From: Ste on
On 6 Feb, 02:45, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 5, 9:40 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Then perhaps that is why science doesn't get as much interest these
> > days,
>
> Doesn't get as much interest from who?  what are you talking about?
> There's plenty of interest in science, plenty of students in physics
> classes, and plenty of people getting degrees in physics.

Well I live in the UK, and they are constantly bemoaning the lack of
interest in scientific subjects.
From: Peter Webb on

"Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2db9de27-a3d5-4241-9f31-7b2aeeec7030(a)a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On 5 Feb, 14:41, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au>
> wrote:
>> >> ____________________________________________
>> >> Perhaps if you defined what you mean by "physical sense" this
>> >> statement
>> >> would have some meaning.
>>
>> > Speaking of "physical", I'm starting to wonder whether I've actually
>> > died and gone to hell for my sins, where the Devil has decided that I
>> > am to be tormented by having to explain the meaning of "physical" for
>> > all eternity.
>>
>> Just define it once.
>>
>> The only argument you seem to have is that it isn't "physical", and you
>> won't say what that means.
>
> There's no single word to sum it up really. "Physical" basically
> relates to "that which we can experience with our senses". It's
> something that exists independent of consciousness and thought. It's
> also deterministic, predictable, and orderly.
>

Fine. The rotation is physical. You can see the length contraction with your
own eyes, and a clock on the ladder will confirm the time rotation. Its
exactly the same as measuring a yardstick's rotation in 3D space by
measuring the displacement of its end.

So now you know.


From: Peter Webb on

"Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:45566c61-e6a2-418d-a2cf-0589991e6161(a)o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> On 5 Feb, 14:39, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au>
> wrote:
>> Then what part of SR requires that the effect be real instead of
>> merely observed? Isn't it more plausible to say that the *observed*
>> position of the ladder, doors, etc, are "rotated in time", but that
>> what is observed does not reflect physical reality?
>> ______________________________
>> You don't seem to get it.
>>
>> The equations of SR are correct, do you agree with that? For example, do
>> you
>> agree that particle accelerators built using SR correctly function?
>>
>> Well, that's all that physics aims to do, correctly predict the outcome
>> of
>> every experiment.
>
> Indeed. But understanding the physical nature of these theories is
> necessary for scientific advance. I mean, you can teach any fool to
> follow rules that are already laid down. But the people who are coming
> up with the rules need to have genuine understanding.
>

Ohh, you mean insight into what is "really" happening. That is exactly what
Minkowski did when he pointed out that the time and space transformations of
Einstein were exactly the same as a rotation in spacetime of an invariant
vector, and that explained other stuff like Energy and Momentum.

It also provided the basis for the General Theory of Relativity, which uses
this concept as a base. It provides a link between the two theories which
does not rely on the mathemetics just happening to work out the same for
treating SR as a special case of GR.

If you want "genuine understanding" of SR, Minkowski space-time is the
second thing you should learn, right after Einstein's algebraic approach
based on his two axioms.


>
> I know, because Einstein, as best I can tell, thought like me,
> physically, and politically.

You are nothing like Einstein as regards to physics.

You are more like some crank who has been "studying physics all day and
night for a month" from popular accounts of the subject, trying to argue
with people who have been studying it for 40 years.


From: Sam Wormley on
On 2/4/10 8:16 PM, Ste wrote:

>
> Take comfort Ken that at least there's someone here who understands
> your simple questions.

<laughing>


From: Sam Wormley on
On 2/5/10 1:46 PM, JT wrote:

> certainly SR can not even
> handle simultanity, it make the screws the geometry and raise paradox
> that never was there.

Ho Boy--Simultaneity is the property of two events happening
at the same time in at least one frame of reference. What I
suspect is that you, JT, don't understand is that simultaneity
is observer dependent!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_of_reference