A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: BURT on 3 Mar 2010 01:56 On Mar 2, 10:52 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote in message > > news:4b8e0340$0$8844$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > > > > > > > > > "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message > >news:4b8e0192$0$11181$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... > > >> "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote in message > >>news:4b8dfce0$0$8766$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > > >>> "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message > >>>news:4b8df931$0$26498$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... > > >>>>>> I tried to give you an informal, non-mathematical description of why > >>>>>> Maxwell's eqns produce a speed of light that is constant in all > >>>>>> reference > >>>>>> frames, but you said you didn't understand. > > >>>>>> If you would like to visit a webpage or buy a book on Maxwell's eqns, > >>>>>> I > >>>>>> would be happy to answer any questions that you have about them that > >>>>>> you > >>>>>> don't understand. Please provide the exact quote in context of > >>>>>> whatever it > >>>>>> is that isn't clear, and I will see what I can do to help. > > >>>>> Just answer the question: > >>>>>http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/QUESTION.htm > > >>>> You mean this question: > > >>>> Why did Einstein say > >>>> the speed of light from A to B is c-v, > >>>> the speed of light from B to A is c+v, > >>>> the "time" each way is the same? > > >>>> The answer is that he didn't say that. Unless, of course, you can > >>>> provide a reference to where he did say it? Which of course you can't, > >>>> that is the complete opposite of what SR says, and Einstein would never > >>>> has said something that stupid. It looks like something that you would > >>>> have said, and then tried to pretend it was something Einstein said. > >>>> You may have said it, but Einstein certainly didn't. > > >>> You see .. as soon as Androcles sees a (c-v) or (c+v) *anywhere* in > >>> *any* equation, he starts getting excited and thinks it is claiming that > >>> the speed of light is c-v or c+v. > > >>> That's what he thinks when he sees the equation (that is WAY too > >>> complicated for his poor excuse for a brain)... > > >>> 1/2 [ Tau(0,0,0,0) + Tau(0,0,0,(x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))) ] = > >>> Tau(x',0,0,(x'/(c-v))) > > >> That cannot be the case: > > > Umm . .why not? > > >> 1. That was not what his quote says, its completely different. > > > Whose quote? > > The quote on his web page. > > > > >> 2. This equation as far as I know was not written by Einstein. > > > Well .. I typed it .. but it is as from Einstein's 1905 paper (unless I > > mistyped something) > > Sorry, I missed it, searched for tau which doesn't appear, but the symbol > does. I stand corrected. > > >> If you claim "a" was said by "b", you cannot offer as evidence something > >> completely different said by a completely different person. > > > Eh? > > Your quote bears no resemblance to the "quote" that Androcles provided. In > fact, Einstein did not say what Androcles claims he did. > > Unless, of course, Androcles can produce the source for his quote. > > > > >> I am sure even Androcles would know this. > > >> Doubtless he will post where Einstein said what he claimed he said. > > >> That was a joke, BTW.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - The train felt weight when beginning to move therefore it accelerated while the station did not. Creation of motion is detectable. Mitch Raemsch
From: Peter Webb on 3 Mar 2010 01:55 > > Assuming that SR is wrong is a stupid starting place for somebody with > > your > > obviously modest understanding of physics. > > There is a difference between requesting clarification/derivation and > saying something is wrong. I wrote, "Actually when I personally > started studying relativity I did not start by believing it was > false. I assumed that since so many great men of > science considered it to be correct that it probably was. But at the > same time I expected a clear, understandable explaination of how it > works. Never got one. And the more people insisted that it's just > the way nature works, the more it drove me away." > > Nowhere in there did I say that I assumed SR to be wrong. What quite > often happens though is that when someone asks a question they are > jumped on for not accepting SR as gospel without question. After all, > look at all the much smarter people that have accepted it ;) > > _______________________________ > OK, your position is that SR is correct, but you don't understand it? Nope. I didn't understand it at one time, but that was some time ago. How long have you had problems reading? ______________________ I don't. Just to clarify your position: 1. You agree SR is correct. 2. You feel you understand why it is correct. Jolly good, and three cheers for you!
From: Inertial on 3 Mar 2010 03:15 "Peter Webb" <webbfamily(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:4b8e0748$0$1785$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... > > "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote in message > news:4b8e0340$0$8844$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... >> >> "Peter Webb" <webbfamily(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message >> news:4b8e0192$0$11181$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... >>> >>> "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote in message >>> news:4b8dfce0$0$8766$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... >>>> >>>> "Peter Webb" <webbfamily(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message >>>> news:4b8df931$0$26498$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> I tried to give you an informal, non-mathematical description of why >>>>>>> Maxwell's eqns produce a speed of light that is constant in all >>>>>>> reference >>>>>>> frames, but you said you didn't understand. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If you would like to visit a webpage or buy a book on Maxwell's >>>>>>> eqns, I >>>>>>> would be happy to answer any questions that you have about them that >>>>>>> you >>>>>>> don't understand. Please provide the exact quote in context of >>>>>>> whatever it >>>>>>> is that isn't clear, and I will see what I can do to help. >>>>>> >>>>>> Just answer the question: >>>>>> http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/QUESTION.htm >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> You mean this question: >>>>> >>>>> Why did Einstein say >>>>> the speed of light from A to B is c-v, >>>>> the speed of light from B to A is c+v, >>>>> the "time" each way is the same? >>>>> >>>>> The answer is that he didn't say that. Unless, of course, you can >>>>> provide a reference to where he did say it? Which of course you can't, >>>>> that is the complete opposite of what SR says, and Einstein would >>>>> never has said something that stupid. It looks like something that you >>>>> would have said, and then tried to pretend it was something Einstein >>>>> said. You may have said it, but Einstein certainly didn't. >>>>> >>>> >>>> You see .. as soon as Androcles sees a (c-v) or (c+v) *anywhere* in >>>> *any* equation, he starts getting excited and thinks it is claiming >>>> that the speed of light is c-v or c+v. >>>> >>>> That's what he thinks when he sees the equation (that is WAY too >>>> complicated for his poor excuse for a brain)... >>>> >>>> 1/2 [ Tau(0,0,0,0) + Tau(0,0,0,(x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))) ] = >>>> Tau(x',0,0,(x'/(c-v))) >>>> >>> >>> That cannot be the case: >> >> Umm . .why not? >> >>> 1. That was not what his quote says, its completely different. >> >> Whose quote? > > > The quote on his web page. He does indeed quote that formula on his web page. And that formula is the basis for him claiming that Einstein says "the speed of light from A to B is c-v, the speed of light from B to A is c+v," >>> 2. This equation as far as I know was not written by Einstein. >> >> Well .. I typed it .. but it is as from Einstein's 1905 paper (unless I >> mistyped something) >> > > Sorry, I missed it, searched for tau which doesn't appear, but the symbol > does. I stand corrected. Apology accepted >>> If you claim "a" was said by "b", you cannot offer as evidence something >>> completely different said by a completely different person. >> >> Eh? >> > > Your quote bears no resemblance to the "quote" that Androcles provided. I never said it was. > In fact, Einstein did not say what Androcles claims he did. I know that. he did however write the formula I reproduced (as best one can in ASCII text). > Unless, of course, Androcles can produce the source for his quote. He does .. the equation that I mentioned above from his page (which is from Einstein's paper). THAT is his source for claiming "the speed of light from A to B is c-v, the speed of light from B to A is c+v," Yes .. it is stupid. But we are talking about Androcles. >>> I am sure even Androcles would know this. >>> >>> Doubtless he will post where Einstein said what he claimed he said. >>> >>> That was a joke, BTW. >> >> >
From: Ste on 3 Mar 2010 04:05 On 2 Mar, 18:37, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 2, 11:23 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > The point about emphasising the similarities between science and > > religion is to combat some of the more absolute assertions about the > > nature and value of science. In reality, what you really have is two > > religions at war, where 99% can be the same and yet both insist that > > the remaining 1% difference is a fundamental difference. > > Gee, I happen to think that the scientific method on one side, and the > belief in a supernatural entity on the other, are more than "1%" > insignificant differences. Religious believers always do insist this. Many of the major religions of the world share in common a God, much of their scripture, and most of their prophets, and yet all insist that the remaining differences are fundamental. Indeed, if you go to somewhere like Afghanistan, to the outside eye the people apparently share a common religion, and yet the mere difference of emphasis on some small aspects of scripture are enough for the proponents of differing interpretations to consider their differences fundamental. > > And certainly, one can discuss the differences between science and > > religion, and its significance, but the debate certainly *cannot* be > > conducted in terms of sayng that science invariably produces more > > truth, or is more functional, or is more objective, or involves less > > faith at its core. > > Who said that science invariably produces more truth, or is more > functional, or is more objective? I certainly have never told you > that. You have certainly said that it is more functional - perhaps in a slightly different way of saying it's "useful". And of course, I'm not just addressing the specific things that you've said, but instead setting out my case in a more general way. Science is, after all, not just you. > > > > I personally think it's more convenient to compare and contrast, > > > > rather than trying to establish a definition for either religion or > > > > science. Indeed, attempts to establish a consistent definition of > > > > science, by men better than me, have time and again died a thousand > > > > deaths. > > > > By that approach, one could easily be convinced that cows are > > > reptiles, no? > > > Indeed. But if people are determined to focus on the differences, the > > question is why. > > To decide if a cow is a reptile, which I believe was the question at > hand. No, I'm sorry, it was to decide if science is a religion. Same > thing, more or less. I think I missed your point. > > If you want cow's milk to drink, then it's convenient > > to distinguish between cows and reptiles. But people are less clear > > about why they want science and not traditional religion. > > Who said people want science and not traditional religion? I said that.
From: Ste on 3 Mar 2010 04:22
On 2 Mar, 18:38, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 2, 11:36 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > And if science is not likely to deliver the goods, then it's useful to > > > > know ahead of time. > > > > I would judge that on performance. If someone is the world record > > > holder in the 100 m dash, and you ask the question how it is that the > > > record holder trained to be the fastest, and you were not convinced > > > that those methodologies were sound or were guaranteed to produce a > > > world-class sprinter, there is still the fact that he is the world- > > > record holder. > > > Yes, but it is relevant to determine whether he is the record-holder > > because of his naturally strong physique, or whether it is the > > training regime, or indeed whether it is the various expensive snake- > > oil supplements and drugs that he has been given. > > Good. Then you tell ME why science has a track record of studying the > aspects of nature that it does in a successful way. Well that is what we're discussing. I think science is so successful because it has naturalistic axioms. It is a naturalistic faith. The defining characteristic of science is not verificationism, or falsificationism, or any of what is traditionally considered to demarcate science, but the fact that it holds axiomatically that (which is to say, its followers have faith that) the world is wholly orderly, consistent, and basically mechanistic, and that the principles by which the world operates can be discovered by humans. This is what fundamentally sets apart things like creationism from science. Whatever other hoops creationism manages to jump through, it will never jump through the hoop of naturalism, and that is what *fundamentally* sets it apart from science. And a naturalistic approach is, in fact, the only common thread that links together all of what is, and has been, considered science. |