A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Ste on 3 Mar 2010 05:40 On 3 Mar, 02:15, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > Next, what is the fundamental cause (confining ourselves to SR) of > this non-simultaneity? As I say, as far as I can tell, it's a simple > function of the finite speed of propagation. But I'm told that it > isn't, so I need to know on what grounds a simple propagation > explanation does not suffice. > > ________________________________ > Hey! You asked a question about SR ! Far out! > > The ultimate reason (or, more accurately "an" ultimate reason) is that the > speed of light is the same in all inertial reference frames, and does not > depend on the speeds of two different observers. This makes the propagation > delay a function of the frame of reference you pick, and not a function of > the underlying dynamics. I won't pretend to understand how this is supposedly not a function of the speed of propagation.
From: Ste on 3 Mar 2010 05:49 On 3 Mar, 02:41, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message > > news:4b8dc34d$0$5420$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... > > > > > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > >news:c122829f-64e2-4568-a3c8-56796b4c6895(a)g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com.... > > [snip for brevity] > > >> I have only "criticised" science in the sense of objecting to the > >> patent inaccuracies, or even mendacities, that are perpetuated by some > >> who claim to follow science. > > > That is not true. That is not the only criticism, and in fact you have > > never made that objection before. What are the patent inaccuracies and > > mendacities that you refer to, and what scientists did these? > > I can tell you now what the example will be. The claim that events that are > simultaneous in one frame are not simultaneous in other frames. Actually I never thought to mention that. I was thinking more about the philosophical side, for example about followers of science wrongly claim that falsificationism characterises good science (a bit like how Christians claim the Bible characterises the practice of their religion). Of course the examples are myriad, but it's hardly worth multiplying exponentially the number of issues in dispute. > Of course, > it is possible to choose particular pairs of events and particular pairs of > frames such that those particular events are simultaneous in both those > particular frames. However, the set of simultaneous events in one frame is > NOT the same as the set of simultaneous events in any other (non-co-moving) > frame, which is clearly the intent of the original statement. STE seems to > ignore that, and instead gloats over the fact that he showed a pair of > events that were simultaneous it two different frames .. and that is his > justification for criticizing all of science and all of those putting > forward scientific arguments. Its rather pathetic really. I'm not gloating because some here were proved wrong. I'm gloating because some people so emphatically charged me with "idiocy" and "ignorance", "a slave to my intuitions", etc.
From: Ste on 3 Mar 2010 05:51 On 3 Mar, 02:44, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > When lightening strikes the train moves. When lightning strikes the braindead on this newsgroup move.
From: Ste on 3 Mar 2010 05:57 On 3 Mar, 02:49, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > I think perhaps his phrasing was clumsy. I think he *MEANT* to say was: > > == > No. Evolution's acceptance is not for the sole reason that it passed the > tests of falsifiability(there are other reasons). Indeed, that it passed > the tests of falsifiability is not one of the reasons it is accepted at > all). > == > > It still is an odd thing to say. What I meant to say was that the question of whether evolution is falsifiable is a complete red herring. Whether or not it is falsifiable, and whether or not we agree that it is falsifiable, has absolutely no bearing on the reasons for the acceptance of evolution. Indeed, the theory of evolution was conceived long before falsificationism was ever articulated by Popper, and evolution remains long after falsificationism has been discarded by philosophers of science as a means of demarcation.
From: Inertial on 3 Mar 2010 06:53
"Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:2d06ce29-1ccd-46a8-a5bf-5ebd4c1c3bef(a)g19g2000yqe.googlegroups.com... > On 3 Mar, 02:41, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message >> >> news:4b8dc34d$0$5420$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... >> >> >> >> > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >news:c122829f-64e2-4568-a3c8-56796b4c6895(a)g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com... >> >> [snip for brevity] >> >> >> I have only "criticised" science in the sense of objecting to the >> >> patent inaccuracies, or even mendacities, that are perpetuated by some >> >> who claim to follow science. >> >> > That is not true. That is not the only criticism, and in fact you have >> > never made that objection before. What are the patent inaccuracies and >> > mendacities that you refer to, and what scientists did these? >> >> I can tell you now what the example will be. The claim that events that >> are >> simultaneous in one frame are not simultaneous in other frames. > > Actually I never thought to mention that. I was thinking more about > the philosophical side, for example about followers of science wrongly > claim that falsificationism characterises good science It is what makes an hypothesis a candidate for being a candidate for a scientific theory. If it is not falsifiable that means it cannot be tested and possibly refuted. Of course, some ideas are often called 'theories' when they are still really conjectures of hypotheses, and are in the process of being developed into theories. There is more to science than having falsifiable hypothesis .. but that is still critical to it. > (a bit like how > Christians claim the Bible characterises the practice of their > religion). They don't .. not if they know what they are saying. They may claim that concepts and principles that they chose to find in the bible are the basis for how they practice their religion .. but Christian religious practice (which varies considerably from denomination to denomination) is certainly never solely based on the bible. Indeed, much of what is practiced has no valid biblical basis, but is rather cultural and historical traditions. However, as with most religions, there are a set of beliefs that one who is to be a member of a religion must hold to be true, whether or not there is any evidence or proof of those beliefs. > Of course the examples are myriad, but it's hardly worth > multiplying exponentially the number of issues in dispute. > > > >> Of course, >> it is possible to choose particular pairs of events and particular pairs >> of >> frames such that those particular events are simultaneous in both those >> particular frames. However, the set of simultaneous events in one frame >> is >> NOT the same as the set of simultaneous events in any other >> (non-co-moving) >> frame, which is clearly the intent of the original statement. STE seems >> to >> ignore that, and instead gloats over the fact that he showed a pair of >> events that were simultaneous it two different frames .. and that is his >> justification for criticizing all of science and all of those putting >> forward scientific arguments. Its rather pathetic really. > > I'm not gloating because some here were proved wrong. Not so much wrong, but the way they expressed what SR says was poor > I'm gloating > because some people so emphatically charged me with "idiocy" and > "ignorance", "a slave to my intuitions", etc. I don't see that you've yet proven otherwise. |