A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Ste on 26 Feb 2010 04:40 On 26 Feb, 09:14, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "Ste" <ste_ro...(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? Any or all of them, at least in their existing conceptual form. Of course, I'm not denying the existence of the obvious, that is, of electromagnetism. But the physical relationship and interaction between the two fields seems poorly defined, and indeed it's not clear that the two are not just two manifestations of the same field. > > 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? I didn't. It's my conclusion from looking at concepts like "the transverse wave". > 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? RF transmitters are at their heart relatively simple technological devices with well-known behaviours. Indeed, I would think RF transmitters have seen off quite a few revisions of the conceptual nature of light.
From: Inertial on 26 Feb 2010 04:53 "Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:2a3c9345-e9d5-4efb-b23f-e9e0d2bd44f4(a)15g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... > 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". Can you give me some details of your model. . this thread is too long to go back through it and try to find where you may have explained it > 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.
From: Peter Webb on 26 Feb 2010 05:06 "Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1f550c2a-f9ac-4a9d-adbb-270bb96acf13(a)z35g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > On 26 Feb, 09:14, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> > wrote: >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(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? > > Any or all of them, at least in their existing conceptual form. Of > course, I'm not denying the existence of the obvious, that is, of > electromagnetism. But the physical relationship and interaction > between the two fields seems poorly defined, It is exactly and precisely defined by Maxwell's equations. Which, or course, you don't understand. Hence your ignorance of the subject. > and indeed it's not clear > that the two are not just two manifestations of the same field. > What part of Maxwell's equations don't you understand? > > >> > 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? > > I didn't. It's my conclusion from looking at concepts like "the > transverse wave". Ohh, so its only your conclusion that Maxwell's equations are a bit suspect. For a moment I thought that somebody who understaood them thought they were suspect. You might like to point which part of Maxwell's eqns you find a bit suspect. The only one I find slightly strange is div M is zero, but that just reflects the fact that no magnetic monopoles exist. div M could be non-zero and this would require a change to Mazwell's eqns, but would not affect the derivation of EM waves, or much else in Maxwell. What part of Maxwell's eqns do *you* find a bit suspect? > > > >> 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? > > RF transmitters are at their heart relatively simple technological > devices with well-known behaviours. Indeed, I would think RF > transmitters have seen off quite a few revisions of the conceptual > nature of light. Well known behaviors in fact described exactly by Maxwell's eqns. Specifically relating to the oscillating electric field in the antenna. But you say you are not sure what is oscillating in radio waves. Maybe you should learn Maxwell's equations! Just as particle accelerators show well known behaviour which exactly follows SR. Which you similarly don't understand. Maybe you should learn Minkowski space time! As I keep saying, the reason you don't understand physics is because you don't understand mathematics. You don't know the language. People who do understand the maths understand the physics. They speak the language. Next time you are in some foreign country where you don't speak the language, don't assume that people talking in that language don't know what they are talking about simply because you don't. And don't expect to understand what the people are trying to tell you if you don't speak their language. Translation: if you want to understand physics, you need to have basic maths skills and knowledge. You are missing at least one of these.
From: Ste on 26 Feb 2010 06:01 On 26 Feb, 09:53, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > >> 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". > > Can you give me some details of your model. . this thread is too long to go > back through it and try to find where you may have explained it I've been more detailed in the past, but it basically just involved planets, orbits, and an attractive gravity force that had some relationship with distance.
From: Peter Webb on 26 Feb 2010 07:31
"Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1eb2c398-9d3a-4cc3-9b13-7dfb68fc12f8(a)g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com... On 26 Feb, 09:53, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > >> 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". > > Can you give me some details of your model. . this thread is too long to > go > back through it and try to find where you may have explained it I've been more detailed in the past, but it basically just involved planets, orbits, and an attractive gravity force that had some relationship with distance. ___________________________________ About this gravity thing. I am having a great deal of difficulty forming a mental picture of how it is supposed to work. If the planets are separated by vacuum, how could one object possibly pull on another object when there is nothing between them? For that matter, how does one particle manage to pull on every other particle in the Universe at the same time? Are you positing some array of invisible springs, 10^160 of them, connecting the 10^80 particles in the Universe? Frankly, I find the suggestion that each time I move my finger to type these invisible gravity springs cause every other particle in the Universe to move ludicrous. Apart from anything else, how is this spooky action at a distance supposed to work, physically? Springs and levers? What is gravity supposed to be, physically? |