A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Ste on 26 Feb 2010 01:57 On 26 Feb, 05:38, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "Ste" <ste_ro...(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? Not really, no, because let me repeat again, *nothing mathematical will ever be the answer to my questions*.
From: Peter Webb on 26 Feb 2010 02:11 "Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:bf818c54-9485-4a5c-b0c0-a7f7fae1c1bf(a)m37g2000yqf.googlegroups.com... > On 26 Feb, 05:38, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> > wrote: >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(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? > > Not really, no, because let me repeat again, *nothing mathematical > will ever be the answer to my questions*. You can't really understand physics without understanding the maths. For example, without Maxwell's eqns, physicists would have no mental model for light. Without Minkowski space time, physicists would have no mental model for for SR. So, unfortunately, unless you learn some more maths, your questions cannot be answered. You might like to try, instead of complaining that it looks too difficult for you to learn.
From: Ste on 26 Feb 2010 02:21 On 26 Feb, 06:37, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > 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? I was alluding to the "equations" bit. In any event, I think the conceptual foundations of the electric and magnetic fields seems a little unclear. > > 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. Touche. I personally fear for those who are not alone in their hubris > >> 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. I think you misunderstand. I concede that light comprises some kind of oscillation, and that many of its manifestations are well-understood, but it seems to me (from what I've read) that it's conceptual basis is a bit suspect. > >> 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. Indeed. I suppose technologically there still plenty of shelf-life in relativity.
From: Ste on 26 Feb 2010 02:31 On 26 Feb, 06:00, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > >> > > 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. It does predict what is observed, but only in a very loose way, and really acts as the underpinning for further investigation or refinement. Of course, philistines like yourself would look at a work of art, and say "is the frame really necessary", "is the colour really necessary", "is paint really necessary", and once all that is gone, point out that there is nothing meaningful left. But of course while I don't denigrate a mathematical formulation, there certainly seems to be a great deal of denigration amongst physicists towards the physical- conceptual aspects of their subject.
From: Ste on 26 Feb 2010 02:37
On 26 Feb, 07:11, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:bf818c54-9485-4a5c-b0c0-a7f7fae1c1bf(a)m37g2000yqf.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On 26 Feb, 05:38, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> > > wrote: > >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(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? > > > Not really, no, because let me repeat again, *nothing mathematical > > will ever be the answer to my questions*. > > You can't really understand physics without understanding the maths. > > For example, without Maxwell's eqns, physicists would have no mental model > for light. Without Minkowski space time, physicists would have no mental > model for for SR. > > So, unfortunately, unless you learn some more maths, your questions cannot > be answered. This is what I find ludicrous. "without Maxwell's eqns, physicists would have no mental model for light". That is utterly risible. Of course you can understand physics without maths - at least, 'real' physics! I dare say a football player can outdo an old supercomputer with regard to predicting the trajectory of a ball, but without knowing or using a single equation. The idea that mathematics is the only way the world can be understood is, I repeat myself, ludicrous. |