuck? > > > > > I think it's the lack of actual physics therein... The model is pure > > > > mathematics devoid of any physical basis... > > > > And for you, too, it's plain that what you've been exposed to is > > > either shallow popularization or full of mathematics, and you've > > > obviously not been exposed to the materials that go to length to > > > describe the physical basis of relativity. > > > Then enlighten us, the 'physical basis' of Minkowski's equation is... > > What "Minkowski's equation"? > > And enlighten whom? You? I assume you're using the royal "us" above, > since I don't know that others are as disadvantaged as you. > > There is a *structure* to space and time, which segregates pairs of > events into those which can be causally related and those which cannot > be causally related. This structure also constrains the measurements > of distance and duration between those events, as seen by observers in > relative motion. This structure is observable in nature, by virtue of > measurements of those events. Our previous guess as to the structure, > which was described by Newton (after Galileo) and codified into > relations between measurements by Newton's comtemporary Descartes, did > not feature that segregation of pairs of events. As a result, it got > the relationship between measurements of distance and duration between > pairs of events (as seen by observers in relative motion) almost right > but not quite right, at least for pairs of events that could be > measured between about 1600 and about 1900. However, it became > obviously wrong for a class of measurements that were available after > 1900. > > A paragraph like the above is appropriate for this newsgroup, and it > is technically correct though certainly not pedagogically complete. If > you'd like this expanded in more detail, I can certainly point you to > books you can either buy or find in the library that will take a few > dozen pages to more carefully lay this out in a way that is much > easier to understand. The books that I would recommend would either > have no math at all or would require no more than high school Algebra > I and Geometry. yeah, you could have pointed to, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski_space Quote: "Strictly speaking, the use of the Minkowski space to describe physical systems over finite distances applies only in the Newtonian limit of systems without significant gravitation. In the case of significant gravitation, spacetime becomes curved and one must abandon special relativity in favor of the full theory of general relativity." That's because light speed c isn't constant. This would, if we take the word of the writer, seem to indicate that Minkowski equation, like Newton isn't the 'end all' expression. There are reasons for this, and physical causes for the local so-called 'structure'. The Minkowski equation does NOT! address that, it is just an expression that reflects the resultant. The physical basis (structure if you want to call it that) is NOT given, explained, or provided, thus the comment about lacking a physical 'basis'. There is a big difference between a map and the physical territory the map represents. Minkowski equation maps local behavior but it by itself cannot even tell you what local is. I've yet to see a described 'physical basis' for the map... > > > > Thus it cannot stand on > > > > its own, it needs an actual physical basis, just like Maxwell > > > > equations do. In 'isolation' both are neither right or wrong. Paul Stowe
From: PD on 25 Feb 2010 16:25
On Feb 25, 2:47 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 25, 12:14 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 25, 1:16 pm, PaulStowe<theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 25, 9:48 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 25, 9:40 am, PaulStowe<theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Feb 25, 1:18 am, "Peter Webb" > > > > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > > > > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > > > > >news:ab0ad038-f849-4d36-a73d-8bbb7bf7e366(a)t23g2000yqt.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > On 24 Feb, 17:37, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Feb 24, 2:56 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Of course, I don't pretend to even have a > > > > > > > > speculative account for what this variable may be. I will finish > > > > > > > > however by saying that surely you accept that clocks that actually > > > > > > > > exist must have some common principles at a fundamental level, and > > > > > > > > that if the time dilation phenomenon operates at that level then it's > > > > > > > > quite plausible that they would all react in the same way to time > > > > > > > > dilation. > > > > > > > > On this last point, I will simply conclude that, yes, indeed all > > > > > > > clocks operate with a common principle at some level, and that time > > > > > > > dilation operates at that level. That principle and that operation of > > > > > > > dilation are PRECISELY what is described by special relativity, as far > > > > > > > as we can tell from the evidence we have in hand. Congratulations. > > > > > > > > Now, at this point, I imagine you might say, "But I don't BELIEVE in > > > > > > > special relativity and hold faith that there is some OTHER principle > > > > > > > and operation of dilation that is responsible for what is going on." > > > > > > > That is, of course, a possibility. Anything is possible. However, > > > > > > > among those models that have been tested and which do purport to > > > > > > > account for the principle that drives dilation, special relativity is > > > > > > > the demonstrated winner. You are free to put forward a new candidate > > > > > > > to add to the race. There are others who are doing exactly the same > > > > > > > thing this very day. > > > > > > > As I say, I don't necessarily disbelieve SR. I just don't think it is > > > > > > conceptually very clear. > > > > > > > _____________________________ > > > > > > Have you tried? Found a simple link or book explaining Minkowski space time > > > > > > and tried to go through it? Where do you get stuck? > > > > > > I think it's the lack of actual physics therein... The model is pure > > > > > mathematics devoid of any physical basis... > > > > > And for you, too, it's plain that what you've been exposed to is > > > > either shallow popularization or full of mathematics, and you've > > > > obviously not been exposed to the materials that go to length to > > > > describe the physical basis of relativity. > > > > Then enlighten us, the 'physical basis' of Minkowski's equation is... > > > What "Minkowski's equation"? > > > And enlighten whom? You? I assume you're using the royal "us" above, > > since I don't know that others are as disadvantaged as you. > > > There is a *structure* to space and time, which segregates pairs of > > events into those which can be causally related and those which cannot > > be causally related. This structure also constrains the measurements > > of distance and duration between those events, as seen by observers in > > relative motion. This structure is observable in nature, by virtue of > > measurements of those events. Our previous guess as to the structure, > > which was described by Newton (after Galileo) and codified into > > relations between measurements by Newton's comtemporary Descartes, did > > not feature that segregation of pairs of events. As a result, it got > > the relationship between measurements of distance and duration between > > pairs of events (as seen by observers in relative motion) almost right > > but not quite right, at least for pairs of events that could be > > measured between about 1600 and about 1900. However, it became > > obviously wrong for a class of measurements that were available after > > 1900. > > > A paragraph like the above is appropriate for this newsgroup, and it > > is technically correct though certainly not pedagogically complete. If > > you'd like this expanded in more detail, I can certainly point you to > > books you can either buy or find in the library that will take a few > > dozen pages to more carefully lay this out in a way that is much > > easier to understand. The books that I would recommend would either > > have no math at all or would require no more than high school Algebra > > I and Geometry. > > yeah, you could have pointed to, > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski_space No, I was talking about a book or two that would take a few dozen pages to explain things carefully, not an encyclopedia article that would take one page to explain things tersely. What issue do you have with that? > > Quote: > > "Strictly speaking, the use of the Minkowski space to describe > physical systems over finite distances applies only in the Newtonian > limit of systems without significant gravitation. In the case of > significant gravitation, spacetime becomes curved and one must abandon > special relativity in favor of the full theory of general relativity." Yes, indeed. > > That's because light speed c isn't constant. No, it is still locally constant. The difference is that Minkoswki space has a *flat* structure, where in systems with significant gravitation, it is not flat. > This would, if we take > the word of the writer, seem to indicate that Minkowski equation, like > Newton isn't the 'end all' expression. What "Minkowski equation"? I asked you this before. > There are reasons for this, > and physical causes for the local so-called 'structure'. The > Minkowski equation does NOT! address that, it is just an expression > that reflects the resultant. The physical basis (structure if you > want to call it that) is NOT given, explained, or provided, thus the > comment about lacking a physical 'basis'. Not in the 1-page encyclopedia article, no. I was recommending different reading materials. Why is it you get flummoxed when you don't find what you want in the arbitrary resource you choose? Do you have the expectation that the first thing you pick up should always include what you're looking for? > There is a big difference > between a map and the physical territory the map represents. > Minkowski equation maps local behavior but it by itself cannot even > tell you what local is. > > I've yet to see a described 'physical basis' for the map... > > > > > > Thus it cannot stand on > > > > > its own, it needs an actual physical basis, just like Maxwell > > > > > equations do. In 'isolation' both are neither right or wrong. > > Paul Stowe |