A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: PD on 21 Feb 2010 18:49 On Feb 21, 4:23 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 21 Feb, 21:40, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 20, 9:36 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 20 Feb, 05:27, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> > > > wrote: > > > > > If you're suggesting that it's improbable that a theory could work not > > > > because its premises were correct, but because it simply promoted > > > > correct behaviours, then wonders why religion has fared so well. In > > > > any event, I'm willing to accept Feynman's argument, basically that QM > > > > amounts to a workable mathematical model, and makes no claim to any > > > > truth more fundamental than that. > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > The whole of physics is like that, not just QM. Physics just gives us the > > > > eqns by which the universe functions. It does not make claim to any more > > > > truths fundamental than the eqns; the rest is just philosophy. > > > > > Your problem of course is that you don't understand the eqns, so you don't > > > > understand physics. > > > > On the contrary, my problem is that physics seems to have dispensed > > > with the physical. Yet it is the physical, as opposed to the > > > mathematical, that I am interested in. That is, the qualitative > > > physical concepts - what I've referred to as an explanation at the > > > the "practical-mechanical" level - that would seem to me to > > > distinguish physics from maths are largely absent, and indeed seem to > > > be systematically deprecated and devalued. > > > > And on top of this, there is an ideological arrogance on the part of > > > many in physics that is distasteful in light of their claims to > > > "objectivity" and "adherence to scientific principles". > > > > Indeed, your argument that "physics does not make claim to any truths > > > more fundamental than the eqns" is, itself, a philosophical position > > > and a statement of ideology - even though you refer disparagingly to > > > "the rest" as "just philosophy". > > > > This ideological position becomes even more detectable in the context > > > of grandiose claims that "physics gives us the eqns by which the > > > universe functions". > > > > Not only is that a total falsehood when interpreted literally and in > > > the context of history, but moreover I know from the context that you > > > do not mean "regrettably, physics has only given us the eqns..." or > > > even "physics has given us the eqns, and I'm unable to say if there is > > > a more complete description", what you really mean is "these eqns > > > provide a complete and final description of the physical world, and I > > > hold that nothing else is relevant to physics and nor am I concerned > > > with it". > > > > And what I object to is not the content of these staments, but the > > > constant concealment of your ideological beliefs beneath allusions to > > > objectivity and ideological and philosophical independence. > > > I note with interest that you at one point appeared to be interested > > in engaging in learning how it is that the speed of light could be the > > same, regardless of the motion of the source, or how it is that > > simultaneity could be frame-dependent. But your interest in the > > physics here quickly waned and you fell back to fussing about the > > sociology of scientists. What accounts for your short attention span > > for the physics? Note that in the discussions I was giving you, there > > was practically no math in favor of presentation of basic physical > > principles and their conceptual implications. > > Actually I was still interested in discussing the invariance of 'c', > and I do still have questions. Then ask them. > Unfortunately, both threads appear to > have been partly taken over by other posters arguing completely > different points, and much of my own time and attention has once again > returned to addressing the quips, implicit insults, and general > "sociological" points raised. Why? Perhaps if you ignored those comments and focused on the physics, you'd learn what you're after. PD
From: Peter Webb on 21 Feb 2010 19:01 "mpc755" <mpc755(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:45589ff0-5e7f-4a93-b9b0-2f3157708426(a)m37g2000yqf.googlegroups.com... On Feb 21, 9:18 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:dba2b7ab-670a-473f-a7f3-5447e3f01e53(a)b7g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > On Feb 21, 12:27 am, "Peter Webb" > > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:1c9cf786-36cc-4fce-8b57-7f45f5b88ddd(a)v1g2000yqk.googlegroups.com... > > On Feb 20, 11:21 pm, "Peter Webb" > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > > And if conducted in a laboratory in low earth orbit, with a relative > > > > speed > > > > of 25,000 kph relative to the ether - what will be the measured > > > > speed > > > > of > > > > light then? > > > > The light will be 'measured' to be 'c'. If the Observers in the > > > laboratory in low Earth orbit know how they are moving with respect to > > > the aether they will be able to determine the speed of light to be 'c' > > > with respect to the aether. > > > > ______________________________________ > > > So, according to you, in every inertial reference frame, the measured > > > speed > > > of light is "c", completely independent of how the observer is moving > > > relative to the ether? > > > Measured, yes. > > > ____________________________________ > > OK, is the speed of light measured as 'c' in every inertial reference > > frame? > > Measured, yes. > > _______________________________ > How about the rest of the predictions of SR? Will lengths and times > measure > according to SR? You have no problem with the 80 foot ladder fitting > inside > the 40 foot barn, or the twins "paradox" ? > I have already explained to you probably twenty times now the atomic clocks 'tick' based upon the aether pressure in which the exist. There may be length contraction at speeds near 'c'. __________________________________ You have explained this many times. Mine is a slightly differerent question. Do you believe the rest of the predictions of SR? Will lengths and times measure according to SR? You have no problem with the 80 foot ladder fitting inside the 40 foot barn, or the twins "paradox" ?
From: Peter Webb on 21 Feb 2010 19:22 "Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:a445c44f-2cfd-464b-bbd2-32f378395b1c(a)15g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... On 21 Feb, 01:45, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > On 20 Feb, 05:27, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> > > wrote: > >> If you're suggesting that it's improbable that a theory could work not > >> because its premises were correct, but because it simply promoted > >> correct behaviours, then wonders why religion has fared so well. In > >> any event, I'm willing to accept Feynman's argument, basically that QM > >> amounts to a workable mathematical model, and makes no claim to any > >> truth more fundamental than that. > > >> ________________________________ > >> The whole of physics is like that, not just QM. Physics just gives us > >> the > >> eqns by which the universe functions. It does not make claim to any > >> more > >> truths fundamental than the eqns; the rest is just philosophy. > > >> Your problem of course is that you don't understand the eqns, so you > >> don't > >> understand physics. > > > On the contrary, my problem is that physics seems to have dispensed > > with the physical. Yet it is the physical, as opposed to the > > mathematical, that I am interested in. That is, the qualitative > > physical concepts - what I've referred to as an explanation at the > > the "practical-mechanical" level - that would seem to me to > > distinguish physics from maths are largely absent, and indeed seem to > > be systematically deprecated and devalued. > > You should look up, and learn, Minkowski space time. This gives a > practical/mechanical explanation of SR that most physicists find very easy > to use and understand. However even simple explanantions do involve high > school mathematics. Like I said, it can only be "dumbed-down" so far. Peter, will you please stop treating me as an idiot, as though I somehow don't understand the nature of Minkowski spacetime. ____________________________________ I am not treating you as an idiot, I am treating you as somebody with insufficient mathematical knowledge to understand models of SR. If you think Minkowski spacetime amounts to a "practical-mechanical explanation", then you have absolutely no idea what those words mean, _______________________________________ Well, if you understood Minkowski space-time you probably would understand the explanation. There is no point in you telling us the limitations of a theory you don't understand. Better you learn about Minkowski space-time first, and then tell us all about it. Really, if you want an insight into how SR "works", you should learn about Minkowski space time. Why don't you?
From: Ste on 21 Feb 2010 19:42 On 21 Feb, 22:28, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 21, 4:57 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 21 Feb, 01:45, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> > > wrote: > > > > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > > > On 20 Feb, 05:27, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> > > > > wrote: > > > >> If you're suggesting that it's improbable that a theory could work not > > > >> because its premises were correct, but because it simply promoted > > > >> correct behaviours, then wonders why religion has fared so well. In > > > >> any event, I'm willing to accept Feynman's argument, basically that QM > > > >> amounts to a workable mathematical model, and makes no claim to any > > > >> truth more fundamental than that. > > > > >> ________________________________ > > > >> The whole of physics is like that, not just QM. Physics just gives us the > > > >> eqns by which the universe functions. It does not make claim to any more > > > >> truths fundamental than the eqns; the rest is just philosophy. > > > > >> Your problem of course is that you don't understand the eqns, so you > > > >> don't > > > >> understand physics. > > > > > On the contrary, my problem is that physics seems to have dispensed > > > > with the physical. Yet it is the physical, as opposed to the > > > > mathematical, that I am interested in. That is, the qualitative > > > > physical concepts - what I've referred to as an explanation at the > > > > the "practical-mechanical" level - that would seem to me to > > > > distinguish physics from maths are largely absent, and indeed seem to > > > > be systematically deprecated and devalued. > > > > You should look up, and learn, Minkowski space time. This gives a > > > practical/mechanical explanation of SR that most physicists find very easy > > > to use and understand. However even simple explanantions do involve high > > > school mathematics. Like I said, it can only be "dumbed-down" so far. > > > Peter, will you please stop treating me as an idiot, as though I > > somehow don't understand the nature of Minkowski spacetime. > > You don't. What makes it Minkowski spacetime? How do space and time > behave under rotation in a way that is different from a rotation in > non-Minkowskian spacetime? What shape is a curve made up of points > equidistant from the origin? Why is it different from regular, > euclidean space? What is it about a moving object that makes it look > like it's rotated in a 4 dimensional, Minkowskian manifold? I've no idea, but I know none of it has any connection with a "practical-mechanical explanation".
From: mpalenik on 21 Feb 2010 19:47
On Feb 21, 7:42 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 21 Feb, 22:28, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 21, 4:57 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 21 Feb, 01:45, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> > > > wrote: > > > > > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > > > > On 20 Feb, 05:27, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com..au> > > > > > wrote: > > > > >> If you're suggesting that it's improbable that a theory could work not > > > > >> because its premises were correct, but because it simply promoted > > > > >> correct behaviours, then wonders why religion has fared so well. In > > > > >> any event, I'm willing to accept Feynman's argument, basically that QM > > > > >> amounts to a workable mathematical model, and makes no claim to any > > > > >> truth more fundamental than that. > > > > > >> ________________________________ > > > > >> The whole of physics is like that, not just QM. Physics just gives us the > > > > >> eqns by which the universe functions. It does not make claim to any more > > > > >> truths fundamental than the eqns; the rest is just philosophy. > > > > > >> Your problem of course is that you don't understand the eqns, so you > > > > >> don't > > > > >> understand physics. > > > > > > On the contrary, my problem is that physics seems to have dispensed > > > > > with the physical. Yet it is the physical, as opposed to the > > > > > mathematical, that I am interested in. That is, the qualitative > > > > > physical concepts - what I've referred to as an explanation at the > > > > > the "practical-mechanical" level - that would seem to me to > > > > > distinguish physics from maths are largely absent, and indeed seem to > > > > > be systematically deprecated and devalued. > > > > > You should look up, and learn, Minkowski space time. This gives a > > > > practical/mechanical explanation of SR that most physicists find very easy > > > > to use and understand. However even simple explanantions do involve high > > > > school mathematics. Like I said, it can only be "dumbed-down" so far. > > > > Peter, will you please stop treating me as an idiot, as though I > > > somehow don't understand the nature of Minkowski spacetime. > > > You don't. What makes it Minkowski spacetime? How do space and time > > behave under rotation in a way that is different from a rotation in > > non-Minkowskian spacetime? What shape is a curve made up of points > > equidistant from the origin? Why is it different from regular, > > euclidean space? What is it about a moving object that makes it look > > like it's rotated in a 4 dimensional, Minkowskian manifold? > > I've no idea, but I know none of it has any connection with a > "practical-mechanical explanation". It actually does, you simply don't accept that reality works that way. What you want is an explanation that: 1) Physically describes what is happening and 2) conforms to your preconcieved notions about how reality works. 1) is possible but there does not and *cannot* exist an explanation that satisfies 2). |