A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Inertial on 26 Feb 2010 02:52 "Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:0fd57111-e16a-4f65-8f24-139d33081625(a)19g2000yqu.googlegroups.com... > 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. I am no philistine. That insult was unwarranted. There is a place for philosophy and metaphysics .. as long as you do not confuse it with physics.
From: Ste on 26 Feb 2010 03:25 On 26 Feb, 07:52, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:0fd57111-e16a-4f65-8f24-139d33081625(a)19g2000yqu.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > 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. > > I am no philistine. That insult was unwarranted. Never mind that. It's mere rhetoric. > There is a place for philosophy and metaphysics .. as long as you do not > confuse it with physics. Yes, heaven forbid I mistake a model of the solar system for being something that properly falls under the umbrella of "physics".
From: Peter Webb on 26 Feb 2010 04:14 "Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:c2499076-2a03-4f3c-b278-1e367a82da1e(a)f35g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > 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. Ohh. Maxwell's equations don't involve anything physical. Maxwell's eqns only involve three things - electric fields, magnetic fields, and electric charge. Which of these aren't physical? 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. Maxwell's equations are a bit suspect? Where did you read that? And when you said "light comprises some kind of oscillation", do you mean that you doubt it is the oscillation of magnetic and electric fields, representing the far field solution to Maxwell's eqns? If its not the oscillation of electric fields, how do radio transmitters work? You do understand Maxwell's eqns, right? Its not like you are some crank with absolutely no idea of what they mean running around saying they might be wrong, just because you don't understand them, are you? > > > >> >> 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. SR, certainly.
From: Inertial on 26 Feb 2010 03:56 "Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:15434900-9e3e-4a8c-8cf3-7344917d9ad4(a)33g2000yqj.googlegroups.com... > On 26 Feb, 07:52, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:0fd57111-e16a-4f65-8f24-139d33081625(a)19g2000yqu.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> > 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. >> >> I am no philistine. That insult was unwarranted. > > Never mind that. It's mere rhetoric. > > > >> There is a place for philosophy and metaphysics .. as long as you do not >> confuse it with physics. > > Yes, heaven forbid I mistake a model of the solar system for being > something that properly falls under the umbrella of "physics". Nothing wrong with that .. as long as you know which it is .. philosophy or physics. Each has its place. But with the caveat that any philosophy that is at odds with reality (eg experimental evidence) is not a useful adjunct to physics.
From: Ste on 26 Feb 2010 04:31
On 26 Feb, 08:56, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > >> There is a place for philosophy and metaphysics .. as long as you do not > >> confuse it with physics. > > > Yes, heaven forbid I mistake a model of the solar system for being > > something that properly falls under the umbrella of "physics". > > Nothing wrong with that .. as long as you know which it is .. philosophy or > physics. Each has its place. But with the caveat that any philosophy that > is at odds with reality (eg experimental evidence) is not a useful adjunct > to physics. I agree, but as I say I don't see how my model can be deemed as "not physics". The conceptual view of the solar system that I have is necessary to give any real meaning to the maths that describe planetary orbits, etc. The fact that the conceptual view, in isolation and at a very broad level, permits more possibilities that are in fact physically possible, is not a defect but a necessary consequence of the fact that, amongst other things, the conceptual view operates at the level of *giving meaning*. That's why you've got string theory with 20-odd meaningless dimensions, because not only is there no conceptual foundation for it, but merely a contrived unification of existing concepts, and moreover the existing concepts themselves are poorly understood and certainly not agreed amongst the scientific community. |