A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Peter Webb on 1 Mar 2010 02:41 "Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:982805a1-2147-4518-8ba5-fb20671d98ce(a)t41g2000yqt.googlegroups.com... On 28 Feb, 11:35, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > > For some reason everyone seems to have misinterpreted what I said. My > > > view is that string theorists *can* be correctly described as > > > "physicists", and their theory correctly called "a product of > > > science". > > > When that theory is produced. Right now, it is a raw piece of rock > > with a few hammer strikes in it. It is not a sculpture. > > Agreed, but this conception of "scientific activity" is so vague as to > disclose virtually no meaningful demarcation between what is science > and what isn't. > > __________________________ > The term "scientific activity" is not well defined. So what? The term > "Science", on the other hand, is well defined, and the "demarcation of > what > is science and what is not science" is falsifiability. No it isn't. As I said, if you hold this standard, then string theorists are "not scientists". ___________________________ Nor is the term "scientist" partyicularly well defined. However, the term we have been discussing is "science", which is well defined. Just as you tried to confuse the issue of what science is by bringing in the new term "scientific activity", now you want to do the same with the new term "scientist". We were discussing whether falsifiability is a requirement of a science. You introduced the terms "scientific activity" and "scientists" to discuss instead, but they have nothing whatsoever to do with the the topic being discussed, you are a crank trying to change the subject. > You brought in this > irrelevant and largely undefined term "scientific activity", it has no > relevance whatsoever to the discussion of whether Special Relativity is a > valid scientific theory, btw the answer is yes, because it is falsifiable. Special Relativity is falsifiable, I agree. I introduced the term "scientific activity" as a nod to Paul, who has a much more realistic conception of what science is. ______________________________ More realistic to you, perhaps. But Paul did not introduce this term, you did, you can't blame him. > Why are you trying to change the topic of conversation in this manner? I wasn't even talking to you Peter. I was replying to Paul Draper. __________________________ My question stands. > Do you understand the relationship between "science" and "falsifiability" > now? Do you understand that SR is falsifiable? Do you understand that > alternative theories have to be, as well? I understand the relationship between "science" and "falsifiability", sure. That is, there is no serious relationship. ____________________________ No, you don't. You know less about what science is, does and says than you do about SR, which in turn you know less about than evolution. > > > > But if someone stands in front of a raw piece of rock and maybe hits > > > > it once or twice with a hammer and then exclaims, "I'm a sculptor! > > > > I've produced a sculpture! It is sufficiently sculpted FOR ME, > > > > according to what makes sense TO ME a sculpture is," then you'll > > > > likely find most people sniffing and walking away. Your mental model > > > > of gravity, which seems to be sufficient for you, looks like a big > > > > piece of rock with a dent in it to me. > > > > But I haven't claimed it to be anything more. I was using it as an > > > example to show that it acts as the foundation for further work - or > > > to draw on your analogy, "the lump of rock which can be sculpted with > > > further detail". > > > That's fine, but it seems now you're trying to ask others who are > > better equipped to pick up that foundation and turn it into the theory > > that you cannot produce. In order to attract investors in any > > investment venture, one has to do more than sketch an idea on a > > cocktail napkin. One has to develop the idea enough to demonstrate > > viability at some minimum level that would be acceptable to the > > *investors*. Note that a cocktail napkin might be just fine and > > sufficient for YOU, but not for those whose efforts you would hope to > > inspire. This is not in the least bit unfair. > > Science is not supposed to be about "investment opportunities" for > scientists. > > ______________________________ > Science is in part about scientists investing their time wisely, which was > his point, you seemed to miss it. I know what is point is, but if it is scientists themselves who decide where to spend their time, and scientists themselves make the judgment about what is "wise", then the "objectivity" of science is only rescued if we presuppose that, in some way or another, scientists are a heterogenous bunch who will, in aggregate, be ready, able and willing to investigate all potential theoretical avenues in parallel. ________________________________________ How is that supposed to follow? Being objective does not mean that all ideas are considered equally likely. If scientists did not pursue research ideas based upon a judgement as to which would best advance physics, they would have spent the last 400 years dropping apples to see if any fell upwards. And that nobody is applying for a research grant for 10,000 apples to drop (to see if any fall upwards) is not a sign that physicists are close-minded; its a sign they are not completely stupid. Of course, sociological studies of scientists have found this to be utter nonsense. _____________________________________________ I assume you just invented this statement. I am unaware of any such studies. Have you a link?
From: Peter Webb on 1 Mar 2010 02:45 "Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:a34363d2-1afe-4b36-9ee8-65fc8ffc825a(a)t23g2000yqt.googlegroups.com... On 28 Feb, 16:33, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > On Feb 28, 1:54 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > Illustration: > > > E1 > > > -------- > > > E2 > > > The line represents the line between events E1 and E2, along which the > > observers may move while always reporting both events to be > > simultaneous. > > You are correct about E1 and E2 being simultaneous to all observers on > the line despite their motion relative to other observers on the > line. The statement about spatially seperated events is about > seperation along the axis of travel. In the train experient A and B > are on the tracks, which we call the x axis. You have E1 and E2 off > to the sides of the tracks on the y axis, which isn't normally > considered in the train experiment. This is called "revisionism", Bruce. The statement was not "about seperation along the axis of travel". It was about "what is simultaneous in one frame is not simultaneous in another" ________________________ That should be "is not *neccesarily* simultaneous in another reference frame", if you are talking about SR. Clearly you do not understand the claims of SR. , and "Ste, you are an idiot who knows nothing about SR". ________________________ See above for experimental verification.
From: Peter Webb on 1 Mar 2010 02:49 "Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:e9b52490-dec2-4027-8a71-c831115ab04a(a)t23g2000yqt.googlegroups.com... On 28 Feb, 17:20, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > On Feb 27, 8:42 am, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > You should give Ste a specific book recommendation: > > > Spacetime Physics, by Taylor and Wheeler > > > The second edition can generally be picked up used for about $25. > > The first edition is frequently found on eBay with a "Buy it now" > > price of $5 to $10. > > [...] > > IMO that book stinks for explaining SR. It presents the math but > doesn't provide the underlying reason for the math. Haha! And these pillocks wonder why I won't go out and spend a grand in money and 6 months of time, working through their extensive reading lists! ________________________________ I don't wonder why don't learn SR. I think its because of two reasons. Firstly, you are lazy. Secondly, you have such a low opinion of your own abilities that you think you won't understand it anyway, so you think its a waste of time. > Another thing I don't like is their constant repetition of how things > aren't what we expect because we aren't used to dealing with the > speeds involved. That's BS. Yes, I get a bit tired of that even on this newsgroup. ____________________________________ Pity you still don't seem to understand it.
From: Ste on 1 Mar 2010 04:46 On 1 Mar, 06:49, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:6d1b660b-6304-48b6-ab7f-5098e403bd5f(a)q23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On 1 Mar, 05:19, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > >>news:320d036e-35c6-4a2b-ba4b-1d8e3a9067ba(a)z11g2000yqz.googlegroups.com.... > > >> > On 28 Feb, 07:45, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> > >> > wrote: > >> >> I'm confused, because I thought we previously agreed that two > >> >> observers travelling along the same axis, maintaining equidistance > >> >> from both events at all times, would both report each event as > >> >> simultaneous with the other event. And moreover, if they not only both > >> >> maintained equidistance from both events, but if they maintained a > >> >> separation which was equal for both observers (which, if both > >> >> observers are moving relative to each other, requires either a > >> >> collision course between observers, or travel in diametrically > >> >> opposite directions), then there is no question that the signals are > >> >> received simultaneously. > > >> >> Illustration: > > >> >> E1 > > >> >> -------- > > >> >> E2 > > >> >> The line represents the line between events E1 and E2, along which the > >> >> observers may move while always reporting both events to be > >> >> simultaneous. > > >> >> _________________________________ > >> >> You still don't get it. You can say two events appeared to > >> >> simultaneous > >> >> or > >> >> "were" simultaneous in *some* inertial reference frame. That does > >> >> *not* > >> >> mean > >> >> they appeared simultaneous or "were" simultaneous in some *other* > >> >> reference > >> >> frame. The concept that is lost is "absolute simultaneity", not > >> >> "simultaneity within a particular reference frame". > > >> > But clearly if the two *observers* are moving relative to each other, > >> > then this is the definitive proof that events can be simultaneous when > >> > measured from more than one reference frame. > > >> No .. it isn't. Do you know what an 'event' is? > > >> > And in some > >> > circumstances, the simultaneity also aquires an "absolute" character, > > >> Nope > > >> > in that the events would be observed to be simultaneous if the two > >> > observers were able to synchronise their clocks by a form of > >> > instantaneous communication. > > >> Clocks that are wrong can show any time you want. But differently moving > >> observers will always read a different difference in time on a given pair > >> of > >> separated clocks. > > > No they won't Inertial. I suggest you get out a paper and pencil, and > > do some working out. > > OK .. as long as they are separated in the direction of relative motion > between any given pair of observers. And I didn't even need a paper and pencil, and I don't even understand Minkowski spacetime. I'll bet that really pisses you off! ;)
From: Ste on 1 Mar 2010 04:59
On 1 Mar, 06:48, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > but in my scenario dealing with simply two specific > > events, both are simultaneous in both frames. > > Yes .. it is possible to have some events simultaneous in multiple frames.. > > But that does not make simultaneity universal in any sense, as other pairs > of events that are simultaneous in on of those frames is not simultaneous in > another. Agreed. But what it does prove is that the lack of simultaneity is due to propagation delays. The effect you're describing is exactly the same for sound, and involves nothing physically profound. > So regarding "what is simultaneous in one frame is not simultaneous in > another" meaning "the set of all pairs of simultaneous events in one frame > is NOT identical to the set of pairs of simultaneous events in another > frame" is correct. > > THAT is the relevant point. I'm not sure what the point is. My point is that the assertion that "no two events that are simultaneous in one frame can be simultaneous in another" is falsified. Yet that is precisely the assertion that has been made on a number of occasions now, liberally salted with allegations that I'm "an idiot", "need to learn physics", "don't know anything", etc. Now we see the boot is on the foot. |