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: 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) ID’s 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 idea’s 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.
From: PD on 8 Mar 2010 17:38
On Mar 6, 5:41 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 5 Mar, 16:02, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 5, 2:55 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 4 Mar, 18:12, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 4, 12:04 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On 4 Mar, 17:46, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Mar 4, 11:17 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On 4 Mar, 16:49, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Mar 4, 11:45 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On 4 Mar, 16:32, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Mar 4, 11:28 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > On 4 Mar, 16:20, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 4, 10:31 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On 4 Mar, 13:40, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 4, 3:12 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 3 Mar, 20:01, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 3, 12:52 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No. In SR, clocks *appear* to run slower as you are increasing your
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > distance from the clock. The effect is entirely apparent in SR.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You must just go through the entire thread and not pay any attention
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to what anybody says.  Ever.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) What you've stated above is not an effect of SR.  It is an effect
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of propagation delay, which was used to calculate c from the motion of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the moons of jupiter hundreds of years ago.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ok.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) If you were to move TOWARD the clock, it would appear to run
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > faster.  But SR says nothing about whether you are moving toward or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > away from an object.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <suspicious eyebrow raised> Ok.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3) The amount that the clock would appear to slow down is DIFFERENT
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from the amount that SR predicts the clock *actually* slows down
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Really? I'm growing increasingly suspicious. In what way does SR
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > predict the "actual" slowdown, as opposed to the "apparent" slowdown?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And for example, if we racked up the value of 'c' to near infinity,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > would SR still predict an "actual" slowdown, even though the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > propagation delays would approach zero?
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > With what you have described, I checked just to be sure, even though I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > was already pretty sure what the answer would be, the time you read
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > moving away the clock would be:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > t2 = t - (x+vt)/c = t(1-v/c) - x
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and when you move toward the clock
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > t2 = t + (x+vt)/c = t(1+v/c) + x
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > so moving away from the clock:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > dt2/dt = 1-v/c
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and toward
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > dt2/dt = 1-v/c
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Special relativity predicts that the moving clock will always slow
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > down as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > dt2/dt = sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > What you *measure* is a combination of the actual slow down predicted
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > by SR (sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) and whatever changes occur due to propagation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > delays (which depend on the direction of motion).
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Ok. So let us suppose that we take two clocks. Separate them by a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > certain distance, synchronise them when they are both stationary, and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > then accelerate them both towards each other (and just before they
> > > > > > > > > > > > > collide, we bring them stationary again). Are you seriously saying
> > > > > > > > > > > > > that both clocks report that the other clock has slowed down, even
> > > > > > > > > > > > > though they have both undergone symmetrical processes? Because there
> > > > > > > > > > > > > is obviously a contradiction there.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, that is correct.  Both will report a slow down.  And in fact,
> > > > > > > > > > > > which ever one breaks the inertial frame to match speed with the other
> > > > > > > > > > > > is the one that will be "wrong".  This is still within the realm of
> > > > > > > > > > > > SR, not GR.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > What if they both "break the inertial frame"?
>
> > > > > > > > > > Then whichever frame they both accelerate into will be the one that
> > > > > > > > > > has measured the "correct" time dilation.
>
> > > > > > > > > So in other words, the clocks will register the same time, but will
> > > > > > > > > have slowed in some "absolute sense"?
>
> > > > > > > > Yes--assuming they both accelerated by the same amount (that is to
> > > > > > > > say, assuming they both broke the inertial frame in a symmetric way).
> > > > > > > > Otherwise, they will register different times.
>
> > > > > > > Agreed.
>
> > > > > > > So let's explore an extension of this scenario. Let's say you have two
> > > > > > > clocks, and you accelerate both of them up to a common speed, and
> > > > > > > after they have travelled a certain distance, you turn them around and
> > > > > > > return them to the starting point. The only difference is that one
> > > > > > > clock goes a certain distance, and the other clock goes twice that
> > > > > > > distance, but they *both* have the same acceleration profile - the
> > > > > > > only difference is that one clock spends more time travelling on
> > > > > > > inertia.
>
> > > > > > > Obviously, one clock will return to the starting point earlier than
> > > > > > > the other. But when both have returned, are their times still in
> > > > > > > agreement with each other, or have they changed?
>
> > > > > > Agreement. Both of them will agree, but will be showing a time earlier
> > > > > > than a third clock that was left behind at the starting point.
>
> > > > > Oh dear. Mark contends otherwise.
>
> > > > Right. I misunderstood. He's right. I was wrong.
>
> > > Ok. So what you're (both) saying is that time dilation (in SR) is a
> > > simple function of speed and distance, so that the quicker you travel
> > > the more time dilates, and the further you travel the more time
> > > dilates? And, to boot, you're saying that it's only *relative*
> > > distance and speed that counts (i.e. there is no absolute measure of
> > > movement in space)?
>
> > The time dilation *factor* (by what factor is the clock moving more
> > slowly) is a simple function of relative speed. The difference in the
> > time *elapsed* between the two clocks is also a function of the
> > relative distance.
>
> > This should make perfect sense to you. If a clock is running 2%
> > slower, then it is running 2% slower regardless of distance. But if,
> > as a result of running 2% slower, it falls behind 6 minutes after
> > running a certain amount of time, then it will fall behind 12 minutes
> > after running for twice as long.
>
> Agreed.
>
> The question now is, if we agree that both clocks suffer time dilation
> in this way, then when they return to the start point, how do they
> each reconcile the fact that (after accounting for the effects of
> acceleration) it ought to be the other clock which is slow, when in
> fact one clock (the one that went furthest from the start point) will
> be slower than the other? And a third clock, left at the start point,
> will be running ahead of both?

You asked this question better in a different subthread, and so I'll
answer it there.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215
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