Known physics defeated by simple puzzle?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Sue... on 2 Apr 2010 01:56 On Apr 2, 1:02 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message > > news:d2af3463-b106-4583-a3ac-01c43bf4b4a6(a)o30g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 1, 11:05 pm, "Peter Webb" > > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message > > >news:4fa0f29d-c618-4068-a1cb-844017e411ef(a)k17g2000yqb.googlegroups.com.... > > On Apr 1, 9:56 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> > > wrote: > > > > "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message > > > >news:bc267474-80ea-41e5-86f5-3a1b3878a4cd(a)8g2000yqz.googlegroups.com.... > > > On Apr 1, 8:25 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> > > > wrote: > > > > > "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message > > > > >news:5b7b99cd-6a9e-4db1-9589-03a48bf3ff55(a)33g2000yqj.googlegroups.com... > > > > On Apr 1, 7:47 pm, "Peter Webb" > > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> > > > > > ======================== > > > > > > Nobody takes me or Einstein "at his word". I believe SR because it > > > > > matches > > > > > experiment. > > > > > Could you please name two or three experiments > > > > that you find most supportive of Einstein's > > > > Special Relativity? > > > [...] > > > ================================ > > > > 2. The null result of the MM experiment. > > > That supports the constancy of light speed > > predicted by Maxwell. It is consistent with a > > dielectric that moves along with our planet > > (atmosphere) and shows nothing about inertial > > effects of relativity because moving masses were not > > measured. The experiment was performed in 1887 > > so it was not designed to test a theory > > of the 1900s but that certainly does not > > disqualify it as long as the data is > > relevant. > > ================ > > > > > ______________________________ > > Yes. > > > Did you have doubts that the atmosphere > > moves with our planet before you read > > about special relativity? > > > _____________________________ > > No. > > > Hope this helps. > > A.Einstein ~1920: > <<On this point we are enlightened by a most > important experiment which the brilliant physicist > Fizeau performed more than half a century ago, > and which has been repeated since then by some > of the best experimental physicists, so that > there can be no doubt about its result. The > experiment is concerned with the following question. > Light travels in a motionless liquid with a > particular velocity w. How quickly does it > travel in the direction of the arrow in the > tube T (see the accompanying diagram, Fig. 3) > when the liquid above mentioned is flowing through > the tube with a velocity v? > FIG. 3. > In accordance with the principle of relativity > we shall certainly have to take for granted that > the propagation of light always takes place with > the same velocity w with respect to the liquid, > whether the latter is in motion with reference > to other bodies or not. >>http://www.bartleby.com/173/13.html > > So it seems your favourite ~tests~ of > Special Relativity actually predate Einstein's > writing on the subject. > > ______________________________________ > Sure. And the observation that apples fall to the ground predates Newton's > law of gravity. > > I note the rest of your post asks why Einstein said some particular thing.. > > While I feel I know SR and the Universal Law of Gravity quite well, I don't > the history behind the theories well, much less the motivation behind why > the people who contributed to their development said the many various things > they did through the course of their lives. I am a physicist, not a > historian or psychologist. You can quote all the bits of Newton or Einstein > writings you like, and ask me why they said those things, and the answer > will be the same - I don't know. I simply don't know the history behind > these, any more than I know the history behind the solution of a quadratic > equation, or why the person who first solved the quadratic did so. These are > questions of history and psychology, not questions about science or maths.. > > Of course, if you have any questions concerning the scientific aspects of SR > or the Universal Law of Gravity, feel free to ask. But for historical > information about SR and Newton's law of gravity, I'm not the person to ask. In the below post you are arguing against Einstein's relativity and in favour of Lorentz ether theory on a point that distinguishes them. http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/603a9f54c1e188d7?dmode=source A bit of history might clear up the issue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory Even so, Special Relativity is in name only. Because of its preferred frame of reference it can never be truly relativistic. <<...because special relativity was always a provisional theory with recognized epistemological short-comings. As mentioned above, one of Einstein's two main reasons for abandoning special relativity as a suitable framework for physics was the fact that, no less than Newtonian mechanics, special relativity is based on the unjustified and epistemologically problematical assumption of a preferred class of reference frames, precisely the issue raised by the twins paradox. Today the "special theory" exists only, aside from its historical importance, as a convenient set of widely applicable formulas for important limiting cases of the general theory, but the epistemological foundation of those formulas must be sought in the context of the general theory. >> http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s4-07/4-07.htm It is certainly not worth getting passionate over. ;-) Kind regards, Sue... "Relativiy Principle" http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html
From: J. Clarke on 2 Apr 2010 01:57 On 4/1/2010 11:42 PM, Sue... wrote: > On Apr 1, 11:05 pm, "Peter Webb" > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: >> "Sue..."<suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message >> >> news:4fa0f29d-c618-4068-a1cb-844017e411ef(a)k17g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... >> On Apr 1, 9:56 pm, "Peter Webb"<webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> >> wrote: >> >>> "Sue..."<suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message >> >>> news:bc267474-80ea-41e5-86f5-3a1b3878a4cd(a)8g2000yqz.googlegroups.com... >>> On Apr 1, 8:25 pm, "Peter Webb"<webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> >>> wrote: >> >>>> "Sue..."<suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message >> >>>> news:5b7b99cd-6a9e-4db1-9589-03a48bf3ff55(a)33g2000yqj.googlegroups.com... >>>> On Apr 1, 7:47 pm, "Peter Webb" >>>> <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> >> >>>> ======================== >> >>>>> Nobody takes me or Einstein "at his word". I believe SR because it >>>>> matches >>>>> experiment. >> >>>> Could you please name two or three experiments >>>> that you find most supportive of Einstein's >>>> Special Relativity? >> >> [...] >> >> ================================ >> >>> 2. The null result of the MM experiment. >> >> That supports the constancy of light speed >> predicted by Maxwell. It is consistent with a >> dielectric that moves along with our planet >> (atmosphere) and shows nothing about inertial >> effects of relativity because moving masses were not >> measured. The experiment was performed in 1887 >> so it was not designed to test a theory >> of the 1900s but that certainly does not >> disqualify it as long as the data is >> relevant. > > ================ >> >> ______________________________ >> Yes. >> >> Did you have doubts that the atmosphere >> moves with our planet before you read >> about special relativity? >> >> _____________________________ >> No. >> >> Hope this helps. > > A.Einstein ~1920: > <<On this point we are enlightened by a most > important experiment which the brilliant physicist > Fizeau performed more than half a century ago, > and which has been repeated since then by some > of the best experimental physicists, so that > there can be no doubt about its result. The > experiment is concerned with the following question. > Light travels in a motionless liquid with a > particular velocity w. How quickly does it > travel in the direction of the arrow in the > tube T (see the accompanying diagram, Fig. 3) > when the liquid above mentioned is flowing through > the tube with a velocity v? > FIG. 3. > In accordance with the principle of relativity > we shall certainly have to take for granted that > the propagation of light always takes place with > the same velocity w with respect to the liquid, > whether the latter is in motion with reference > to other bodies or not.>> > http://www.bartleby.com/173/13.html > > So it seems your favourite ~tests~ of > Special Relativity actually predate Einstein's > writing on the subject. Again, there is nothing > wrong with that where hind-sight can be blind. > > These seem convincing of one of the postulates > of Special Relativity: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson_and_morley > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizeau_experiment > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Sitter_double_star_experiment > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impedance_of_free_space > > So why do we need contracting matter and > crazy clocks to say: > > << Einstein's relativity principle states that: > > All inertial frames are totally equivalent > for the performance of all physical experiments. > > In other words, it is impossible to perform a physical > experiment which differentiates in any fundamental sense > between different inertial frames. By definition, Newton's > laws of motion take the same form in all inertial frames. > Einstein generalized[1] this result in his special theory of > relativity by asserting that all laws of physics take the > same form in all inertial frames.>> > http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html > > [1]<< the four-dimensional space-time continuum of the > theory of relativity, in its most essential formal > properties, shows a pronounced relationship to the > three-dimensional continuum of Euclidean geometrical space. > In order to give due prominence to this relationship, > however, we must replace the usual time co-ordinate t by > an imaginary magnitude > > sqrt(-1) > > ct proportional to it. Under these conditions, the > natural laws satisfying the demands of the (special) > theory of relativity assume mathematical forms, in which > the time co-ordinate plays exactly the same r�le as > the three space co-ordinates.>> > http://www.bartleby.com/173/17.html > > << 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 charges 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.>> > http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html > > Sue... Why are you demanding that people show the reasons they accept relativity? If you think it's wrong, show us the experiment that proves it wrong. If you don't think it wrong, then what is your point?
From: Sue... on 2 Apr 2010 02:12 On Apr 2, 1:57 am, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: ============= > > Why are you demanding that people show the reasons they accept > relativity? If you think it's wrong, show us the experiment that proves > it wrong. If you don't think it wrong, then what is your point? I made no demands. But I ask questions because this is science, not religion. http://keck.ucsf.edu/~ken/cargo_cult.html http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html Sue...
From: Peter Webb on 2 Apr 2010 02:24 t. >>http://www.bartleby.com/173/13.html > > So it seems your favourite ~tests~ of > Special Relativity actually predate Einstein's > writing on the subject. > > ______________________________________ > Sure. And the observation that apples fall to the ground predates Newton's > law of gravity. > > I note the rest of your post asks why Einstein said some particular thing. > > While I feel I know SR and the Universal Law of Gravity quite well, I > don't > the history behind the theories well, much less the motivation behind why > the people who contributed to their development said the many various > things > they did through the course of their lives. I am a physicist, not a > historian or psychologist. You can quote all the bits of Newton or > Einstein > writings you like, and ask me why they said those things, and the answer > will be the same - I don't know. I simply don't know the history behind > these, any more than I know the history behind the solution of a quadratic > equation, or why the person who first solved the quadratic did so. These > are > questions of history and psychology, not questions about science or maths. > > Of course, if you have any questions concerning the scientific aspects of > SR > or the Universal Law of Gravity, feel free to ask. But for historical > information about SR and Newton's law of gravity, I'm not the person to > ask. In the below post you are arguing against Einstein's relativity and in favour of Lorentz ether theory on a point that distinguishes them. http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/603a9f54c1e188d7?dmode=source ___________________________________ No, I'm not, you clearly don't understand what I said. Perhaps if you were to quote the bit that you think is me arguing in favour of Lorentz over SR, I could clear up your misunderstanding of my remarks? As it is, I have absolutely no idea how you could possibly have gained that impression.
From: Peter Webb on 2 Apr 2010 02:28
"Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:f4b1088b-ea22-412d-b4ec-0ff641909056(a)y17g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... On Apr 2, 1:57 am, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: ============= > > Why are you demanding that people show the reasons they accept > relativity? If you think it's wrong, show us the experiment that proves > it wrong. If you don't think it wrong, then what is your point? I made no demands. But I ask questions because this is science, not religion. http://keck.ucsf.edu/~ken/cargo_cult.html http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html Sue... __________________________________________ And your scientific questions have been answered. The only questions that you have asked which have not been answered are those relating to history and the psychological motivation of various scientists, but these are not scientific questions. Speaking of which, do you have any more scientific questions concerning SR (or Newton's Universal Law of Gravity, for that matter), or have you learned enough for today? |