A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Jerry on 8 Mar 2010 17:06 On Mar 8, 1:46 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > That's correct. LET makes no statement whatsoever about strong, weak, > and gravitational forces. Precisely. Strong and weak forces were unknown in 1904. > 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. Why? Even Lorentz never claimed that that the LET aether might be applicable to gravitation. Instead, he studied various alternative aethers, including a model similar to that of Le Sage, ultimately rejecting his efforts as unsatisfactory. If one wishes to claim that a single aether acts as the propagating medium for all four forces, that necessarily leads to the question of how these forces manage to show such distinct properties. The fact is, no plausible unified aether theory exists. There is no reason whatsoever for aether theories to predict a common speed of propagation for any of the fundamental 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. Yes. > 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. Jerry
From: BURT on 8 Mar 2010 17:17 On Mar 8, 2:06 pm, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > On Mar 8, 1:46 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > That's correct. LET makes no statement whatsoever about strong, weak, > > and gravitational forces. > > Precisely. Strong and weak forces were unknown in 1904. > > > 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. > > Why? > > Even Lorentz never claimed that that the LET aether might be > applicable to gravitation. Instead, he studied various > alternative aethers, including a model similar to that of Le > Sage, ultimately rejecting his efforts as unsatisfactory. > > If one wishes to claim that a single aether acts as the > propagating medium for all four forces, that necessarily leads > to the question of how these forces manage to show such distinct > properties. > > The fact is, no plausible unified aether theory exists. There is > no reason whatsoever for aether theories to predict a common > speed of propagation for any of the fundamental 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. > > Yes. > > > 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. > > Jerry Increase your flow to near light speed. Shine a flashlight in same direction and its light fill flow ahead of you only by a small speed. Mitch Raemsch
From: Ste on 8 Mar 2010 17:27 On 8 Mar, 21:18, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:8e68d36d-64b0-41ab-92c3-2b17937f4b3b(a)19g2000yqu.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > 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. > > Yes .. lets just ignore anything that shows you did something wrong. It's more a case of abiding by my own rule, of not arguing about words. I've already explained my position, I make no concession, and there's nothing more for me to say on the subject.
From: PD on 8 Mar 2010 17:33 On Mar 8, 4:06 pm, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > On Mar 8, 1:46 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > That's correct. LET makes no statement whatsoever about strong, weak, > > and gravitational forces. > > Precisely. Strong and weak forces were unknown in 1904. > > > 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. > > Why? Because the other forces are just as manifestly covariant as electromagnetism. See below. > > Even Lorentz never claimed that that the LET aether might be > applicable to gravitation. Instead, he studied various > alternative aethers, including a model similar to that of Le > Sage, ultimately rejecting his efforts as unsatisfactory. > > If one wishes to claim that a single aether acts as the > propagating medium for all four forces, that necessarily leads > to the question of how these forces manage to show such distinct > properties. Indeed. Especially since the weak force is mediated by carriers that generally do not travel at c, and the interaction is STILL Lorentz covariant. > > The fact is, no plausible unified aether theory exists. There is > no reason whatsoever for aether theories to predict a common > speed of propagation for any of the fundamental 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. > > Yes. > > > 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. > > Jerry
From: PD on 8 Mar 2010 17:36
On Mar 8, 1:57 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > 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. I certainly defer to you on the legal arcanery, as you should with me in the arcanery of physics. If you say that what is written in the judgment is tempered by how many times a word is used, and that if there is one sentence in a judgment that uses a word once, it means then it is not to be taken as true as statements that use a different word more than once, I certainly will have to take your word for it. |