LTE
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Properties of a preferred frame, an inertial frame in SR andan inertial frame in IRT
Next: About the maximal electrostatic potential energy U(r) of a pair electron-positron at rest with distance r
From: harald on 1 Aug 2010 09:32 On Jul 31, 3:57 am, xxein <xxxx...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 20, 7:35 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 19, 10:49 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 18, 6:16 pm, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 17, 12:39 am,xxein<xxxx...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Geez! Doesn't anybody know how to think logically of the physic > > > > > beyond the archaic sceintific method? > > > > >< Yes of course - there are at least several people who contribute to this group and who understand this very well. For sure Lorentz and Poincare understood it! The later generation of "geometers" lost grip with reality but physical modeling [i.e. METAPHYSICS] is certainly part of science. > > > > Glird, physical models are erroneously identified with "metaphysics" - > > except of course if one wishes to change the meaning of words. For > > example atom models have never been regarded as metaphysics, as far as > > I can tell; they were always part of *physics*. > > > > Metaphysics, which is the study of the things that exist and how > > > their mechanisms physically work, is not only "part of science" it was > > > and -- despite being ignored by today's physicists -- remains the most > > > important part! > > > Physical models are indeed an important part of physics that is > > currently being neglected. Newton's mechanics was based on physical > > modeling, although with strong mathematical modeling on top of it. SRT > > is mathematical modeling that was - as Einstein admitted - based on > > Maxwell's and Lorentz's physical theories. It is the combination of > > such two approaches that is most effective. > > > Note: Sam Wormley provided a good link about physics vs metaphysics. > > > Regards, > > Harald > > xxein: So, Harald. What is the logically physical modeling that > describes velocity addition (sans gravity)? What is it's physical > cause to be measured as such? > > I don't dispute the math but what kind of space medium is needed to > make it so for this observation of our's? Lorentz's ether with its physical effects works fine for that; as a result, Poincare worked that equation out in early 1905. http://www.univ-nancy2.fr/poincare/chp/text/lorentz4.xml Harald
From: xxein on 1 Aug 2010 16:42 On Jul 17, 4:07 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Jul 16, 6:39 pm,xxein<xxxx...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jul 16, 2:53 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > >>< It is said that the Lorentz Transformation Equations (LTE) have been experimentally confirmed by many different experiments. I would appreciate it if someone would provide a list of all the experiments that did so. > > > ><xxein: Don't worry about it. Experiments are measuremental observations and affects. They are put into a math form without regard to really understanding the physic that caused them to be observed and effect in this way. > > > "Physics" is the study of the mathematical equations that summarize > the results of experiments. Those results are always quantities, > without regard to the nature of the things so measured. > > >< Oh wow! There is a --- formula. Does it explain what is really happening or is it just a math wysiwyg? > > The Lorentz transformations are fine, but when you math-shortcut them > to SR (and its postulates), you strip the essence of the physic out of > it. > > What you call "physic" I call "Metaphysics"; which is the study of > the underlying realities that physics quantifies. > > > I told you this before (in some fashion) but you decided > > that it was too much for you to try to understand. > > BS! > > > And now an appeal. Does anyone out there know how [the LTE!!] work --- besides a math? What is the physical reason? > > Geez! Doesn't anybody know how to think logically of the physic > beyond the archaic scientific method? > > I have a complete metaphysical theory concerning the structure of > everything in the universe, and how its mechanisms work. I know where > Einstein made mathematical errors in his 1905 paper that prove he > neither derived the LTE nor understood what they rest on and > impose(and that neither does any physicist!). > But HOW,other than by studying the observations that fit a given set > of equations, can you prove that the underlying metaphysics is "this" > rather than "that"? > > glird xxeix: Ans: When it explains more of physical things rather than math things. Many explanations can apply to obervations but only one physic can be true. Math can help you find it but math cannot dictate how the physic works.
From: hei on 10 Aug 2010 16:32
"Helmut Wabnig" schrieb > >> >> schwaaf, schwaaf, schwaaf >>Bwhahahahahahahahahaha! Trial and wackypedia, the crud anyone can write. >> >> > > CERN is not my business, I did not donate 1 $ for it, or should I? > > > But CONCORDE was your business and you know why it failed? > > (The fuel tanks were not protected, > improving them would have cost a few passenger seats). > > The real reason behind is a different story. > > ===Engineers don't have to THINK=== > > BP drilling platforms say: DON'T THINK. (save money) > > Ronald Hatch (Catastrophy Hatch) says: DON'T THINK > ......and he is running a GPS company! > http://www.insidegnss.com/node/451 .... > ######################## > ## D O N ' T T H I N K ! ## > ######################## > > There are a few exceptions, > and me did work in such a place where they said: > > > NEVER STOP THINKING ! > > w. seid waon lossdde mid analprofetn ei? de kennan ned denggn tststs hei |