A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious. [Physics]

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: Ste on 26 Feb 2010 20:15

On 26 Feb, 18:14, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 25, 10:47 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> You have then questioned why you should adopt the scientific metric
> for "working". And the answer is, you don't have to. It's just that
> when you decline, you're no longer doing science.

But this lends credibility to my assertion in the first place, which
is that science is a religion.

> > Indeed, you have utterly failed to point out any contradiction yet,
> > all you have done is constrain the behaviour of gravity tighter than
> > what is otherwise possible in the conceptual understanding that I
> > have, and as such amounts to "added detail" and leads to further
> > accuracy, rather than requiring a fundamental conceptual overhaul.
>
> I *have* pointed out the contradiction. Gravity that falls off
> linearly with distance is incompatible with elliptical orbits. What is
> true is that I have not demonstrated this enough to you that your are
> convinced that it is a contradiction. That is different. That is a
> *teaching* task. I don't know that I owe it to you to *convince* you
> of anything, though I may be inclined to point to a fact or two that
> might spur YOUR OWN investigation into why that statement is true.

I'm afraid I don't accept this Paul. It's not a contradiction, because
my model didn't make any firm statement in the first place as to the
quantity of fall-off. The claim it made was that gravity does fall off
with distance, and you have not contradicted this - in fact, you have
spectacularly supported this claim.

> And the cosmos is made of earth, air, fire, and water, which certainly
> seems to be true, but is hardly useful. Even though it may make
> perfect and plain sense to somebody as a mental picture of the cosmos.

It may have been useful at the time, as a basic analysis and a
springboard for further investigation. The fact that it is not useful
in retrospect is a function of the degree to which science has
advanced since then.

> > > And that's a case of constraining the observation to ONE experiment.
> > > The two models of the nature of the coin would have other
> > > implications, OTHER THAN just continuing the coin-toss experiment,
> > > that would lead to a clearer experimental distinction. The coin-toss
> > > experiment is experiment E1 that does not clearly distinguish between
> > > models B and C. So? Now you have to find the place where they make
> > > clearly distinguishable predictions, and design an experiment E2 that
> > > will make that discrimination.
>
> > Sometimes that's just not possible. Particularly if the only way the
> > coin can be tested is by tossing.
>
> I'm sorry, but it's the object of science to FIND the other ways to
> test a claim.

But you've got to accept that sometimes there may be no other
realistic way of testing. There's no point just saying "well science
must find a way", because in some cases either theory or material
circumstances may simply rule out any other kind of test.

> That is how the progress is made. I simply refuse to
> submit to your hypothetical situation where you say, "How does science
> discern between two theories when the only information it has
> available doesn't discern between the two theories?" It DOESN'T. It
> goes and finds the information that DOES discern the two.

As above.

> > > > One example is the lip-service paid to doubt and uncertainty, whereas
> > > > I can give you Mark who holds that a theory with 95% confidence should
> > > > not just be accepted by most people, but all people.
>
> > > I don't hold the same conviction about this that he does. People
> > > CHOOSE what they believe and they CHOOSE the methods by which they
> > > become convinced of what they should believe. If you CHOOSE NOT to
> > > adopt the scientific method, that's your prerogative, but it just
> > > marks what you DO choose to do instead as something other than
> > > science. Poetry perhaps.
>
> > There are many interesting answers in asking what causes a choice. But
> > besides that, I think your definition of the scientific method is
> > completely wrong. As Kuhn puts it (I was just flicking through the
> > book again), the scientific method has only "pedagogic utility" and
> > "abstract plausibility".
>
> And now you presume that Kuhn's position is either authoritative, or
> that scientists would endorse it.

No, I'm simply having to draw on authority to rebut your just-so
statements about the views of physicists collectively, which indeed is
the very argument you invoke again, by implicitly saying "ah, well
physicists reject Kuhn's view of science...".

From: Peter Webb on 27 Feb 2010 00:50

>
> My only contention is that it is *not realistic* to say that from the
> barn frame frame the ladder contracts and fits inside, while saying
> that from the ladder frame it is the barn that contracts and the doors
> actually never shut simultaneously. It is simply not realistic. If
> such a thing appears to happen, then it is obviously an artefact of
> subjective observation.
>

Better not tell GPS units, particle accelerators, space probes, or light
from distant stars that length contraction is not realistic, or they might
all suddenly decide not to undergo length contraction, with obvious huge
problems for navigation, particle physicists, astronomers etc all of whom
rely upon things behaving in a not realistic manner which you don't
understand for correct operation.

We *know* that you don't understand relativistic length contraction, or
anything else to do with SR or any other physics discovered in the last 300
years. You don't have to keep telling us. A solution has been offered many
times.

It doesn't seem realistic to you because you don't understand SR, and have
no insight into it. This is because you do not have the basic mathematical
skills to understand the things which would give you insight - Minkowski
being the most obvious. Nobody is born understanding this stuff, you have to
study it. You have not done so, hence your lack of understanding.

So, buy a book on Relativity, preferably one which explains how Minkowski
modeled SR, feel free to ask away if you don't understand what you read.

But don't complain you don't understand physics if you don't have basic
maths skills. It would be like saying you can't understand books written in
Dutch when you can't speak Dutch. Want to learn about Dutch literature,
learn Dutch. Want to learn physics, learn mathematics. Simple, really.

From: Peter Webb on 27 Feb 2010 00:54

"Paul Stowe" <theaetherist(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:73c93327-144e-4595-ada1-4bfff749884c(a)e19g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 26, 5:00 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 26 Feb, 18:20, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 26, 1:31 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > In what sense can it be said to work if it doesn't predict what is
> > > > observed.
>
> > > It does predict what is observed, but only in a very loose way,
>
> > No. It *accommodates*, it does not *predict*. And this is where there
> > is a difference.
> > It is one thing to say that a certain behavior is *conceivable* within
> > a mental picture, it is another thing entirely to say that it is
> > *demanded* from a model. A prediction is usually precise enough where
> > it will be able to say, "you will see behavior X in quantity Qx,
> > behavior Y in quantity Qy, and behavior Z in quantity Qz, but you will
> > NEVER see behavior W and you will not see behavior Z in any other
> > quantity." This your mental picture does not do.
>
> But it does for example. My mental picture says that gravity will
> never become stronger with increasing distance. That is a firm
> prediction.

But, in both the center of a spiral galaxy and the center of mass the
gravitational potential is zero, increasing in strength until one
reaches either the surface of a solid planet or, in the case of a
galaxy the rotation speed verses area density starts to drop off. So,
while I understand where you are coming from, technically, you're
wrong.

_____________________________
In fact, the earth's gravity increases for a period as you go further
underground. As you said, the exact opposite of the only prediction we have
heard from the model.

Paul Stowe

From: Paul Stowe on 27 Feb 2010 01:10

On Feb 26, 9:29 pm, "Peter Webb"
<webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> "Paul Stowe" <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4a4b9e26-7b46-4c0b-b41d-f9fda83efe1c(a)b9g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 25, 11:27 pm, "Peter Webb"
>
> > Probably because relativistic mass increase is now an obsolete
> > concept. As for e = mc^2 again, while a consequence of the relativity
> > it is now considered that mass remains unchanged and the frame
> > dependent momentum/energy is solely an artifact of relative velocity.
> > As for 1905, Einstein penned Longitudinal mass and transverse mass
> > formulas (10. Dynamics of the Slowly Accelerated Electron
> > ofhttp://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/) identical to
> > Lorentz's of 1904, quote:
>
> > "This theory was further developed by Abraham (1902), who first used
> > the terms longitudinal and transverse mass for Lorentz's two masses.
> > However, Abraham's expressions were more complicated than those of
> > Lorentz. Lorentz himself expanded his 1899 ideas in his famous 1904
> > paper, where he set the factor to unity.[A 3] So, according to this
> > theory no body can reach the speed of light because the MASS BECOMES
> > INFINITELY LARGE at this velocity."
>
> > So, where's the difference of and mathematical significance?
>
> > ___________________________________
> > Like I said, Lorentz lacks (amongst other things) expressions for momentum
> > and energy, including the now famous e=mc^2. This was not part of Lorentz;
> > it is part of Special Relativity.
>
> "In fact, one can be far more general and precise: any theorem of LET
> is also a theorem of SR, and any theorem of SR is a theorem of LET.
> IOW: they are equivalent theories (i.e. they share the same set of
> theorems). As the theorems of a theory are the basis for comparing the
> theory to experiment, it is clear that SR and LET are experimentally
> indistinguishable." - Tom Roberts, 22 Nov 2003 -
>
> _____________________________
> Funny, we were discussing the theories of Lorentz prior to publishing of SR.
> LET was not the theory of Lorentz prior to SR. Easy mistake for you to make.

Really???

"For >7 years in this newsgroup, the phrase "Lorentz Ether
Theory" (LET)
has meant the theory based on Lorentz's 1904 paper, "Electromagnetic
Phenomena in a System Moving with Any Velocity Less than that of
Light",
and all logical and mathematical deductions from the presentation in
that paper." - Tom Roberts, 22 Nov 2003 - (Same article...)

Please note 1904 Paper! Your denial not withstanding, BUT YES! the
theory of Lorentz PRIOR TO Einstein's 1905 paper.

> That includes all 'consequences' of the theory, including energy/
> momentum.
>
> __________________________
> Sure. Show me where Lorentz said e=mc^2.

The same place Lorentz wrote about the PoR or Ros...

> > > > > 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.
>
> > Get up to date.
> > _______________________________
> > I don't think there is much point in me talking about relativistic mass to
> > somebody who doesn't understand basic concepts of SR. I am trying to dumb
> > this down as much as I can.
>
> "Ah, arrogance AND stupidity all in the same package, how efficient of
> you..."
>
> Tell us how to measure the 'mass' of an object moving at 0.99c
> relative to you. Would you not 'measure' momentum/energy and
> 'compute' a mass equivalence? When and IF you brought it to 'rest'
> there is only rest mass. The relativistic mass vanished, dissipated
> as energy.
>
> __________________________
> Gee, so you have read an introductory book on SR. Your point is ....

My point is, the is no relativistic mass, there is, instead, there is
a non-linear increase of in the momentum/kinetic energy of moving
masses and not all momentum/energy is massive.... It it were photons
would be massive. Thus the original quandary, "Mass Increase?"

> > Nobody is here to be educated. If the posters who disbelieve SR wanted to
> > be
> > educated, they would buy a book instead of trolling here.
>
> Please show me where I said I disbelieve in the mathematical
> formulation used in SR? For the record, the math is right, the
> experiments sound. Note what Tom Roberts wrote above, one does not
> have to buy SR's philosophy to accept the mathematical formulation.
>
> ________________________________
> Ummm ... SR's "philosophy"?
>
> SR is a collection of equations.

The very same ones as Lorentz's as Tom Roberts explained... So, given
that LET and SR have the very same collection of equations and
consequences, what's the difference between them?

> "Existentialism", now that's a philosophy.

Yes, it is.

> > OK, tell me what it means for something to a property (in this case actual
> > speed) that cannot in any way be measured?
>
> Sure it can, it's called the CMBR doppler. General Relativist have
> come to accept the CMBR as the preferred reference frame for
> astrophysical computations.
>
> ________________________________
> Ummm ... CMBR is measured. And it is not a pre3ferred reference frame for
> astrophyscial calculations, unless you can point to a single astrophysical
> calculation that uses it.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=CMB+preferred+frame&hl=en&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2001&as_sdtp=on

> > Speculation, had Einstein not published 1905 both Lorentz and Poincare
> > would have probably gotten E=mc^2 with a year or two. Poincare was
> > almost there without and input from Einstein. It is a direct
> > consequence of Lorentz invariance.
>
> > ______________________________
> > Ohh, OK, Lorentz is *not* the same as SR, and Lorentz was (according to
> > you)
> > at least a year or two away from developing SR. This is *not* what you
> > claimed above, and this is exactly the point I have been disputing. Now
> > you
> > seem to agree you were wrong.
>
> LET is mathematically identical to the tenets of SR. Thus all
> consequences of SR are also contained in LET. There is no mass
> increase, instead there is kinetic energy and momentum for massive
> objects when moving relative to an observer. This understanding has
> lead to a general abandonment of the concept of relativistic mass. I
> think you'll find the terms invariant mass, proper length, proper time
> used in more modern discussions.
> ________________________________
> But, funnily enough, none of these were articulated by Lorentz, were they?

Actually they were, but not prior to 1905. And, Lorentz never
abandoned his aetherial perspective.

Paul Stowe

From: Peter Webb on 27 Feb 2010 01:55

"Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2268f44a-518e-43b4-a3f8-a610f4e89e89(a)o30g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> On 26 Feb, 12:31, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au>
> wrote:
>> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> About this gravity thing. I am having a great deal of difficulty forming
>> a
>> mental picture of how it is supposed to work.
>
> At a fundamental level, I do too.
>
>
>
>> If the planets are separated
>> by vacuum, how could one object possibly pull on another object when
>> there
>> is nothing between them? For that matter, how does one particle manage to
>> pull on every other particle in the Universe at the same time? Are you
>> positing some array of invisible springs, 10^160 of them, connecting the
>> 10^80 particles in the Universe?
>
> I think a more credible argument is that there *is* in fact something
> in between the objects.
>
>
>
>> Frankly, I find the suggestion that each time I move my finger to type
>> these
>> invisible gravity springs cause every other particle in the Universe to
>> move
>> ludicrous. Apart from anything else, how is this spooky action at a
>> distance
>> supposed to work, physically? Springs and levers? What is gravity
>> supposed
>> to be, physically?
>
> I don't find it hard to believe that every movement of the finger
> could have an effect on every other particle of the universe. In terms
> of what gravity is and how it works, that remains to be explained.

Ohhh, so your mental model of the solar system contains "gravity", yet your
mental model of the solar system provides no physical explanation of what it
"really" is.

Funny, you complained about SR and Minkowski for having components for which
you have no physical model. Yet your own theory of the solar system contains
concepts such as gravity which have no physical explanation at all within
the model.

Newton's theory of gravitation and SR are not at all different in that
respect. Newton's theory of gravity says nothing at all about what gravity
"really" is. SR says nothing about what length contraction "really" is. The
theories don't need to. The equations all work; the rest is philosophy. In
your case, bad philosophy.