A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Peter Webb on 25 Feb 2010 18:15 "Paul Stowe" <theaetherist(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:3d18eec6-843e-4656-8002-af83fccb04c1(a)a16g2000pre.googlegroups.com... On Feb 25, 1:16 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > And on this point, I've repeatedly maintained that it isn't. All > > you've offered in the converse is a quote by Einstein that it is. > > No, I've also referred you to the works of Kuhn and Lakatos. And > indeed, the very method that you describe involves formulating a > theory and then testing its predictions - in other words, the tests > that are carried out are constrained by the predictions made by the > theory. One would be unlikely to test for something that the theory > does not predict in the first place. > ____________________________ > Thus demonstrating you also have no understanding whatsoever of the > scientific method or these philosophers. The whole point of testing > through > experiment is to look for places where the theory might break down, not > places where you have tested similar things in the past. The idea is to > try > and disprove the theory, and through failure, demonstrate it is true. This > is the complete opposite to what you say. > > The sad fact that even you must acknowledge - and tell us if you don't - > is > that SR is routinely tested every day of the year in wildly diverse > environments such as particle accelerators, GPS units, astronomy, and > space > exploration. All completely independent ways of testing, and some giving > very highg precision indeed. > > Like it or not, the equations of SR are obviously correct. And like it or not the equations of SR are not original and unique TO SR... Both Lorentz and Poincare published the prior to Einstein. What is unique to SR is the metaphysical interpretation (PoR & RoS). _________________________________ Incorrect. They derived only length contraction. > So the only thing that you can bring to the table is some philosophical > interpretation of what is "really" going on. So what? That all Einstein brought to the table! _________________________________ Ummm ... time dilation? Mass increase in changing reference frames? The equivalence of mass-energy? Clearly you know nothing about the history of SR. > This is a task you are poorly > prepared to do, as you don't understand the current (dominant) > interpretation of what is really going on, which is Minkowski space-time. > It > is (when you understand it) a very simple model which explains a great > deal > of the physics very simply - in particular the Energy and Momentum of a > particle. Frankly, you are not going to find a mental model of SR which is > better or simpler than Minkowski space-time, I very much doubt one exists > at > all. Everyone speaks of wanting unification but their actions say otherwise... Simplification to the point of the loss of critical information is not 'right' or helpful. I believe it was Einstein that said something to that effect also. _________________________________ I don't particularly care about what Einstein may or may not have said on this subject. > Your disbelief of SR stems from the fact that you don't understand it. > That's because you are lazy; you seem intelligent enough to learn it if > you > wanted. However, jumping from you don't understand SR to therefore > physicists are all wrong shows an almighty conceit on your part. Just > because you are an idiot doesn't mean every physicist in the world is as > well. Why does people like you think that? Please provide heo quotes or references that indicates disbelief. ______________________________ SR is "ludicrous". Or, look at the title of the thread. And the is a big difference in saying that modern physics metaphysics is 'all wrong' and saying one does buy or experimental data is. > If you really don't believe that SR has been massively and overwhelmingly > been "proved" by experimental evidence, just say so, and I will dig up a > list of experimental proofs for you. OK, what's the difference in saying that Lorentz/Poincare Relativity "has been massively and overwhelmingly "proved" by experimental evidence"? ________________________________ None, except Lorentz is a tint subset of SR. Yup, just the non-science metaphysical viewpoint. Get it yet??? _____________________________ That you have no idea of the difference between what Einstein published in 1905 and the theories of Lorentz? > If you accept that the equations of SR are correct, then your point in all > this is ..... ? There are none so blind as those who refuse to see... ______________________________________ Yeah, OK, do you believe the equations of SR produce correct answers? I want to see if you are an anti-SR crank as well as an anti-Einstein crank; the two usually go together. Paul Stowe
From: Peter Webb on 25 Feb 2010 18:17 "Paul Stowe" <theaetherist(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:c5cc9449-166e-4a59-82c0-0e577687e04d(a)c37g2000prb.googlegroups.com... 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... __________________________________ OK, you don't undertand it either. 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. ________________________________ And experimentally, both are shown correct to many decimal places of accuracy. Next! Paul Stowe Paul Stowe
From: Peter Webb on 25 Feb 2010 18:27 "Paul Stowe" <theaetherist(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:d3109db5-1bbc-4eb3-934e-fa45740abddc(a)u5g2000prd.googlegroups.com... 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. _______________________________________ No, that's because if there is gravity, spacetime is curved. Why not actually try and understand what is in te article? 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. ___________________________________________ What a mass of meaningless pop philosophy and jumbled terms. If you want to understand the physical basis for light, you learn Maxwell's eqns which give the relationship between the E and M vectors, and light waves just "pop out" of the eqns. If you want to understand the physical basis for dynamics, you learn Minkowski's eqns which give the relationship between the time and space vectors, and SR just "pop out" of the eqns. No difference.
From: Paul Stowe on 25 Feb 2010 18:49 On Feb 25, 3:15 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "PaulStowe" <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:3d18eec6-843e-4656-8002-af83fccb04c1(a)a16g2000pre.googlegroups.com... > On Feb 25, 1:16 am, "Peter Webb" > > > > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > And on this point, I've repeatedly maintained that it isn't. All > > > you've offered in the converse is a quote by Einstein that it is. > > > No, I've also referred you to the works of Kuhn and Lakatos. And > > indeed, the very method that you describe involves formulating a > > theory and then testing its predictions - in other words, the tests > > that are carried out are constrained by the predictions made by the > > theory. One would be unlikely to test for something that the theory > > does not predict in the first place. > > ____________________________ > > Thus demonstrating you also have no understanding whatsoever of the > > scientific method or these philosophers. The whole point of testing > > through > > experiment is to look for places where the theory might break down, not > > places where you have tested similar things in the past. The idea is to > > try > > and disprove the theory, and through failure, demonstrate it is true. This > > is the complete opposite to what you say. > > > The sad fact that even you must acknowledge - and tell us if you don't - > > is > > that SR is routinely tested every day of the year in wildly diverse > > environments such as particle accelerators, GPS units, astronomy, and > > space > > exploration. All completely independent ways of testing, and some giving > > very highg precision indeed. > > > Like it or not, the equations of SR are obviously correct. > > And like it or not the equations of SR are not original and unique TO > SR... Both Lorentz and Poincare published the prior to Einstein. > What is unique to SR is the metaphysical interpretation (PoR & RoS). > > _________________________________ > Incorrect. They derived only length contraction. Actually, it is you who is incorrect, but, ignorance can be remedied. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_phenomena http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_priority_dispute > > So the only thing that you can bring to the table is some philosophical > > interpretation of what is "really" going on. > > So what? That all Einstein brought to the table! > > _________________________________ > Ummm ... time dilation? Mass increase in changing reference frames? The > equivalence of mass-energy? Mass increase? > Clearly you know nothing about the history of SR. Actually,... > > This is a task you are poorly > > prepared to do, as you don't understand the current (dominant) > > interpretation of what is really going on, which is Minkowski space-time. > > It > > is (when you understand it) a very simple model which explains a great > > deal > > of the physics very simply - in particular the Energy and Momentum of a > > particle. Frankly, you are not going to find a mental model of SR which is > > better or simpler than Minkowski space-time, I very much doubt one exists > > at > > all. > > Everyone speaks of wanting unification but their actions say > otherwise... Simplification to the point of the loss of critical > information is not 'right' or helpful. I believe it was Einstein that > said something to that effect also. > > _________________________________ > I don't particularly care about what Einstein may or may not have said on > this subject. > > > Your disbelief of SR stems from the fact that you don't understand it. > > That's because you are lazy; you seem intelligent enough to learn it if > > you > > wanted. However, jumping from you don't understand SR to therefore > > physicists are all wrong shows an almighty conceit on your part. Just > > because you are an idiot doesn't mean every physicist in the world is as > > well. > > Why does people like you think that? Please provide heo quotes or > references that indicates disbelief. > > ______________________________ > SR is "ludicrous". Or, look at the title of the thread. The question of what speed does light actually travels in moving systems verse what is measured is a valid question. > And the is a big difference in > saying that modern physics metaphysics is 'all wrong' and saying one > does buy or experimental data is. > > > If you really don't believe that SR has been massively and overwhelmingly > > been "proved" by experimental evidence, just say so, and I will dig up a > > list of experimental proofs for you. > > OK, what's the difference in saying that Lorentz/Poincare Relativity > "has been massively and overwhelmingly "proved" by experimental > evidence"? > ________________________________ > None, except Lorentz is a tint subset of SR. Not really... LET and SR are identical in their equations and predictions. > Yup, just the non-science metaphysical viewpoint. Get it > yet??? > > _____________________________ > That you have no idea of the difference between what Einstein published in > 1905 and the theories of Lorentz? Other than philosophy, there is no difference. > > If you accept that the equations of SR are correct, then your point in all > > this is ..... ? > > There are none so blind as those who refuse to see... > > ______________________________________ > Yeah, OK, do you believe the equations of SR produce correct answers? I want > to see if you are an anti-SR crank as well as an anti-Einstein crank; the > two usually go together. There is no difference in the formulations of LET and SR, THAT IS WHY WE CALL IT THE LORENTZ TRANSFORMS... It is, solely, philosophical metaphysics! Paul Stowe
From: Paul Stowe on 25 Feb 2010 18:57
On Feb 25, 3:17 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "PaulStowe" <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:c5cc9449-166e-4a59-82c0-0e577687e04d(a)c37g2000prb.googlegroups.com... > 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... > > __________________________________ > OK, you don't undertand it either. Fascinating... > 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. > > ________________________________ > And experimentally, both are shown correct to many decimal places of > accuracy. > > Next! That was not the point, note that I never said it was wrong or incorrect. Paul Stowe |