Known physics defeated by simple puzzle?
in [Relativity]
|
From: GogoJF on 12 Apr 2010 15:38 On Apr 12, 1:07 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 12, 9:50 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On 12 Apr, 15:02, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 11, 10:43 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Such proponents > > > > > > also tend to have a general worldview that is informed entirely by > > > > > > their imaginations or naive beliefs, > > > > > > ...such as temporally ordered cause and effect between strictly > > > > > material agents... > > > > > Despite your snipe Paul, there is actually some evidence for this, and > > > > as you've conceded before, no experimental evidence against it.' > > > > Oh, but there IS evidence against it in some cases. What you insist, > > > however, is that the evidence is an illusion of some underlying > > > process that is somehow temporally ordered causality that GIVES THE > > > APPEARANCE of the violation. > > > The evidence that supposedly supports you is very tenuous indeed. > > Not according to physicists. It's very solid, in fact, repeated in > many different, complementary incarnations. > > > As > > I've said, I just don't see how you can distinguish premonition and > > cause from cause and effect. > > > > This is a little like saying that there is evidence that the Earth is > > > only 6600 years old, a creation of God in its present state more or > > > less (that evidence being the Bible, an implicitly trustworthy > > > source), and there is no evidence that the earth is older than 6600 > > > years old. When confronted with geological dating data, one could > > > easily argue that God arranged it so that it APPEARS that the earth is > > > older than 6600 years old. > > > Indeed, so what? > > This creationist contention is to be distinguished from science. > > > > > > > Even > > > > when I questioned you on the issue of premonition and cause, you found > > > > it very difficult to explain how it could be experimentally > > > > distinguished from cause and effect. > > > > As I recall, I gave you a definition of cause and effect, which you > > > found too abstract, and that essentially you could not conceive of the > > > concepts of cause and effect that did not imply temporal ordering. > > > As I recall, I questioned you on how this premonition and cause could > > be experimentally distinguished from cause and effect. > > Because the independent variable is altered temporally after the > dependent variable. > > > > > > > > > Incidentally, I recall that our definition of "material" is different > > > > - remember, my defintion includes what you call the "immaterial". > > > > Yes, indeed, and I've used the term (and defined it for you) in the > > > manner that word is used in physics. Furthermore, you may yourself > > > find it amusing that your definition of material includes its > > > antithesis, which I find as useful as defining "mammal" to include > > > those that are "not mammals". > > > It's not that I find it amusing. I was just clarifying my position, > > that when I agree with the notion of "cause and effect between > > material agents", that isn't to rule out what you call the > > "immaterial". > > > > > > > and show a total unfamiliarity > > > > > > with history, science, politics, psychology, economics, or any > > > > > > systematic body of human knowledge that might offer any counter to the > > > > > > mere spoken word of their priest or other religious figures, or which > > > > > > may put a different slant on their beliefs. > > > > > > In other words, they are ignorant, uneducated, and cowing to > > > > > authority. > > > > > Generally they are ignorant and uneducated, but more to the point they > > > > accept something as true *simply* because authority says it is true, > > > > and same is true for the authority in turn. > > > > > > > Indeed, for me, I also take the view that it will often be futile to > > > > > > attack ideology using mere logic. Most people hold an ideology because > > > > > > in some way or another because it has a concrete function for them, > > > > > > ...such as temporally ordered causality between strictly material > > > > > agents... > > > > > Yes. I said at the outset of my previous post that there is an > > > > ideological (although in this context, for clarity, I prefer to say an > > > > "axiomatic"-) component to my beliefs - which defines the sort of > > > > explanations I'm willing to accept, what sort of evidence I'm willing > > > > to accept, etc. > > > > > And before you claim that science, or scientists, don't have ideology, > > > > I refer you back to what I said many months ago, that an ignorance of > > > > ideology, or a lack of concern with it, is not the same as an absence > > > > of ideology. > > > > There's a vast difference between a set of axioms about how nature > > > MUST work, and a set of axioms about an adopted procedure to > > > investigate how nature does in fact work. The latter affords you a lot > > > more flexibility for proper discovery. > > > I don't see how the two can be distinguished. The investigation > > procedure is inextricably linked with a hypothesis about how nature > > works. A hypothesis that included God's will, for example, would not > > include a requirement of reproducibility - because of course there is > > no reason a priori why God would respond in the same way each time. > > And by the same token, the requirement of reproducibility naturally > > stems from a hypothesis that the natural world is controlled in a > > mechanical fashion, where the same input will necessarily be expected > > to produce the same output. > > > As I say Paul, I think you'd do better to concentrate on actually > > honing your ability to explain the theory itself, rather than trying > > to tenderise people into a state of unquestioning acceptance of what > > is about to come (either on the question of physics, or on the > > philosophy of science). You overestimate the degree to which I won't > > respond to evidence and coherent explanations, but you far > > underestimate my resistence to the word of authority and the degree to > > which I'm turned off by a pompous prelude about how much the universe > > differs from my preconceptions or how amazing or mysterious the > > universe is. It evokes the image in my mind of a magician's act, where > > there is a sense that the person you're talking to is more interested > > in ceremony and inducing confusion, and pulling off a deception > > convincingly, as opposed to just explaining in an impartial > > straightforward manner. > > > And I probably can't deny that some of this is due to fundamental > > personality and political differences between us. And what I will say > > is that it's quite possible that you've found, in your experience as a > > teacher, no doubt teaching young students who know nothing and have > > very little between the ears, that the magician's act is actually > > useful for provoking interest in the subject amongst those who > > otherwise have very little inherent interest. But for me, I really > > dislike that approach - I have a fundamental interest in knowledge > > generally already, and always have, and I would have no reason to be > > here other than sheer personal interest. > > The difficulty is that you don't have much interest in the physics as > explained to you either, if it does not conform to your chosen axioms. > In other words, you want not only the physical explanation, but one > that you will accept as intuitively consistent with your > preconceptions. This is not likely to come to resolution. You > attribute your position as coming from a refusal to bow to authority, > when it instead gives the impression of lack of imagination on your > part. No one expects you to bow to authority. However, you might ask > yourself whether you are willing to question your own assumptions in > the process of learning about an explanation that perhaps runs counter > to them. This is a *choice* on your part, one that would be driven by > intellectual curiosity. > > I've noted that when experimental data are pointed to, you indicate > your profound *faith* that there surely is an explanation available > that would not cause you to question your own assumptions and that > would be compatible with those observations. This *faith* allows you > to remain unconvinced of the explanation that is provided. > > You surely see that this combination of fastly held preconceptions, > plus a faith that there is surely somewhere and someday a saving model > that adheres to them, will *guarantee* that you remain unconvinced of > the explanatory success of the prevailing model. If being convinced is > your objective, then you have set yourself up for failure. If you > expect others to convince you in the face of and despite that > combination, you will find that no one will presume to be able to do > that for you. One does not convince a creationist that he is wrong, > and one does not teach a Christmas ham. PD: this is an excellent post. Its full of everything- I mean its got a little bit of everything in it. Cause and effect- this is a very difficult issue, but I would not confuse the subject with such words as "premonition". Words like this only tend to dilute the subject. Words like "faith" are fair enough, but the way you use this word seems to imply the expression, "blind faith". I am sure that the scientist, who uses an alternative model, is aware of his difference from convention. I am sure that almost all alternative models that are proposed by scientists are inferior to convention; except, of course, those which bolster it. I do not think it is fair to compare a scientist, who believes in an alternative idea or model, with one who is a creationist, or a Christian. There have been many great scientists who were religious and many who were not.
From: paparios on 12 Apr 2010 15:56 On 12 abr, 14:15, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 12 Apr, 18:25, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > _________________________________________ > > > > It has been explained to you about 1,327 times that the speed of light is > > > > independent of the speed of the sender; this is a fundamental postulate of > > > > SR, is predicted by Maxwell's equations, and is massively proved > > > > experimentally. Are you (a) so stupid that you haven't understood this yet, > > > > or (b) saying SR is wrong ? > > > > No, I'm saying that SR may well be quantifying this variable, but by > > > attributing it to a relativity of simultaneity rather than a variance > > > in the speed of propagation. But as I say, I haven't quite got to > > > grips with SR yet or how simultaneity changes for the clocks in my > > > example, so let's concentrate on that first before going off on > > > tangents discussing ideas that are purely speculative and which are > > > not based on a complete understanding of SR. > > > This response is a textbook example of a troll behavior... > > That old chestnut agan. On the contrary. The one discussing subjects and ideas, which have been discussed or repeated so many times that they are not interesting or funny any more is you. And you clearly proof your troll behavior quite clearly, when you answer to the clear wording of Peter Webb "It has been explained to you about 1,327 times that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the sender; this is a fundamental postulate of SR, is predicted by Maxwell's equations, and is massively proved experimentally." So you answer: "No, I'm saying that SR may well be quantifying this variable, but by attributing it to a relativity of simultaneity rather than a variance in the speed of propagation.". What is this? Are you kidding all of us? What part of "this is a fundamental postulate of SR, is predicted by Maxwell's equations, and is massively proved experimentally" you don't understand??? But then you put the icing on the cake by writing: "But as I say, I haven't quite got to grips with SR yet or how simultaneity changes for the clocks in my example, so let's concentrate on that first before going off on tangents discussing ideas that are purely speculative and which are not based on a complete understanding of SR." Wow!!!! Miguel Rios
From: Sue... on 12 Apr 2010 16:28 On Apr 12, 3:56 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 12 abr, 14:15, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On 12 Apr, 18:25, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > _________________________________________ > > > > > It has been explained to you about 1,327 times that the speed of light is > > > > > independent of the speed of the sender; this is a fundamental postulate of > > > > > SR, is predicted by Maxwell's equations, and is massively proved > > > > > experimentally. Are you (a) so stupid that you haven't understood this yet, > > > > > or (b) saying SR is wrong ? > > > > > No, I'm saying that SR may well be quantifying this variable, but by > > > > attributing it to a relativity of simultaneity rather than a variance > > > > in the speed of propagation. But as I say, I haven't quite got to > > > > grips with SR yet or how simultaneity changes for the clocks in my > > > > example, so let's concentrate on that first before going off on > > > > tangents discussing ideas that are purely speculative and which are > > > > not based on a complete understanding of SR. > > > > This response is a textbook example of a troll behavior... > > > That old chestnut agan. > > On the contrary. The one discussing subjects and ideas, which have > been discussed or repeated so many times that they are not interesting > or funny any more is you. =============== > And you clearly proof your troll behavior quite clearly, when you > answer to the clear wording of Peter Webb "It has been explained to > you about 1,327 times that the speed of light is independent of the > speed of the sender; this is a fundamental postulate of SR, is > predicted by Maxwell's equations, and is massively proved > experimentally." What has been "massively proved" is the light used for Einstein's "relativity of simultaneity" does not exist. http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/articles/ekspong/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectric_effect#Modern_view Lucky for him, Minkowski put it on an imaginary axis. http://www.bartleby.com/173/17.html Sue... > So you answer: "No, I'm saying that SR may well be quantifying this > variable, but by attributing it to a relativity of simultaneity rather > than a variance in the speed of propagation.". What is this? Are you > kidding all of us? What part of "this is a fundamental postulate of > SR, is predicted by Maxwell's equations, and is massively proved > experimentally" you don't understand??? > But then you put the icing on the cake by writing: "But as I say, I > haven't quite got to grips with SR yet or how simultaneity changes for > the clocks in my example, so let's concentrate on that first before > going off on tangents discussing ideas that are purely speculative and > which are not based on a complete understanding of SR." Wow!!!! > > Miguel Rios
From: paparios on 12 Apr 2010 17:26 On 12 abr, 16:28, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > On Apr 12, 3:56 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > =============== > > > And you clearly proof your troll behavior quite clearly, when you > > answer to the clear wording of Peter Webb "It has been explained to > > you about 1,327 times that the speed of light is independent of the > > speed of the sender; this is a fundamental postulate of SR, is > > predicted by Maxwell's equations, and is massively proved > > experimentally." > > What has been "massively proved" is the light used > for Einstein's "relativity of simultaneity" does > not exist. > Yeah right. that is the reason your hero, Dr. Fitzpatrick writes: "...Consider, now, a wave-like disturbance which is self-regenerating and does not require a medium through which to propagate. The most well known example of such a disturbance is a light wave. Another example is a gravity wave. According to electromagnetic theory the speed of propagation of a light wave through a vacuum is c=1/ sqrt(epsilon_0*mu_0)=2.99729*10^8 m/sec where epsilon_0 and mu_0 are physical constants which can be evaluated by performing two simple experiments which involve measuring the force of attraction between two fixed changes and two fixed parallel current carrying wires. According to the relativity principle these experiments must yield the same values for epsilon_0 and mu_0 in all inertial frames. Thus, the speed of light must be the same in all inertial frames. In fact, any disturbance which does not require a medium to propagate through must appear to travel at the same velocity in all inertial frames, otherwise we could differentiate inertial frames using the apparent propagation speed of the disturbance, which would violate the relativity principle..." > > Lucky for him, Minkowski put it on an imaginary > axis. > > http://www.bartleby.com/173/17.html > Yeah, right. You mean like this: ds^2 = c^2 dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2 ??? Miguel Rios
From: Inertial on 12 Apr 2010 17:16
"Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:087d943e-c2f2-4270-85b9-0abe5ecaa8e1(a)y14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 12, 9:12 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message >> >> news:d1fbbc7c-04a9-4f1f-813d-8ae9bc0040b5(a)z7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On Apr 12, 8:53 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message >> >> >>news:08e3de29-d204-468e-831e-45ff14abe0d4(a)z7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> > On Apr 12, 8:13 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> >> "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message >> >> >> >>news:6305349b-3cdb-49b7-b4dd-a5e6e48a46f4(a)i25g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On Apr 12, 7:16 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message >> >> >> > [...] >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> There would be the slowing SR predits. You >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> are >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> talking >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> about >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> additonal >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> optical illusions. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > No, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Yes .. you were. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > ================= >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > I was talking about the slowing predicted by >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > SR, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > which >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > is >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > not >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > accounted for by the effects that we've both >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > already >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > agreed >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > are >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > "illusions". >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> And that is the 'slowing' SR predicts that is not >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> illusion. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> The >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> same >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> that i >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> already described in detail before >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > In view of Noether's work with GR and the >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > *process* we agreed was valid for marking time >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > You seem to be suggesting an aeroplane >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > might fly relative to another aeroplane on >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > some course that would weaken an air marshal's >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > bullet. That would violate PoR. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Why do you think I would be suggesting any such >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> thing? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > It seems fair to lump the effects of a light path >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > that is changing length under the term "illusion" >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> It is >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > but you say there is some other effect that >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > causes a clock to slow. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> To be measured as slow .. yes >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Just to be clear to >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > what you are referring we need to be more >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > specific about the *process* that marks time. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Doesn't matter >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Lets say there is a AC dynamo somewhere and both >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > stella and terra's clocks are synchronous motors >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > connected with long wires to that dynamo. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Every revolution of the dynamo produces a >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > revolution of both clocks motors. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > What part of the voyage and by what *process* >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > do the clocks get out of sync? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> They are never IN sync in the frames in which they are >> >> >> >> >> >> >> out >> >> >> >> >> >> >> of >> >> >> >> >> >> >> sync. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> So >> >> >> >> >> >> >> its >> >> >> >> >> >> >> not a matter of an process changing the sync when it >> >> >> >> >> >> >> was >> >> >> >> >> >> >> never >> >> >> >> >> >> >> there >> >> >> >> >> >> >> to >> >> >> >> >> >> >> start with. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Are they always in sync when comoving, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> If you mean before they changed motion, then we can assume >> >> >> >> >> >> so >> >> >> >> >> >> for >> >> >> >> >> >> as >> >> >> >> >> >> long >> >> >> >> >> >> as >> >> >> >> >> >> we need to consider. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > regardless >> >> >> >> >> >> > of there history? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Unless they were not always accurate clocks, or at some >> >> >> >> >> >> time >> >> >> >> >> >> in >> >> >> >> >> >> the >> >> >> >> >> >> past >> >> >> >> >> >> their settings were changed. As this is a Gedanken, we >> >> >> >> >> >> can >> >> >> >> >> >> imagine >> >> >> >> >> >> them >> >> >> >> >> >> as >> >> >> >> >> >> existing and ticking for as long as we want. >> >> >> >> >> >> > I am as baffled as Ste. >> >> >> >> >> >> Not surprising >> >> >> >> >> >> > We have a constant length >> >> >> >> >> > path to the master clock (dynamo) that never looses >> >> >> >> >> > a tick. >> >> >> >> >> >> What master clock.. That is not in the scenario being >> >> >> >> >> discussed. >> >> >> >> >> We >> >> >> >> >> have >> >> >> >> >> two clocks in sync a fixed distance apart .. then they move >> >> >> >> >> toward >> >> >> >> >> each >> >> >> >> >> other, and finnally meet each other and remain in sync. >> >> >> >> >> > If you don't understand the *process* by which >> >> >> >> >> You are off topic again >> >> >> >> > It is not off topic to inquire about the >> >> >> > clock mechanism. >> >> >> >> Yes it is .. in a gedanken like this e assume clock mechanism keep >> >> >> correct >> >> >> time .. we don't need to know how the clock is made. >> >> >> > We may as well assume the pizza slice is photo >> >> > sensitive and the slice offered on e-bay with >> >> > the image of the Virgin Mary is the real thing. >> >> >> Nonsense .. as usual from Sue >> >> >> > I have offered three valid mechanism >> >> >> Which don't make any difference >> >> >> > none of >> >> > which confirm any effects other than >> >> > consistency with the principle of relativity. >> >> >> Which is just what I am claiming .. the effects are consistent with >> >> the >> >> PoR. >> >> They are SR predictions. Your clock mechanisms, the details of which >> >> are >> >> irrelevant anyway, don't change that. >> >> > OK... If they irrelevant then choose one >> > at random. >> >> > A) Gun and metre stick >> >> > B) Synchronous motors with shared dynamo. >> >> They are irrelevant, so it doesn't matter. Do you not understand the >> word >> 'irrelevant' .. silly me, look who I'm talking to .. the queen of >> irrelevance. >> >> As long as the clock marks time accurately and reliably, its mechanism is >> unimportant. This is a gedanken. > > For inertial effects, a gun and meter stick > marks time accurately because: Doesn't matter [snip more irrelevance] |