Preferred Frame Theory indistinguishable from SR
in [Relativity]
|
From: harald on 12 Jul 2010 12:46 On Jul 12, 1:04 pm, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: > harald says... > > >On Jul 12, 12:36=A0am, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) > >wrote: > >> I think that the phrase "correct information" means something different > >> to you than it does to me. The theories of classical mechanics, > >> elecromagnetism, and relativity have developed since the times of > >> Newton, Maxwell and Einstein. I believe that those subjects are better > >> understood by physicists today than they were by the people that created > >> the subjects. You might think that by definition that's impossible; > >> if people understand something different than Newton did, then what > >> they are doing is not Newtonian mechanics, it's something different. > >> Fine. It's something different, that's *derived* from Newton's physics, > >> and is still generally called "Newtonian physics" in his honor. > > >That's fine, if it really were presented like that. Which textbooks > >are that honest? > > The textbooks that I used, for instance, were *physics* textbooks, > not *history* textbooks. There was no claim made that what was being > presented was verbatim what Newton or Einstein wrote. Exactly. How many of them warn the students that some of the presented theory is significantly different from the original theories? > >Students are being fooled into thinking that there > >are presented with what essentially are the theories of Newton, > >Maxwell and Einstein; > > No, they're not. It's not even an issue. Sure it's an issue - there wouldn't be as many cranks around if they had not received misleading information to start with. Did you see the university link that Pentcho came up with? I'll translate it for you: According to Newton's mechanics, "the traveler on the train who emits light waves measures the speed of light, while on the platform we measure the sum of the speed of light and that of the train. But according to Maxwell's electromagnetic theory, the speed of light is constant no matter where the observer." Regretfully, this is rather typical and (although he noticed this one) Pentcho doesn't manage to "repair" the information in his head. How many people find their way through the mixture of correct information, misleading information, sneaky omissions and outright lies? > >but in fact they are dished up a mix of their > >ideas with the ideas of anonymous others. > > That's what science is about. It's a cumulative, ongoing effort to > understand the world. Many people make contributions towards that > understanding. The scientist who invents something completely new > out of whole cloth is the exception. Yes - the crime is mostly the careful omission of key information: not telling "the whole truth", as emphasized in court. > >The confidence that one puts > >in the presented ideas are based on the judgment of the mental > >capacities of those scientists that the anons piggybacked on, together > >with trust in the pretension of it all being "hard science". At least, > >I was fooled that way, and it is evident that *a lot* of people are > >thus being cheated. > > I think you have a mistaken view of science. The important thing > about science is *not* the words of great scientists. We agree on that; reporting the ideas of the inventors of theories in order to allow the students to fairly compare those with the ideas of others, DOES matter. And later they can't say that they have been f*cked with. > It is the structure of the scientific theories and the experimental support > for those theories. Yes indeed. Now, if we ask for a presentation of those theories, who makes a selection of the experimental support, and for whose theories? For example, did you know from a textbook discussion why Newton's bucket experiment is decisive for his theory of motion? Apparently not. > My confidence in Newtonian physics or relativity had nothing to > do with belief in any scientist's "capacities". It was from understanding > the material, and seeing how it "fit together", how it answered questions > about how the world works, how it is supported by evidence. That's a false confidence: in fact you *reject* Newtonian physics at its basis, although it partly answers how the world works and it is supported by his bucket experiment. How many textbooks discuss it? > If you are basing your confidence in science on worship of particular > *scientists*, then you are cheating yourself. Good! I have some confidence in the scientific method - it's as good as we can do. Thus I appreciate the explanations of experts who developed successful theories, and compare them with the explanations by others. Very smart people are often (but not always) smarter. > >> It's funny, the various anti-relativity "dissidents" have exactly > >> the wrong impression. They think that physicists today believe > >> relativity out of some kind of Einstein worship. Nothing could > >> be farther from the truth. > > >Yes, exactly - and you *still* don't understand where they got that > >wrong idea from? > > I don't know, but you seem to have a similar wrong view that science > is about indoctrination. Indoctrination is the enemy of science - and a dangerous one. > >> People believe relativity today because > >> they've been studying it (and refining our understanding of it) for > >> 100 years. Newton's physics has been studied for much longer. We > >> understand these theories pretty well today, and we understand their > >> power for describing the universe. > > >> If there were other beliefs or writings of Newton or Einstein that > >> get much less attention today, then the chances are great that it's > >> because they aren't that important, or they are wrong, or they've > >> been replaced by clearer foundations. > > >You greatly underestimate the role that indoctrination plays in human > >teaching. > > It's a substitute for understanding. Exactly. Do you find indoctrination acceptable in scientific education? > >> What I've tried to explain to Colp is the mathematical structure of > >> Special Relativity as it is understood today. Not necessarily as > >> it was understood by Einstein. The latter is not particularly interesting > >> to me. Whether Newton believed in an absolute standard for rest is > >> not particularly interesting to me. I'm interested in any arguments > >> by people who *still* believe that there is evidence for the existence > >> of an absolute standard for rest. > > >The old arguments (Newton, Lorentz-Langevin) haven't changed, as they > >are based on scientific observation that remains valid. > > This is getting tedious. If you have an argument in favor of > an absolute standard of rest, then *you* present it. I have few other arguments than the ones that you can read from Newton, Langevin (SRT), Hardy (QM), etc. What's the use to add my own ones, if you can't understand their examples which are not very different from mine? And what's the use of trying to explain better on a NG what others have carefully formulated for printed publications? But NG's are great for helping others find the information that they are looking for. > Don't send > me on wild goose chases through history. You misled me with your > references on Newton. You claimed that Newton argued in favor of > an absolute standard of rest, and then when I actually looked at > what Newton wrote, I saw that he made no such argument. He called it "absolute space" and argued for it from the bucket experiment, in the "Scholium" that I referred you to; there is no real substitute for pondering over his arguments yourself. > >New, additional arguments are provided by quantum mechanics > > The case of quantum mechanics is puzzling, and I don't think the > final word has been written on that subject, but as it is currently > understood, quantum mechanics does not single out a preferred rest > frame. All the predictions of quantum mechanics work just as well > in any rest frame. Right! I provided in this thread a link to when those working in that field came to realize that quantum mechanics implies the existence of what you (and by chance Hardy too) call a "preferred" frame - although just as with Newton and Lorentz, it isn't preferred for physical phenomena. The simple argument is that causality must not be broken - except if for example we live inside "Matrix" or so, for than anything is possible. ;-) > There's a mismatch of argument styles here. You make claims, > and you decline to argue in favor of them. I find that frustrating. I prefer to give factual statements and if asked, provide quality references for information; arguing about such things is mostly just a waste of time and effort. Of course, when someone really doesn't understand certain passages in some paper, I am willing to help if I can. But you appear to be highly intelligent, so that you will be OK - or so I thought - with little more than the useful references themselves. > You justify your style by saying that others have already made the > arguments much better than you. But I can't have a discussion with > people who are dead. I can't ask them what they meant. I can't > propose counter-arguments to see how they respond. So I'm not going > to argue with people long dead. Reading their arguments and comparing them with those of others is good enough for me; and how much do you argue with your textbooks? Harald
From: Koobee Wublee on 12 Jul 2010 12:51 On Jul 11, 10:18 am, Tom Roberts wrote: > In cosmological models based on the FRW manifolds of GR, the CMBR dipole=0 frame > is also the cosmological frame in which the dust particles (galaxies) are at > rest, due to the way the CMBR was generated. This is merely a symmetry of the > manifold, and no "aether" is present, and the cosmological frame does not > participate in the dynamics. The FLRW metric is one of the infinite solutions to the field equations that just will predict anything possible. Of course, the self-styled physicists would call that the greatest thing since slice bread, but true scholars of physics would dismiss all that as nonsense. Another flaw of the FLRW metric is that it does not degenerate into Newtonian law of gravity. Jumping conclusions too soon, the self-styled physicists would try to concoct self-comforting fantasies about why the FLRW metric does not have to degenerate into Newtonian physics. What a joke! <shrug> The fact is that there is a dipole=0 frame in CMBR. Is that the frame of reference predicted by all mathematical models, except the Galilean transforms where light is modeled as classical particles, explaining the null results of the MMX? <shrug>
From: Koobee Wublee on 12 Jul 2010 13:01 On Jul 11, 9:10 pm, Tom Roberts wrote: > eric gisse wrote: > > I personally think the fact that Lorentz invariance is the single unifying > > feature of all of modern physics is some sort of clue as to the direction > > unification must take. Who gives a fvck about how or what a college dropout thinks? > Yes. That's an aspect of why I am studying doubly special relativity. The Lorentz transform is a very simple mathematical model. In interpreting that, self-styled physicists would invent fancy phrases as scriptures to support the nonsense of the Lorentz transform. Among them, two words stand out: local and proper. That is local this that and proper this that. After that flawed interpretation of Larmors transform into the Lorentz transform, couldnt the self- styled physicists be a little bit more creative in coming up with fancy phrases. <shrug>
From: Androcles on 12 Jul 2010 13:15 "Esa Riihonen" <esa(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> wrote in message news:pan.2010.07.12.14.02.02(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid... | > | Clumsy, artifial - never used notation you pulled from eh someplace to | > | save your someplace. Or could you perhaps give some reference to math | > | literature for that notation. | > | > The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling | > suggestion below or try again using the search bar above. | > | > 1.. artificial | > 2.. artifice | > 3.. artifact | > 4.. rectifiable | | This is one component of the Method - deliberate misunderstanding on the | first possible typo or unclear wording - a great way to avoid the | problematic issue at hand. But let's choose 1. Perhaps you now can give | the reference then. | | > | | > | > Repeat: | > | > That's why X appears in bold type on this page and 'a 'does not. | | > > http://mathworld.wolfram.com/VectorSpace.html | | > | Learn the basics before going to spaces - they seem to confuse you. | > | > I did. Elements of a vector are themselves vectors. | | Sorry - nope. Sorry -- yep.
From: Androcles on 12 Jul 2010 13:17
"Esa Riihonen" <esa(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid> wrote in message news:pan.2010.07.12.14.02.02(a)riihonen.net.not.invalid... | | > 11 Proof by "everybody knows" (proof by popular opinion). 12 Proof by | > "because I say so" (proof by assertion). 13 Proof by "it is written" | > (proof by appeal to authority). 14 Proof by "you prove it isn't!" (proof | > by simple denial). 15 Proof by "what about the tooth fairy?"(proof by | > irrelevance). 16 Proof by "I'm smarter than you, so there!" (proof by | > bluster). 17 Proof by "read a text book" (proof by bluster revision 2). | > | > You can call it clumsy but you can't call it wrong. | | You can use your own notation - no one else understands and you yourself | seem to get confused with the standard notation. | | > | | > | > | The unit vector in the x-direction has many conventional symbols: | > | | > (bold)i, bold(e_1), bold(x^), etc., all have the same | > representation in | > | the component form (1,0,0). | > | | > | Hope | > this helps. | > | > | > | > It helps if a is the scalar and x is the unit vector. This is high | | > > school stuff. | > | | > | That is one way - provided a = 1 in this case. | > | > x is the unit vector, a is the scalar. 11 Proof by "everybody knows" | > (proof by popular opinion). 12 Proof by "because I say so" (proof by | > assertion). 13 Proof by "it is written" (proof by appeal to authority). | > 14 Proof by "you prove it isn't!" (proof by simple denial). 15 Proof by | > "what about the tooth fairy?"(proof by irrelevance). 16 Proof by "I'm | > smarter than you, so there!" (proof by bluster). 17 Proof by "read a | > text book" (proof by bluster revision 2). | | You have made a major fumble, and you know it. The bad news is that | everybody else with at least a high school math behind them now it also. You have made a major fumble, and you are too stupid to know it. The bad news is that everybody else with at least a high school math behind them now it also. |