A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Ste on 1 Mar 2010 20:56 On 1 Mar, 23:41, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > [snip for brevity] > > > But for some reason everyone, including you apparently[1] but > > certainly not limited to just you, seemed to go back to talking about > > "what is simultaneous in one frame is not simultaneous in another", > > Which is generally the case. It is not "generally" the case. It is a case that is inherently contingent on the direction of movement. > > when in fact the veracity of that statement is contingent on the > > circumstances, and there are in fact cases (i.e. the one above) where > > what is simultaneous in one frame *is* simultaneous in another. It is > > that contingency that allows reconciliation with my intuitions. > > That doesn't alter the fact that there are an infinite number of cases where > things simultaneous in one frame are not simultaneous in another. That you > can find some that ARE, does not alter that. But there are also an "infinite" number of cases where things simultaneous in one frame *are* simultaneous in another. This is not an exception to the rule in SR, but a fundamental manifestation of the rule. > If you then choose to ignore all the cases where simultaneity is NOT > absolute simply to satisfy your intuition, then you are putting on blinkers > on your understanding. No. My intuition *predicts* contingent non-simultaneity. What couldn't be reconciled was non-contingent non-simultaneity.
From: Inertial on 1 Mar 2010 21:10 "Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:d9a640f2-3fde-4ef2-9bca-47bc43a6597d(a)b30g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > On 1 Mar, 23:41, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> [snip for brevity] >> >> > But for some reason everyone, including you apparently[1] but >> > certainly not limited to just you, seemed to go back to talking about >> > "what is simultaneous in one frame is not simultaneous in another", >> >> Which is generally the case. > > It is not "generally" the case. Yes .. it is. > It is a case that is inherently > contingent on the direction of movement. Only in the case when the spatial separation is perpendicular to the direction of movement does the case degenerate to being simultaneous in both frames. GENERALLY, in the infinitely many more cases where the spatial separation is not perpendicular to the motion, simultaneity in one does not mean simultaneity in the other. In GENERAL one cannot say that events simultaneous in one frame will be simultaneous in another. Though there are specific cases where they are. >> > when in fact the veracity of that statement is contingent on the >> > circumstances, and there are in fact cases (i.e. the one above) where >> > what is simultaneous in one frame *is* simultaneous in another. It is >> > that contingency that allows reconciliation with my intuitions. >> >> That doesn't alter the fact that there are an infinite number of cases >> where >> things simultaneous in one frame are not simultaneous in another. That >> you >> can find some that ARE, does not alter that. > > But there are also an "infinite" number of cases where things > simultaneous in one frame *are* simultaneous in another. Infinitely fewer though > This is not > an exception to the rule in SR, Noone said it was. The rule was simply stated to you too generally, or at least interpreted that way. Simultaneity of events in one frame does not guarantee simultaneity of events in other frames. This is the main issue here .. not whether or not the wording you read was precise enough .. this is NOT a text book on physics .. its a newsgroup > but a fundamental manifestation of the > rule. A rule you still seem confused about >> If you then choose to ignore all the cases where simultaneity is NOT >> absolute simply to satisfy your intuition, then you are putting on >> blinkers >> on your understanding. > > No. My intuition *predicts* contingent non-simultaneity. What couldn't > be reconciled was non-contingent non-simultaneity. There is a particular cases where the difference in simultaneity degenerates to zero. That is all. However, you still are confused about it, as you have claimed the differences in simultaneity are only due to propagation delays. This is incorrect.
From: Inertial on 1 Mar 2010 21:12 "Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:73a88056-681e-46dc-9784-053426947ac8(a)z35g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > On 1 Mar, 16:12, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Feb 28, 2:37 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> > On 27 Feb, 16:10, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > On Feb 26, 7:15 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > > On 26 Feb, 18:14, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > > > On Feb 25, 10:47 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > > > You have then questioned why you should adopt the scientific >> > > > > metric >> > > > > for "working". And the answer is, you don't have to. It's just >> > > > > that >> > > > > when you decline, you're no longer doing science. >> >> > > > But this lends credibility to my assertion in the first place, >> > > > which >> > > > is that science is a religion. >> >> > > No more than the practice of law, medicine, music, architecture, or >> > > plumbing, as we've discussed. >> >> > Practitioners of law and medicine are undoubtedly ideological. >> >> And so law is a religion? >> And medicine is a religion? >> Not in my understanding of the word religion. > > To go back to my original formulation of this issue, the question is > whether science, scientists, and adherents of science more generally, > have the same hallmarks as traditional religions, theologians, and > religious believers more generally. These are not questions of the > supposed scientific method, but of the psychology and sociology of how > science is actually practiced. In the same way that the question of > how Christianity has been in fact practiced is not determined by > reference to the Bible. > > To start asking questions like "is law a religion" or "is medicine a > religion" is like asking whether canon law "was a religion", or > whether faith healers "are a religion", and of course the answer is > no. Canon law is informed by religious belief, and faith healers are > religious, but neither of them alone comprise "a religion". > > Also, my point here is not to get into a long (and surely fruitless) > debate of arguing how exactly religion is defined. My point is that, > from a social and psychological perspective, an adherence to science > cannot be distinguished from religious belief in any meaningful and > significant way, That claim is incorrect. Adherence to religion is based substantially (and at its core) on faith (belief without proof). Adherence to science is not.
From: Peter Webb on 1 Mar 2010 22:41 "Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:315b6902-60c5-42c5-9e6d-1b74ea2d1dc7(a)y11g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... > On 1 Mar, 13:43, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> > wrote: >> >> 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. >> >> > Guffaw! >> >> OK, you tell us. >> >> It wouldn't cost you a "grand in money" as you said above. > > It probably would by time I'd forgone other profitable uses of my > time, reading reams of nonsense that I'd paid good money for, and end > up back here asking the same questions. If you don't think you would understand it without seeking constant help from this group, try a simpler book. You may note my second reason that you don't want to do it, that you are scared you won't understand it and its a hence a waste of time to try. You have now confirmed this is a reason.
From: Peter Webb on 2 Mar 2010 03:45
"Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:54e7437a-61b1-4429-a51b-3090568588f2(a)33g2000yqj.googlegroups.com... On 1 Mar, 17:14, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 1, 8:51 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> > wrote: > > > > > > > >> > Stop making me laugh Peter. I have surely forgotten more about > > >> > evolution than you'll ever know, because you typify arrogance and > > >> > closed-mindedness. > > > >> I laughed when you first said what you thought evolution was about. > > > >> You said it explained the origon of life (amongst other things). > > > >> Evolution says nothing about that at all. > > > > Guffaw! "Evolution says nothing about the origin of life at all". I > > > wonder if Dirk van de Moortel would like that one for his "immortal > > > fumbles" page. > > > Interesting that you have forgotten more about evolution than I will > > ever > > know, because I can't actually recall Darwin's theory of evolution as > > saying > > anything at all about the origins of life. > > > What do you think it says about the origins of life, exactly? > > > (See. Like I said. You know even less about evolution than you do about > > SR.) > > Peter, here you go:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis=/= > evolution > > "In the natural sciences, abiogenesis (pronounced /eɪˌbaɪ.ɵˈdʒɛnɨsɪs/, > ay-BYE-oh-JEN-ə-siss) or biopoesis is the theory of how life on Earth > could have arisen from inanimate matter. It should not be confused > with evolution,. . ." Well I'm not sure I'd rely on Wikipedia for a contentious subject like this, but in any event we needn't talk specifically about how the basic DNA first developed. If we simply talk of the diversity of life on Earth, evolution is still unfalsifiable, because it makes no definite predictions about what you will see. Indeed it does not describe the characteristics of any common ancestor, and nor does it predict the evolution of any particular animal with any particular traits. _________________________________ So, just to confirm, despite (apparently) "having forgotten more about evolution than I will ever know", when you said evolution explained the origins of life, you were in fact completely wrong, demonstrating that you don't even know what evolution is about? And, again just to confirm, as you have no idea of what evolution is even the study of, you therefore do in fact know even less about evolution than you do about SR? |