A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Peter Webb on 26 Feb 2010 00:30 "Paul Stowe" <theaetherist(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:bda5b50c-d4b3-4c8f-a83b-67012f66342b(a)z10g2000prh.googlegroups.com... 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 ___________________________ Yep, thankyou. As the link says, "Many aspects of Lorentz's theory were incorporated into special relativity (SR) with the works of Albert Einstein and Hermann Minkowski.". Lorentz did not have (for example) the equivalence of mass and energy and many other aspects of SR; your statement that "What is unique to SR is the metaphysical interpretation" is blatantly false; what about e=mc^2 for starters? Or are you unfamiliar with this equation? If so, you are probably also unaware of SR's inclusion of momentum and energy - pretty basic concepts - which were missing from Lorentz. > > 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? _________________________________ Yeah. The measured mass of objects is a function of the reference frame in which it measured. Learn some SR before telling us it is wrong. Or learn some SR before telling us its correct, if you prefer. > Clearly you know nothing about the history of SR. Actually,... ______________________________ Actually, you appear unfamiliar with SR's predictions of mass increase, SR's formulation of energy and momentum, and given you think SR is nothing more than the Lorentz transformation, clearly also unfamiliar with e=mc^2. > > 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. > _________________________________________________ Yeah. A constant problem in this ng, trying to simplify SR to the extent that knuckleheads like you can gain some appreciation of what it is about. > _________________________________ > 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. __________________________________ No. Add the philosophy of science and the scientific method to the list of theings you don't understand. > 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. __________________________________ Where does Lorentz say e=mc^2, for example? Where does Lorentz derive mass, momentum and energy in terms of each other? > 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. ____________________________________ Hmmm. Two theories you don't understand, maybe there is no difference to you. > > 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! _________________________________________ Learn some SR. Paul Stowe
From: Peter Webb on 26 Feb 2010 00:38 "Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:0a7587b5-d78e-4e7a-897d-e8ee8ed196ba(a)o3g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > On 25 Feb, 09:18, "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 Mark's handful of diagrams and short lessons told me > everything I needed to know about Minkowski spacetime, which is that > however interesting and elegant it may be on a mathematical level, it > would in no way address the real questions that I have. Obviously if it did not address the real questions you have, Mark's handful of diagrams and short lessons *didn't* teach you everything you "needed to know about Minkowski space time". Have you thought of buying a book, or finding a good web page, and actually trying to learn it?
From: Peter Webb on 26 Feb 2010 01:37 "Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:08f78223-ea53-4c5e-bcc8-88d83bd145b1(a)g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com... > On 25 Feb, 09:46, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> > wrote: >> And indeed, I said openly that I couldn't make that work, once I'd >> been able to construct a graphic where I could see the proof with my >> own eyes, and clearly the physical understanding on which that was >> based is untenable. As it stands, I don't really have any workable >> physical model for light under relativity. >> >> _________________________________ >> >> Relativity does not provide a workable physical model for light, in fact >> it >> says nothing about it at all. >> >> The workable physical model for light is provided by Maxwell's eqns, >> which >> tell us *exactly* what light is; it is two out of phase electric and >> magnetic fields, and this uses the same maths and mechanisms as explain >> radio broadcasting, transformers, generators etc. > > You know I actually got as far as reviewing Maxwell's equations before > I started to fall over laughing at my gullibility. I really should > have realised at the outset that "Maxwell's equations" were not going > to involve anything physical. > You don't think electric and magnetic fields are physical? > And incidentally, after realising this, but before responding, I > actually scrolled down through the posts and found that Paul Stowe had > also made exactly the same argument. > You are therefore not alone in your ignorance. > > >> You would be well off learning this before you attempt SR, as much of the >> experimentation and theory was motivated by physicists knowing that >> Maxwell's equations - used a billion times a day - used a Lorentz >> transform, >> and this would allow an absolute frame of reference to be established. >> >> In practice, the mathematics of Maxwell are harder than SR, but I will >> try >> and explain some key concepts. > > Hell fire! Mathematically harder than SR? > SR is simple algebra. Minkowski is simple geomertry, but using complex numbers. Both should be accessible to anybody with high sachool maths. The normal and clearest exposition of Maxwell uses vector calculus - div and curl operators - you probably would learn this in Calc I or Calc II at Uni. > > >> Most importantly, Maxwell's eqns are said to give rise to light waves, >> but >> these are fundamentally different what you think of as a wave. In water >> waves, there is a single variable - water height - and the wave exchanges >> energy with the medium through which it travels. Similarly with sound >> waves, >> where it is air pressure. In Maxwell, there are two waves always >> generated, >> the electric and the magnetic. The electric increases, it draws energy >> from >> the magnetic, the magnetic runs out, the electric collapses which feed >> energy into the magnetic, and so on ... multiply this by about 10^20 in >> speed and you have light. > > This is a bit wooly. Obviously there is some sort of oscillation going > on, but I suspect more work needs to be done on the concept. > Some more work has been done on the concept. About a 150 years worth. Its exactly how radio and TV transmitters work. You do concede that they do work, right? And that radio is a form of light? And radio waves can be made by simply oscillating electric and magnetic fields? Just because you *nothing* about Maxwells eqns doesn't mean they need more work. It means you need to do more work, to bring your knowledge of physics up to where it was in the mid 19th Century. > > >> The total energy of the photon/wave is constant, it simply exchanges >> energy >> between its electric and magnetic fields. If you ask what the electric >> wave >> is "waving through" - what is storing its energy as it goes up and down >> like >> a water wave - its the waves magnetic field, and the waves magnetic field >> is >> similarly beating against the electric field. This means there is no >> connection to any underlying medium which is waving, like in a water >> wave, >> it is self contained. This is ultimately why it has a Lorentz transform, >> and >> if you do the maths on Maxwell's equations you actually get the Lorentz >> contraction popping out automatically. The Michelson Morley experiment >> was >> specifically designed to compare the transforms for light and a physical >> object, and contrary to your opinion that physicists don't know how to >> design tests, was deliberately testing to the limits the prevailing >> understanding at that time, and found it to be wrong. >> >> The rest is now over 100 years of history; you are a little late to find >> a >> problem. > > Lol. Perhaps a mistake more than 100 years ago is why there hasn't > been much theoretical or conceptual advance in 100 years? Well, there was huge advance made when this was reformulated for non-inertial frames of reference in GR. But the reason that SR has survived unchanged for 100 years is the same reason that Newtonian mechanics survived unchanged for 300 years - as far as we can tell with current measuring equipment, it works perfectly.
From: Inertial on 26 Feb 2010 01:00 "Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:365f3173-59c8-4872-a95b-159a08d27032(a)v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com... > On 25 Feb, 17:42, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Feb 24, 9:22 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > > > On Feb 22, 11:16 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > > > > And as I've >> > > > > > said, repeatedly, what you call my "cogs and levers" approach >> > > > > > is far >> > > > > > more flexible than your caricature would imply. >> >> > > > > Yes, to the point where your cogs-and-levers picture permits >> > > > > almost >> > > > > immediately obvious internal contradictions, as I've pointed out. >> >> > > > Indeed, but that's why I don't disparage a mathematical refinement >> > > > of >> > > > it, and I see the maths as "adding detail to the picture". >> >> > > I'm sorry, but in my mind there's a big difference between "adding >> > > detail to the picture" and "showing that the picture is self- >> > > contradictory". >> >> > But you didn't show that it was contradictory. All you did was further >> > constrain the relationship between gravity and distance. >> >> Oh, please. You said that a linear fall-off of gravity with distance >> was perfectly compatible with your mental image of gravity. But it >> ISN'T, because there are unexplored implications of those permitted >> assumptions that lead to contradictions. This is more than a detail >> refinement. > > I'm afraid it isn't Paul. I'm not so sure that this won't go anywhere > except just go back to what we agreed at the beginning, that my model > makes no firm predictions and is virtually unfalsifiable, and yet it > works In what sense can it be said to work if it doesn't predict what is observed.
From: Paul Stowe on 26 Feb 2010 01:45
On Feb 25, 9:30 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "PaulStowe" <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:bda5b50c-d4b3-4c8f-a83b-67012f66342b(a)z10g2000prh.googlegroups.com... > 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_theoryhttp://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_phenomenahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_priority_dispute > > ___________________________ > Yep, thankyou. As the link says, "Many aspects of Lorentz's theory were > incorporated into special relativity (SR) with the works of Albert Einstein > and Hermann Minkowski.". Lorentz did not have (for example) the equivalence > of mass and energy and many other aspects of SR; your statement that "What > is unique to SR is the metaphysical interpretation" is blatantly false; what > about e=mc^2 for starters? Or are you unfamiliar with this equation? If so, > you are probably also unaware of SR's inclusion of momentum and energy - > pretty basic concepts - which were missing from Lorentz. Probably because relativistic mass increase is now an obsolete concept. As for e = mc^2 again, while a consequence of the relativity it is now considered that mass remains unchanged and the frame dependent momentum/energy is solely an artifact of relative velocity. As for 1905, Einstein penned Longitudinal mass and transverse mass formulas (10. Dynamics of the Slowly Accelerated Electron of http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/) identical to Lorentz's of 1904, quote: "This theory was further developed by Abraham (1902), who first used the terms longitudinal and transverse mass for Lorentz's two masses. However, Abraham's expressions were more complicated than those of Lorentz. Lorentz himself expanded his 1899 ideas in his famous 1904 paper, where he set the factor to unity.[A 3] So, according to this theory no body can reach the speed of light because the MASS BECOMES INFINITELY LARGE at this velocity." So, where's the difference of and mathematical significance? > > > 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? > > _________________________________ > Yeah. The measured mass of objects is a function of the reference frame in > which it measured. Learn some SR before telling us it is wrong. Or learn > some SR before telling us its correct, if you prefer. Get up to date. > > Clearly you know nothing about the history of SR. > > Actually,... > ______________________________ > Actually, you appear unfamiliar with SR's predictions of mass increase, SR's > formulation of energy and momentum, and given you think SR is nothing more > than the Lorentz transformation, clearly also unfamiliar with e=mc^2. Jumping to conclusions is the hallmark of a closed and shallow mind. > > > 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. > > _________________________________________________ > Yeah. A constant problem in this ng, trying to simplify SR to the extent > that knuckleheads like you can gain some appreciation of what it is about.. What do you expect to do hurling insults? Basic human nature 101, insults only tend to alienate not educate. > > _________________________________ > > 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. > > __________________________________ > No. Add the philosophy of science and the scientific method to the list of > theings you don't understand. Enlighten me... > > 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. > __________________________________ > Where does Lorentz say e=mc^2, for example? Where does Lorentz derive mass, > momentum and energy in terms of each other? > > > 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? Speculation, had Einstein not published 1905 both Lorentz and Poincare would have probably gotten E=mc^2 with a year or two. Poincare was almost there without and input from Einstein. It is a direct consequence of Lorentz invariance. > Other than philosophy, there is no difference. > > ____________________________________ > Hmmm. Two theories you don't understand, maybe there is no difference to > you. Believe what you want... > > > 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! > > _________________________________________ > Learn some SR. Paul Stowe |