Prev: Quantum Gravity 357.91: Croatia Shows That Probability of Vacuum Energy Density is More Important than its Vacuum Expectation Value (VEV) of the Hamiltonian Density, in line with Probable Causation/Influence (PI)
Next: Hubble Views Saturn's Northern/Southern Lights
From: Bruce Richmond on 25 Feb 2010 23:49
On Feb 25, 9:51 pm, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote:
> On 2/25/2010 8:32 PM, Bruce Richmond wrote:
>
> > On Feb 24, 1:31 am, "J. Clarke"<jclarke.use...(a)cox.net>  wrote:
> >> On 2/23/2010 11:38 PM, Bruce Richmond wrote:
>
> >>> On Feb 23, 9:50 pm, "J. Clarke"<jclarke.use...(a)cox.net>    wrote:
> >>>> On 2/23/2010 8:36 PM, Bruce Richmond wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Feb 21, 11:52 pm, "J. Clarke"<jclarke.use...(a)cox.net>      wrote:
> >>>>>> On 2/21/2010 10:24 PM, Bruce Richmond wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> On Feb 21, 6:10 pm, mpalenik<markpale...(a)gmail.com>        wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Feb 21, 4:57 pm, Ste<ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com>        wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>> If we were to extrapolate a trend from history, then physics has not
> >>>>>>>>> yet given us a single equation which describes how the universe
> >>>>>>>>> functions. It has given us some rules of thumb and some cumbersome
> >>>>>>>>> approximations.
>
> >>>>>>>> This just further illustrates that you don't understand how physics
> >>>>>>>> actually works.  The history of physics isn't a series of blunders
> >>>>>>>> that we've thrown out as we get better and better equations, hampered
> >>>>>>>> by our belief in the old equations.  Rather, physics at just about
> >>>>>>>> every point in time since the renaissance has been a journey from very
> >>>>>>>> specific to more general rules--criteria by which any new physics must
> >>>>>>>> be constrained.
>
> >>>>>>>> For example, Kepler, while not really a physicist per-se, devised
> >>>>>>>> descriptions of the elliptical orbits that planets must follow.
> >>>>>>>> Newton, then, discovered that this is a special case of the
> >>>>>>>> conservation of angular momentum, which is a much more general
> >>>>>>>> principle--however, conservation of angular momentum MUST be able to
> >>>>>>>> reproduce the elliptical orbits of planets, or else it is wrong.
> >>>>>>>> Kepler's rules constrained Newton's theories.
>
> >>>>>>>> Special relativity then changed Newton's laws, a bit.  The basic
> >>>>>>>> principles, like F = dp/dt remained, but Special relativity says that
> >>>>>>>> space and time must transform differently than they do in Newtonian
> >>>>>>>> mechanics.  However, Newtonian mechanics is still a special case of
> >>>>>>>> special relativity--as the speed of an object approaches zero, the
> >>>>>>>> laws begin to reproduce Newton's laws.  Newton's laws, in this way,
> >>>>>>>> constrain Special Relativity.  Because if it did *NOT* reproduce
> >>>>>>>> Newton's laws at low speeds, it would be wrong.
>
> >>>>>>>> General relativity came along and it turns out that special relativity
> >>>>>>>> only works as a limiting case of general relativity, specifically,
> >>>>>>>> when there is no mass or energy present.  As the amount of mass and
> >>>>>>>> energy present goes to zero, general relativity reproduces special
> >>>>>>>> relativity.  If it could not do this, it would be wrong.
>
> >>>>>>>> Any new physics must be able to reproduce the old physics in the
> >>>>>>>> regimes in which it has been tested.  Any new theory that cannot do so
> >>>>>>>> is necessarily wrong because it has already been ruled out by
> >>>>>>>> experiment.
>
> >>>>>>> Thank you for bringing this up and explaining it so well.  A few days
> >>>>>>> ago in the DeSitter thread I wrote that in SR the speed of light is
> >>>>>>> made a universal constant by the second postulate.  The coordinate
> >>>>>>> systems are constructed based on that fact.  Because of that there is
> >>>>>>> no way you can measure the speed of light to be anything but c without
> >>>>>>> making a mistake.
>
> >>>>>> What point are you trying to support with that statement?  If one
> >>>>>> _measures_ a velocity of light other than the one that it is commonly
> >>>>>> held to have and others replicate your result, and it is found that
> >>>>>> light has different velocities under different circumstances then it is
> >>>>>> not the measurement that is a mistake but you will have just thrown
> >>>>>> relativity right out the window and they'll be seeing you in Stockholm
> >>>>>> pretty soon.
>
> >>>>> Hold that prize.  The discussion was about the basis of SR.  I
> >>>>> consider the second postulate to be a basic concept that SR was
> >>>>> founded on.  I was informed by some of the experts here that my
> >>>>> thinking was outdated.
>
> >>>> You'll find some physicists who put mathematical formalisms over
> >>>> physical insight--the constancy of the velocity of light was one of
> >>>> Einstein's two basic postulates and special relativity can be derived
> >>>> using those postulates.  That it can be derived in other ways doesn't
> >>>> alter that basic insight.
>
> >>> The reason I asked Mark's opinion was because of what he wrote just
> >>> above my "Thank you".  "Any new physics must be able to reproduce the
> >>> old physics in the regimes in which it has been tested.  Any new
> >>> theory that cannot do so is necessarily wrong because it has already
> >>> been ruled out by experiment."
>
> >>> The experts here have said that the second postulate could be violated
> >>> without disproving SR.  Considering your statement above about
> >>> throwing SR out the window I would say you agree with me that they are
> >>> wrong about that.
>
> >>> In SR the second postulate reads "light is always propagated in empty
> >>> space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of
> >>> motion of the emitting body."  That is it travels at some constant
> >>> speed in such a way that no ray of light could overtake another ray.
> >>> Remember, I mentioned this exchange took place in the DeSitter
> >>> thread.  It was DeSitter that argued against the ballistic theory of
> >>> light, as promoted by Ritz
>
> >>>http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/crit/1908a.htm
>
> >>> In ballistic theory light can travel at c+v which would allow one ray
> >>> to overtake another.  That would mean there is no single "speed of
> >>> light".
>
> >>>> The thing is, either relativity is a usefully accurate description of
> >>>> reality or it isn't.  If it isn't then someone should be able to conduct
> >>>> an experiment that is inconsistent with relativity and show that it is
> >>>> invalid.  So far many experiments have been performed and none have
> >>>> succeeded in showing it to be invalid.
>
> >>>>>>> I was then informed that the interpertation of SR
> >>>>>>> has been improved upon since 1905 and that what I had written no
> >>>>>>> longer applied.  Further, relativity could survive even if it was
> >>>>>>> found that the speed of light wasn't exactly c.
>
> >>>>>> Uh, by definition the velocity of light is exactly c.  Grok the
> >>>>>> concept--c is defined as "the velocity of light".  Relativity makes no
> >>>>>> statement concerning a specific value that c must have, only that it is
> >>>>>> the same in all reference frames.  It can be 2 millimeters per
> >>>>>> millennium or forty quintillion kilometers per femtosecond and
> >>>>>> relativity remains valid, as long as it demonstrably has that value and
> >>>>>> only that value, within the limits of experimental error.
>
> >>>>> I am well aware that the speed of light is c by definition in SR.
>
> >>>> No, c is the speed of light, period.  This has nothing to do with
> >>>> special relativity or general relativity or Newtonian mechanics or
> >>>> anything else.  The physics community has chosen to write "c" instead of
> >>>> spelling out "the speed of light, whatever that might be".  You're
> >>>> reading too much into it.  It's just a shorthand.
>
> >>> In SR the second postulate reads "light is always propagated in empty
> >>> space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of
> >>> motion of the emitting body."  That is it travels at some constant
> >>> speed in such a way that no ray of light could overtake another ray.
> >>> Remember, I mentioned this exchange took place in the DeSitter
> >>> thread.  It was DeSitter that argued against the ballistic theory of
> >>> light, as promoted by Ritz
>
> >> You're acting like using a letter to refer to a velocity is something
> >> magic.  It's not, it's just a shorthand.
>
> > I was just pointing out that SR declared c a constant as opposed to a
> > variable.
>
> >>>http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/crit/1908a.htm
>
> >>> In ballistic theory light can travel at c+v which would allow one ray
> >>> to overtake another.  That would mean there is no single "speed of
> >>> light".  So it is a convention of SR, and ether theory, that c is the
> >>> speed of light.  That is why I included the qualifier "in SR".
>
> >> The "ballistic theory" is ancient history.
>
> > Einstein's 1905 paper is also ancient history according to many around
> > here.  Be that as it may, in the DeSitter thread we were discussing
> > how it was determined that light travels at "a definite velocity c
> > which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."
> > Which brought us to how c was determined, and my pointing out that
> > since the meter is derived from c, you had better measure the speed of
> > light to be c or you screwed something up.  In retrospect I now
> > realize that I was assuming the second postulate is correct.  If
> > ballistic theory were correct it would be possible for rays to travel
> > at different speeds.
>
> >>>>> That is basicly what I said in the paragraph above that starts with
> >>>>> "Thank you".  Again the experts told me I was wrong, that the speed of
> >>>>> light was the distance traveled divided by the time.
>
> >>>> So what else would be, the color of apples divided by the temperature of
> >>>> a polar bear's nose?
>
> >>> If you defined c as the speed of light then the distance is derived
> >>> from c, not c from the distance.
>
> >> What distance would that be?
>
> >> The _distance_ is derived from whatever means you use for measuring
> >> distance.  It has no bearing on using a letter to refer to the velocity
> >> of light.
>
> >>> In effect the distance is ct.
>
> >> The distance to _what_?
>
> > The distance between photo sensors you are using to measure the speed
> > of light.  A meter is defined as the distance travelled by light in
> > vacuum in 1⁄299,792,458 of a second.  So in place of 100 meters
> > substitute 100⁄299,792,458 light seconds.  To eliminate the inaccuracy
> > of measuring rods use light based measurements to place the sensors.
> > If you have placed the sensors the correct distance apart so that it
> > took the calibrating light 100⁄299,792,458 seconds to make the trip,
> > how long do you think it will take the light you are measuring the
> > speed of?
>
> Look, if you don't like the standard definition of a meter take it up
> with the standards committee.  That definition is quite recent and was
> established after a century of research failed to reveal any variation
> in the velocity of light.
>
> If you're trying to sell the notion that the velocity of light is
> variable in any frame that is accessible to humans, that ship has sailed.
>
>  >>   >  If
>
>
>
> >>> you now measure how long it takes light to travel that distance you
> >>> had better get t or you have proven that the speed of light isn't
> >>> constant.
>
> >> No, what you've done is made a measurement.
>
> > A circular measurement which you pointed out elsewhere in this tread
> > is senseless.
>
> I have?  In what post did I point this out?

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/1db4e96725811e18?hl=en

"That's why "if the velocity of light is different from c" is
meaningless. It's like saying "if your height was different from
your
height" or "if the population of New York was different from the
population of New York".

> >>>> c is the velocity of light.  By definition.  That velocity has some
> >>>> measurable numerical value, you measure the time it takes light to
> >>>> travel a given distance and you have an approximation of the numerical
> >>>> value of c.  You measure again with an improved apparatus and you have a
> >>>> more accurate approximation.  The fact that the two approximations are
> >>>> different has no bearing on calling the velocity of light "c".
>
> >>> When I pointed out that in SR the speed of light is c by definition
> >>> due to the second postulate I was told by the "experts" that I was
> >>> wrong.
>
> >> Which experts were these and why do you care so much what they think?
> >> Read Einstein.
>
> >>>> Maybe is has more than one value, maybe it has two or three or a
> >>>> billion--so far though it seems to have just one.
>
> >>> If it has more than one value then it is not a constant and SR just
> >>> got flushed down the tubes.
>
> >> Precisely.  What of it?
>
> > As you have seen here, some prefer to just flush the second postulate
> > and say everything is fine.
>
> Who, specifically, give us an example of this "flushing".

From: Peter Webb on 26 Feb 2010 00:30

"Paul Stowe" <theaetherist(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:bda5b50c-d4b3-4c8f-a83b-67012f66342b(a)z10g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 25, 3:15 pm, "Peter Webb"
<webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> "PaulStowe" <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:3d18eec6-843e-4656-8002-af83fccb04c1(a)a16g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 25, 1:16 am, "Peter Webb"
>
>
>
>
>
> <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > And on this point, I've repeatedly maintained that it isn't. All
> > > you've offered in the converse is a quote by Einstein that it is.
>
> > No, I've also referred you to the works of Kuhn and Lakatos. And
> > indeed, the very method that you describe involves formulating a
> > theory and then testing its predictions - in other words, the tests
> > that are carried out are constrained by the predictions made by the
> > theory. One would be unlikely to test for something that the theory
> > does not predict in the first place.
> > ____________________________
> > Thus demonstrating you also have no understanding whatsoever of the
> > scientific method or these philosophers. The whole point of testing
> > through
> > experiment is to look for places where the theory might break down, not
> > places where you have tested similar things in the past. The idea is to
> > try
> > and disprove the theory, and through failure, demonstrate it is true.
> > This
> > is the complete opposite to what you say.
>
> > The sad fact that even you must acknowledge - and tell us if you don't -
> > is
> > that SR is routinely tested every day of the year in wildly diverse
> > environments such as particle accelerators, GPS units, astronomy, and
> > space
> > exploration. All completely independent ways of testing, and some giving
> > very highg precision indeed.
>
> > Like it or not, the equations of SR are obviously correct.
>
> And like it or not the equations of SR are not original and unique TO
> SR... Both Lorentz and Poincare published the prior to Einstein.
> What is unique to SR is the metaphysical interpretation (PoR & RoS).
>
> _________________________________
> Incorrect. They derived only length contraction.

Actually, it is you who is incorrect, but, ignorance can be remedied.
See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_phenomena
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_priority_dispute

___________________________
Yep, thankyou. As the link says, "Many aspects of Lorentz's theory were
incorporated into special relativity (SR) with the works of Albert Einstein
and Hermann Minkowski.". Lorentz did not have (for example) the equivalence
of mass and energy and many other aspects of SR; your statement that "What
is unique to SR is the metaphysical interpretation" is blatantly false; what
about e=mc^2 for starters? Or are you unfamiliar with this equation? If so,
you are probably also unaware of SR's inclusion of momentum and energy -
pretty basic concepts - which were missing from Lorentz.


> > So the only thing that you can bring to the table is some philosophical
> > interpretation of what is "really" going on.
>
> So what? That all Einstein brought to the table!
>
> _________________________________
> Ummm ... time dilation? Mass increase in changing reference frames? The
> equivalence of mass-energy?

Mass increase?

_________________________________
Yeah. The measured mass of objects is a function of the reference frame in
which it measured. Learn some SR before telling us it is wrong. Or learn
some SR before telling us its correct, if you prefer.


> Clearly you know nothing about the history of SR.

Actually,...
______________________________
Actually, you appear unfamiliar with SR's predictions of mass increase, SR's
formulation of energy and momentum, and given you think SR is nothing more
than the Lorentz transformation, clearly also unfamiliar with e=mc^2.



> > This is a task you are poorly
> > prepared to do, as you don't understand the current (dominant)
> > interpretation of what is really going on, which is Minkowski
> > space-time.
> > It
> > is (when you understand it) a very simple model which explains a great
> > deal
> > of the physics very simply - in particular the Energy and Momentum of a
> > particle. Frankly, you are not going to find a mental model of SR which
> > is
> > better or simpler than Minkowski space-time, I very much doubt one
> > exists
> > at
> > all.
>
> Everyone speaks of wanting unification but their actions say
> otherwise... Simplification to the point of the loss of critical
> information is not 'right' or helpful. I believe it was Einstein that
> said something to that effect also.
>
_________________________________________________
Yeah. A constant problem in this ng, trying to simplify SR to the extent
that knuckleheads like you can gain some appreciation of what it is about.


> _________________________________
> I don't particularly care about what Einstein may or may not have said on
> this subject.
>
> > Your disbelief of SR stems from the fact that you don't understand it.
> > That's because you are lazy; you seem intelligent enough to learn it if
> > you
> > wanted. However, jumping from you don't understand SR to therefore
> > physicists are all wrong shows an almighty conceit on your part. Just
> > because you are an idiot doesn't mean every physicist in the world is as
> > well.
>
> Why does people like you think that? Please provide heo quotes or
> references that indicates disbelief.
>
> ______________________________
> SR is "ludicrous". Or, look at the title of the thread.

The question of what speed does light actually travels in moving
systems verse what is measured is a valid question.

__________________________________
No. Add the philosophy of science and the scientific method to the list of
theings you don't understand.


> And the is a big difference in
> saying that modern physics metaphysics is 'all wrong' and saying one
> does buy or experimental data is.
>
> > If you really don't believe that SR has been massively and
> > overwhelmingly
> > been "proved" by experimental evidence, just say so, and I will dig up a
> > list of experimental proofs for you.
>
> OK, what's the difference in saying that Lorentz/Poincare Relativity
> "has been massively and overwhelmingly "proved" by experimental
> evidence"?
> ________________________________
> None, except Lorentz is a tint subset of SR.

Not really... LET and SR are identical in their equations and
predictions.

__________________________________
Where does Lorentz say e=mc^2, for example? Where does Lorentz derive mass,
momentum and energy in terms of each other?



> Yup, just the non-science metaphysical viewpoint. Get it
> yet???
>
> _____________________________
> That you have no idea of the difference between what Einstein published in
> 1905 and the theories of Lorentz?

Other than philosophy, there is no difference.

____________________________________
Hmmm. Two theories you don't understand, maybe there is no difference to
you.


> > If you accept that the equations of SR are correct, then your point in
> > all
> > this is ..... ?
>
> There are none so blind as those who refuse to see...
>
> ______________________________________
> Yeah, OK, do you believe the equations of SR produce correct answers? I
> want
> to see if you are an anti-SR crank as well as an anti-Einstein crank; the
> two usually go together.

There is no difference in the formulations of LET and SR, THAT IS WHY
WE CALL IT THE LORENTZ TRANSFORMS... It is, solely, philosophical
metaphysics!

_________________________________________
Learn some SR.


Paul Stowe

From: Peter Webb on 26 Feb 2010 00:38

"Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0a7587b5-d78e-4e7a-897d-e8ee8ed196ba(a)o3g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> On 25 Feb, 09:18, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au>
> wrote:
>> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:ab0ad038-f849-4d36-a73d-8bbb7bf7e366(a)t23g2000yqt.googlegroups.com...
>> On 24 Feb, 17:37, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Feb 24, 2:56 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > Of course, I don't pretend to even have a
>> > > speculative account for what this variable may be. I will finish
>> > > however by saying that surely you accept that clocks that actually
>> > > exist must have some common principles at a fundamental level, and
>> > > that if the time dilation phenomenon operates at that level then it's
>> > > quite plausible that they would all react in the same way to time
>> > > dilation.
>>
>> > On this last point, I will simply conclude that, yes, indeed all
>> > clocks operate with a common principle at some level, and that time
>> > dilation operates at that level. That principle and that operation of
>> > dilation are PRECISELY what is described by special relativity, as far
>> > as we can tell from the evidence we have in hand. Congratulations.
>>
>> > Now, at this point, I imagine you might say, "But I don't BELIEVE in
>> > special relativity and hold faith that there is some OTHER principle
>> > and operation of dilation that is responsible for what is going on."
>> > That is, of course, a possibility. Anything is possible. However,
>> > among those models that have been tested and which do purport to
>> > account for the principle that drives dilation, special relativity is
>> > the demonstrated winner. You are free to put forward a new candidate
>> > to add to the race. There are others who are doing exactly the same
>> > thing this very day.
>>
>> As I say, I don't necessarily disbelieve SR. I just don't think it is
>> conceptually very clear.
>>
>> _____________________________
>> Have you tried? Found a simple link or book explaining Minkowski space
>> time
>> and tried to go through it? Where do you get stuck?
>
> I think Mark's handful of diagrams and short lessons told me
> everything I needed to know about Minkowski spacetime, which is that
> however interesting and elegant it may be on a mathematical level, it
> would in no way address the real questions that I have.

Obviously if it did not address the real questions you have, Mark's handful
of diagrams and short lessons *didn't* teach you everything you "needed to
know about Minkowski space time".

Have you thought of buying a book, or finding a good web page, and actually
trying to learn it?


From: Peter Webb on 26 Feb 2010 01:37

"Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:08f78223-ea53-4c5e-bcc8-88d83bd145b1(a)g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
> On 25 Feb, 09:46, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au>
> wrote:
>> And indeed, I said openly that I couldn't make that work, once I'd
>> been able to construct a graphic where I could see the proof with my
>> own eyes, and clearly the physical understanding on which that was
>> based is untenable. As it stands, I don't really have any workable
>> physical model for light under relativity.
>>
>> _________________________________
>>
>> Relativity does not provide a workable physical model for light, in fact
>> it
>> says nothing about it at all.
>>
>> The workable physical model for light is provided by Maxwell's eqns,
>> which
>> tell us *exactly* what light is; it is two out of phase electric and
>> magnetic fields, and this uses the same maths and mechanisms as explain
>> radio broadcasting, transformers, generators etc.
>
> You know I actually got as far as reviewing Maxwell's equations before
> I started to fall over laughing at my gullibility. I really should
> have realised at the outset that "Maxwell's equations" were not going
> to involve anything physical.
>

You don't think electric and magnetic fields are physical?


> And incidentally, after realising this, but before responding, I
> actually scrolled down through the posts and found that Paul Stowe had
> also made exactly the same argument.
>

You are therefore not alone in your ignorance.

>
>
>> You would be well off learning this before you attempt SR, as much of the
>> experimentation and theory was motivated by physicists knowing that
>> Maxwell's equations - used a billion times a day - used a Lorentz
>> transform,
>> and this would allow an absolute frame of reference to be established.
>>
>> In practice, the mathematics of Maxwell are harder than SR, but I will
>> try
>> and explain some key concepts.
>
> Hell fire! Mathematically harder than SR?
>

SR is simple algebra. Minkowski is simple geomertry, but using complex
numbers. Both should be accessible to anybody with high sachool maths.

The normal and clearest exposition of Maxwell uses vector calculus - div and
curl operators - you probably would learn this in Calc I or Calc II at Uni.



>
>
>> Most importantly, Maxwell's eqns are said to give rise to light waves,
>> but
>> these are fundamentally different what you think of as a wave. In water
>> waves, there is a single variable - water height - and the wave exchanges
>> energy with the medium through which it travels. Similarly with sound
>> waves,
>> where it is air pressure. In Maxwell, there are two waves always
>> generated,
>> the electric and the magnetic. The electric increases, it draws energy
>> from
>> the magnetic, the magnetic runs out, the electric collapses which feed
>> energy into the magnetic, and so on ... multiply this by about 10^20 in
>> speed and you have light.
>
> This is a bit wooly. Obviously there is some sort of oscillation going
> on, but I suspect more work needs to be done on the concept.
>

Some more work has been done on the concept. About a 150 years worth. Its
exactly how radio and TV transmitters work. You do concede that they do
work, right? And that radio is a form of light? And radio waves can be made
by simply oscillating electric and magnetic fields?

Just because you *nothing* about Maxwells eqns doesn't mean they need more
work. It means you need to do more work, to bring your knowledge of physics
up to where it was in the mid 19th Century.


>
>
>> The total energy of the photon/wave is constant, it simply exchanges
>> energy
>> between its electric and magnetic fields. If you ask what the electric
>> wave
>> is "waving through" - what is storing its energy as it goes up and down
>> like
>> a water wave - its the waves magnetic field, and the waves magnetic field
>> is
>> similarly beating against the electric field. This means there is no
>> connection to any underlying medium which is waving, like in a water
>> wave,
>> it is self contained. This is ultimately why it has a Lorentz transform,
>> and
>> if you do the maths on Maxwell's equations you actually get the Lorentz
>> contraction popping out automatically. The Michelson Morley experiment
>> was
>> specifically designed to compare the transforms for light and a physical
>> object, and contrary to your opinion that physicists don't know how to
>> design tests, was deliberately testing to the limits the prevailing
>> understanding at that time, and found it to be wrong.
>>
>> The rest is now over 100 years of history; you are a little late to find
>> a
>> problem.
>
> Lol. Perhaps a mistake more than 100 years ago is why there hasn't
> been much theoretical or conceptual advance in 100 years?

Well, there was huge advance made when this was reformulated for
non-inertial frames of reference in GR.

But the reason that SR has survived unchanged for 100 years is the same
reason that Newtonian mechanics survived unchanged for 300 years - as far as
we can tell with current measuring equipment, it works perfectly.




From: Inertial on 26 Feb 2010 01:00

"Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:365f3173-59c8-4872-a95b-159a08d27032(a)v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
> On 25 Feb, 17:42, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 24, 9:22 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > On Feb 22, 11:16 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > And as I've
>> > > > > > said, repeatedly, what you call my "cogs and levers" approach
>> > > > > > is far
>> > > > > > more flexible than your caricature would imply.
>>
>> > > > > Yes, to the point where your cogs-and-levers picture permits
>> > > > > almost
>> > > > > immediately obvious internal contradictions, as I've pointed out.
>>
>> > > > Indeed, but that's why I don't disparage a mathematical refinement
>> > > > of
>> > > > it, and I see the maths as "adding detail to the picture".
>>
>> > > I'm sorry, but in my mind there's a big difference between "adding
>> > > detail to the picture" and "showing that the picture is self-
>> > > contradictory".
>>
>> > But you didn't show that it was contradictory. All you did was further
>> > constrain the relationship between gravity and distance.
>>
>> Oh, please. You said that a linear fall-off of gravity with distance
>> was perfectly compatible with your mental image of gravity. But it
>> ISN'T, because there are unexplored implications of those permitted
>> assumptions that lead to contradictions. This is more than a detail
>> refinement.
>
> I'm afraid it isn't Paul. I'm not so sure that this won't go anywhere
> except just go back to what we agreed at the beginning, that my model
> makes no firm predictions and is virtually unfalsifiable, and yet it
> works

In what sense can it be said to work if it doesn't predict what is observed.


First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121
Prev: Quantum Gravity 357.91: Croatia Shows That Probability of Vacuum Energy Density is More Important than its Vacuum Expectation Value (VEV) of the Hamiltonian Density, in line with Probable Causation/Influence (PI)
Next: Hubble Views Saturn's Northern/Southern Lights