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: PD on 10 Mar 2010 11:57
On Mar 9, 9:41 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 8, 8:05 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>
> > "Paul Stowe" <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:1132a230-92d9-484a-b0c1-d3a97532cad9(a)z10g2000prh.googlegroups.com....
>
> > >> >> SR explains it as having to be c due to the geometry of spacetime
>
> > >> > That's simply a silly idea...
>
> > >> That you think it is silly is your problem, not that of SR
>
> > > Something physical may be represented by a geometric description.
>
> > And our universe is represented by Minkowski geometry.
>
> Yes, you can descibe localized behavior with that format.  BUT! to do
> so you must depend on finite light speed and its physical
> independence.  Geometry neither predicts. explains, or has a basis for
> that.
>

That's incorrect, Paul. The geometric structure of spacetime imposes
both a finite speed of light AND makes it frame-independent.

The geometric structure of spacetime *necessarily* divides pairs of
events into three categories: spacelike-separated, timelike-separated,
and nullcone-separated. This structure also immediately leads to the
result that any wordline that could be traversed by something between
timelike-separated events will, in any other inertial reference frame,
still be between timelike-separated events. What this means explicitly
is that this object can never span two spacelike-separated events.
Thus, the universe of events is strictly divided into two completely
separated causal domains. The boundary of these domains is the null
cone. Since the null cone has a definite slope of space vs time, this
imposes a causal speed limit. (This limit does not exist in Euclidean
3D+1D space -- it is a unique feature of the 4D space and its
geometry.)

Furthermore, while transformations between inertial frames will shift
the slopes between pairs of timelike events (that is, the speed of an
object traveling between the two events), the same transformation
between pairs of events on the null cone do not change slope. What
this means is that any object that can travel between two events on
null cone will have the same speed regardless of inertial reference
frame.

So you see, the geometric structure DOES imply both a causal speed
limit and the invariance of that causal speed limit with choice of
inertial reference frame. It just so happens that light appears to be
one of the candidate objects that can travel between nullcone-
separated events.

If you need to see how the structure does impose those limits
formally, I could point you to a reference book or two that derives
this unambiguously.

At the time that Einstein proposed special relativity, he did not
understand how such a geometric structure could produce those two
conclusions as necessary consequences. And so he just posited the
invariance of the speed of light as a postulate (or equivalently,
demanded that Maxwell's equations obey the principle of relativity).
It was only later that the geometric structure was uncovered and it
was understood how the light postulate follows directly from this
structure.

PD
From: waldofj on 10 Mar 2010 12:36
On Mar 10, 10:11 am, "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
> On Mar 10, 7:04 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> >news:ae269f15-4a97-4e9b-9529-002823bd2ca6(a)n7g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > On Mar 10, 6:54 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>
> > >> > Because the "multiple aethers" would need to
> > >> > have contradictory properties.
>
> > >> They probably would.  Why can't multiple aethers have different
> > >> properties?
>
> > > Because the properties in cause are CONTRADICTORY , imbecile. You keep
> > > missing that.
>
> > The claim was that an aether for gravity would have different properties for
> > one for EMR.  There is no contradiction in that .. they can simply be
> > different aethers with different properties.
>
> How can they? Their properties would not only be different but also
> CONTRADICTORY.
>
> > If there is no contradictions
> > (or not enough for aetherists to assert their way out of it) then the same
> > aether can be used.
>
> If your grandmother had wheels she would have been a bus. The point is
> that there IS contradiction. Fallacious thinking will not take you
> very far.
>
> > It doesn't really matter which approach they take, but
> > a determined aetherist can get out of the refutations put forward so far
> > quite easily (as has happened in the past).
>
> You are a prime example.

My understanding of the aether of LET is:
it must have very great stiffness (i.e. very high modulus) so waves
will propagate at the speed of light.
It interacts with matter to cause a compression in the direction of
motion.
And yet, it does not cause any drag on matter moving through it so,
for example, the earth can orbit the sun for 4.5 billion years in a
nearly stable orbit.

Now, if that last property isn't contradictory, I don't know what is.

I think the point Inertial is trying to make is that the concept of an
aether is already ad-hoc and self contradictory so it doesn't matter
what else you pile on to it.
From: Dono. on 10 Mar 2010 13:11
On Mar 10, 9:36 am, waldofj <wald...(a)verizon.net> wrote:
> On Mar 10, 10:11 am, "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 10, 7:04 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>
> > > "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> > >news:ae269f15-4a97-4e9b-9529-002823bd2ca6(a)n7g2000prc.googlegroups.com....
>
> > > > On Mar 10, 6:54 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>
> > > >> > Because the "multiple aethers" would need to
> > > >> > have contradictory properties.
>
> > > >> They probably would.  Why can't multiple aethers have different
> > > >> properties?
>
> > > > Because the properties in cause are CONTRADICTORY , imbecile. You keep
> > > > missing that.
>
> > > The claim was that an aether for gravity would have different properties for
> > > one for EMR.  There is no contradiction in that .. they can simply be
> > > different aethers with different properties.
>
> > How can they? Their properties would not only be different but also
> > CONTRADICTORY.
>
> > > If there is no contradictions
> > > (or not enough for aetherists to assert their way out of it) then the same
> > > aether can be used.
>
> > If your grandmother had wheels she would have been a bus. The point is
> > that there IS contradiction. Fallacious thinking will not take you
> > very far.
>
> > > It doesn't really matter which approach they take, but
> > > a determined aetherist can get out of the refutations put forward so far
> > > quite easily (as has happened in the past).
>
> > You are a prime example.
>
> My understanding of the aether of LET is:
> it must have very great stiffness (i.e. very high modulus) so waves
> will propagate at the speed of light.
> It interacts with matter to cause a compression in the direction of
> motion.
> And yet, it does not cause any drag on matter moving through it so,
> for example, the earth can orbit the sun for 4.5 billion years in a
> nearly stable orbit.
>
> Now, if that last property isn't contradictory, I don't know what is.
>
> I think the point Inertial is trying to make is that the concept of an
> aether is already ad-hoc and self contradictory so it doesn't matter
> what else you pile on to it

No, quite the contrary, Inertial doesn't admit that the concept of
aether is self-contradictory. See his exchanges with Jerry. In the
process, he keeps contradicting himself. It is a waste of time
discussing with him. Both Jerry and I have given up on this idiot.

From: PD on 10 Mar 2010 13:47
On Mar 10, 12:11 pm, "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
> On Mar 10, 9:36 am, waldofj <wald...(a)verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 10, 10:11 am, "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 10, 7:04 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>
> > > > "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> > > >news:ae269f15-4a97-4e9b-9529-002823bd2ca6(a)n7g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > > On Mar 10, 6:54 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>
> > > > >> > Because the "multiple aethers" would need to
> > > > >> > have contradictory properties.
>
> > > > >> They probably would.  Why can't multiple aethers have different
> > > > >> properties?
>
> > > > > Because the properties in cause are CONTRADICTORY , imbecile. You keep
> > > > > missing that.
>
> > > > The claim was that an aether for gravity would have different properties for
> > > > one for EMR.  There is no contradiction in that .. they can simply be
> > > > different aethers with different properties.
>
> > > How can they? Their properties would not only be different but also
> > > CONTRADICTORY.
>
> > > > If there is no contradictions
> > > > (or not enough for aetherists to assert their way out of it) then the same
> > > > aether can be used.
>
> > > If your grandmother had wheels she would have been a bus. The point is
> > > that there IS contradiction. Fallacious thinking will not take you
> > > very far.
>
> > > > It doesn't really matter which approach they take, but
> > > > a determined aetherist can get out of the refutations put forward so far
> > > > quite easily (as has happened in the past).
>
> > > You are a prime example.
>
> > My understanding of the aether of LET is:
> > it must have very great stiffness (i.e. very high modulus) so waves
> > will propagate at the speed of light.
> > It interacts with matter to cause a compression in the direction of
> > motion.
> > And yet, it does not cause any drag on matter moving through it so,
> > for example, the earth can orbit the sun for 4.5 billion years in a
> > nearly stable orbit.
>
> > Now, if that last property isn't contradictory, I don't know what is.
>
> > I think the point Inertial is trying to make is that the concept of an
> > aether is already ad-hoc and self contradictory so it doesn't matter
> > what else you pile on to it
>
> No, quite the contrary, Inertial doesn't admit that the concept of
> aether is self-contradictory. See his exchanges with Jerry. In the
> process, he keeps contradicting himself. It is a waste of time
> discussing with him. Both Jerry and I have given up on this idiot.

I don't think there's anything to admit.

An aether that is supposed to have certain qualifiers to it -- such as
solidity, where solidity means that it carries the expectation that it
behaves like OTHER solids -- can certainly be said to be self-
contradictory.

This, in fact, is where a lot of aether types have been ruled out.
Aethers that behave exactly like gases are ruled out. Aethers that
behave exactly like solids have been ruled out.

But what isn't necessarily ruled out is an aether that is UNLIKE any
other substance previously known. This is the kind of aether that
Inertial has been referring to, and in fact is similar to the kind of
aether that Einstein mentioned is still permissible in relativity.

The problem with the latter is that it is too slippery to pin down,
and therefore impossible to experimentally test, and therefore
scientifically useless. It is like invisible and very clever fairies
that are the cause of momentum conservation but are perfectly adept at
masking their presence and covering their tracks. There is no way to
say that such fairies are self-contradictory, but on the other hand,
there is no way to prove either that they exist or that they don't
exist.

PD
From: Dono. on 10 Mar 2010 13:55
On Mar 10, 10:47 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 10, 12:11 pm, "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 10, 9:36 am, waldofj <wald...(a)verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 10, 10:11 am, "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 10, 7:04 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> > > > >news:ae269f15-4a97-4e9b-9529-002823bd2ca6(a)n7g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > > > On Mar 10, 6:54 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > >> > Because the "multiple aethers" would need to
> > > > > >> > have contradictory properties.
>
> > > > > >> They probably would.  Why can't multiple aethers have different
> > > > > >> properties?
>
> > > > > > Because the properties in cause are CONTRADICTORY , imbecile. You keep
> > > > > > missing that.
>
> > > > > The claim was that an aether for gravity would have different properties for
> > > > > one for EMR.  There is no contradiction in that .. they can simply be
> > > > > different aethers with different properties.
>
> > > > How can they? Their properties would not only be different but also
> > > > CONTRADICTORY.
>
> > > > > If there is no contradictions
> > > > > (or not enough for aetherists to assert their way out of it) then the same
> > > > > aether can be used.
>
> > > > If your grandmother had wheels she would have been a bus. The point is
> > > > that there IS contradiction. Fallacious thinking will not take you
> > > > very far.
>
> > > > > It doesn't really matter which approach they take, but
> > > > > a determined aetherist can get out of the refutations put forward so far
> > > > > quite easily (as has happened in the past).
>
> > > > You are a prime example.
>
> > > My understanding of the aether of LET is:
> > > it must have very great stiffness (i.e. very high modulus) so waves
> > > will propagate at the speed of light.
> > > It interacts with matter to cause a compression in the direction of
> > > motion.
> > > And yet, it does not cause any drag on matter moving through it so,
> > > for example, the earth can orbit the sun for 4.5 billion years in a
> > > nearly stable orbit.
>
> > > Now, if that last property isn't contradictory, I don't know what is.
>
> > > I think the point Inertial is trying to make is that the concept of an
> > > aether is already ad-hoc and self contradictory so it doesn't matter
> > > what else you pile on to it
>
> > No, quite the contrary, Inertial doesn't admit that the concept of
> > aether is self-contradictory. See his exchanges with Jerry. In the
> > process, he keeps contradicting himself. It is a waste of time
> > discussing with him. Both Jerry and I have given up on this idiot.
>
> I don't think there's anything to admit.
>
> An aether that is supposed to have certain qualifiers to it -- such as
> solidity, where solidity means that it carries the expectation that it
> behaves like OTHER solids -- can certainly be said to be self-
> contradictory.
>
> This, in fact, is where a lot of aether types have been ruled out.
> Aethers that behave exactly like gases are ruled out. Aethers that
> behave exactly like solids have been ruled out.
>
> But what isn't necessarily ruled out is an aether that is UNLIKE any
> other substance previously known. This is the kind of aether that
> Inertial has been referring to, and in fact is similar to the kind of
> aether that Einstein mentioned is still permissible in relativity.
>
> The problem with the latter is that it is too slippery to pin down,
> and therefore impossible to experimentally test, and therefore
> scientifically useless. It is like invisible and very clever fairies
> that are the cause of momentum conservation but are perfectly adept at
> masking their presence and covering their tracks. There is no way to
> say that such fairies are self-contradictory, but on the other hand,
> there is no way to prove either that they exist or that they don't
> exist.
>
> PD- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The multiple 'aethers" with contradictory properties is only part of
the discussion. The other part is Inertial's self-contradictory
statements about speed of light being isotropic only in the "aether"
frame while anisotropic in all other frames. You need to follow the
complete thread. Anyway, I am done with him, he's a complete waste of
time.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242
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