A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: BURT on 8 Mar 2010 14:34 On Mar 7, 6:08 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Mar 7, 4:55 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 6, 11:04 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > >news:690819be-c554-4e0b-9eec-c688f6a03827(a)d27g2000yqf.googlegroups.com.... > > > > > On Mar 4, 8:27 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On Mar 4, 10:24 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > >> > On 4 Mar, 15:54, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >> > > On Mar 4, 1:03 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >> > > > > > 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 also FUNDAMENTALLY distinguishes science from religion.. > > > >> > > > > Thanks. > > > > >> > > > Agreed, but then religion in general never claimed to be science, > > > > >> > > Agreed! And so science is not a religion in the same fashion. > > > > >> > No, but neither did one religion ever claim to be the other. > > > > >> > > > and > > > >> > > > traditional religion is almost immediately identifiable by its > > > >> > > > supernaturalism. Creationism is different in that it actually > > > >> > > > claims > > > >> > > > to be scientific in some essential respects. > > > > >> > > Ah, yes, but as has been demonstrated even to layfolk (Dover v > > > >> > > Kitsmiller), this is an unsupportable claim. > > > > >> > I agree. I'm glad you brought up that case. I just reviewed the > > > >> > judgment quickly, and apparently the court agrees that the defining > > > >> > essence of science is naturalism. > > > > >> Gee, I didn't read that into the judgment at all. > > > > > ----------------- > > > > what is all that nonstop spamming about > > > > 'A constant speed of light ' !!! > > > > What spamming? > > > > > who is the crook behind it ??!! > > > > Its called nature- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > Light speed flow is a constant in empty space. Aether for light is its > > fastest flow. Light's clock is therefore the fastest. > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Light and matter are whole time forms. The dark push from light center > is C slowed by the electric bond energy's field. Light and electric > matter interact together through their electric energies. Matter's > electric energy slows light. > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - The gravity for the time center for light creates a slow c push and matters electrinc field slow light below this C. Mitch Raemsch
From: PD on 8 Mar 2010 14:40 On Mar 7, 9:00 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > Occam's razor wipes out aether as being required for physics. If it exists, > it makes no difference to how we measure reality. This will lead to bickering over Occam's razor, as those who favor the aether say that, because it is harder for people to believe in 4D spacetime than in 3D space + time, then Occam's razor favors aether theory. Occam provided a *rule of thumb*. Abuse of a rule of thumb is too easy to take it more seriously than that.
From: PD on 8 Mar 2010 14:46 On Mar 7, 11:11 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message > > news:4618fc10-f129-4474-b8c4-3eb3466dc5ab(a)t41g2000yqt.googlegroups.com... > > > On Mar 7, 9:00 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > >> I agree .. the existence of an aether is not falsifiable. Unless perhaps > >> some GR predictions (say)would be incompatible with an aether (but > >> compatible with SR). I'm certainly not aware of any test that would > >> allow > >> one to test for its presence or not. > > > I beg to differ on the matter of falsifiability, at least in > > principle. > > OK .. so you know how to falsify the hypothesis that aether exists? > > > The classical luminiferous aether that we are most familiar with > > is a hypothetical medium that allows the transmission of > > electromagnetic disturbances through otherwise empty space. > > Hypothetical, but not (as yet) falsifiable > > > But > > there are other forces besides electromagnetic: There are the > > strong, weak, and gravitational forces. > > > These other forces are so completely different in properties from > > electromagnetic forces, that they -MUST- be transmitted via their > > own aethers. > > Why not the same aether? Why does there need to be ANY aethers? How does > this make the ( luminiferous ) aether falsifiable .. let alone the others > (if any) ? > > > It is absurd to imagine that a single aether could > > be responsible for transmission of forces of such diverse > > characteristics. > > Why absurd? No more absurd than the notion of an aether for EMR? > > > Therefore, besides the luminiferous aether, > > there must exist strong, weak, and gravitational aethers. > > You simply assert that. There is no particular reason to do so. It is not > a prediction of LET. That's correct. LET makes no statement whatsoever about strong, weak, and gravitational forces. However, it is right to expect that if LET *is* correct in its application to the electromagnetic force, then it *should* be applicable in the case of the other forces. You can take a more limited stance and says that the Lorentz covariance of the electromagnetic force is explained by LET, and the Lorentz covariance of the other forces is completely unexplained. However, SR provides a model that DOES explain the Lorentz covariance of all four forces, and in this sense it wins by broadness of application. You would even take the stance that Lorentz covariance of the electromagnetic force is explained by LET, and the Lorentz covariance of the other forces is explained by special relativity. But this would be an obviously obstinate stance. > > > These diverse aethers would be expected to differ from each other > > in their mechanical properties, > > What mechanical properties does aether have? > > > and therefore the speed at which > > waves propagate through them must differ. > > Why? > > > Likewise, these diverse aethers should couple with matter > > differently. In other words, there is no reason that a strong > > aether wind, weak aether wind, or gravitational aether wind > > should induce "length contraction" in the same way that a flowing > > luminiferous aether induces length contraction in material > > substances. > > Or even why it ANY aether should induce object compressions and process > slowing due to movement through it > > > ================================================================= > > A fundamental prediction of aether theories must therefore be > > that gravitational waves, electromagnetic waves, strong waves, > > and weak waves all propagate at different constant speeds. > > No .. that does not follow > > > For > > even two of these forces to share the same speed of transmission > > would constitute a coincidence so unlikely as to beggar the > > imagination. > > Not really. > > > Furthermore, only the luminiferous aether should be undetectable > > due to the length and time distortion effects otherwise known as > > the Lorentz transformations. > > We only need one aether to do that. That is enough to make all aethers (if > any) undetectable (if they have the same propagation speed). > > > The measured speed of transmission > > of the other forces should exhibit measurable anisotropies in > > different directions due to the Earth's motions through space. > > You are making your own assertions about what you think is the case > falsifiable. Your assumptions can be false and LET still valid. > > So we're back at square one. > > > ================================================================= > > Special relativity, however, makes a different prediction than > > aether theories. Electromagnetic waves, gravitational waves, and > > strong waves should all travel at a common speed c, while the > > weak force should not propagate at any constant speed. > > ================================================================= > > > Jerry > >
From: Ste on 8 Mar 2010 14:57 On 8 Mar, 19:12, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 8, 8:42 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 4 Mar, 18:27, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 4, 10:24 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On 4 Mar, 15:54, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mar 4, 1:03 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > 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 also FUNDAMENTALLY distinguishes science from religion. Thanks. > > > > > > > Agreed, but then religion in general never claimed to be science, > > > > > > Agreed! And so science is not a religion in the same fashion. > > > > > No, but neither did one religion ever claim to be the other. > > > > > > > and > > > > > > traditional religion is almost immediately identifiable by its > > > > > > supernaturalism. Creationism is different in that it actually claims > > > > > > to be scientific in some essential respects. > > > > > > Ah, yes, but as has been demonstrated even to layfolk (Dover v > > > > > Kitsmiller), this is an unsupportable claim. > > > > > I agree. I'm glad you brought up that case. I just reviewed the > > > > judgment quickly, and apparently the court agrees that the defining > > > > essence of science is naturalism. > > > > Gee, I didn't read that into the judgment at all. > > > Then what did you read into it? > > I didn't have to read into it. Take a look at page 64 of the 139-page > decision: > ======================================================= > 4. Whether ID is Science > > After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find > that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court > takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three > different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a > determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the > centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting > supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, > central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism > that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) IDs negative > attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. As > we will discuss in more detail below, it is additionally important to > note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific > community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it > been the subject of testing and research. Expert testimony reveals > that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, > science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain > natural phenomena. (9:19-22 (Haught); 5:25-29 (Pennock); 1:62 > (Miller)). This revolution entailed the rejection of the appeal to > authority, and by extension, revelation, in favor of empirical > evidence. (5:28 (Pennock)). Since that time period, science has been a > discipline in which testability, rather than any ecclesiastical > authority or philosophical coherence, has been the measure of a > scientific ideas worth. (9:21-22 (Haught); 1:63 (Miller)). In > deliberately omitting theological or ultimate explanations for the > existence or characteristics of the natural world, science does not > consider issues of meaning and purpose in the world. (9:21 > (Haught); 1:64, 87 (Miller)). While supernatural explanations may be > important and have merit, they are not part of science. (3:103 > (Miller); 9:19-20 (Haught)). This self-imposed convention of science, > which limits inquiry to testable, natural explanations about the > natural world, is referred to by philosophers as methodological > naturalism and is sometimes known as the scientific method. > ============================================ > You'll note the emphasis on "testability, rather than any ... > philosophical coherence" which provides a scientific idea's worth. > Note also (emph. mine) "This self-imposed CONVENTION of science, which > limits inquiry to TESTABLE, natural (NOT SUPERNATURAL) explanations > about the natural world, is referred to by philosophers as > 'methodological naturalism' and is sometimes known as the scientific > method." > > Creationism (and it was also judged that Intelligent Design is thinly > disguised creationism) is simply not science, because it fails on the > metric of testability, which is an indispensable component of the > scientific method which in turn is indispensable to science. > > It seems so plainly written to me. Then you are less accustomed to reading judgments than I am. It mentions "natural" and "naturalism" 6 times in total, and mentions the word "testable" only twice (and without necessarily relating "testability" to "falsificationism"). The same is true of the whole judgment - it repeatedly refers contrasts the supernaturalism of creationism (or specifically ID), with the naturalism of science. I'm not saying one judgment of the court is the final word on the matter, but it was your reference and certainly the main emphasis is on the supernatural versus the natural, not specifically the untestable versus testable (or any specific brand of testability). Come on Paul, if this reference was supposed to support your contention that falsificationism as opposed to naturalism defined science, then it wasn't fit for purpose.
From: Ste on 8 Mar 2010 15:01
On 8 Mar, 19:14, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 6, 5:58 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > Ste: This is exactly what I was telling you earlier, that people will > > > be less inclined to teach things on your terms, using your language > > > and indulging your lack of skills, and will advise you that it is more > > > efficient in the long run to teach after you've acquired some relevant > > > skills and vocabulary. You didn't seem to think this was the case, and > > > here you have others telling you the same thing. Reconsider? > > > As I say Paul, the words "total acceleration" I think should have > > given people some clue as to the meaning - and indeed the more > > intelligent amongst us here did recognise the meaning, and suggested > > an alternative word. That said, in this case I'm happy to use an > > alternative formulation like "impulse", because I can see that it will > > add further precision to my meanings in future. > > > It's quite different from the disputes that arose over words like > > "physical" and "material", where each side seems to battle childishly > > over whose idiosyncratic understanding of the word will prevail, when > > the time could be better used getting on with the substantive argument. > > Excellent. Then since you see the value of using a precisely defined > term like "impulse", then I'm sure you'll have no problem using the > precisely defined meanings of "physical" and "material" as they are > understood in science. But they aren't precisely defined words. Anyway I don't want to rake over that again. |