The Sagnac Effect revisited
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: NICAP - UFOS -Tourism
Next: What is your EM crankosity?
From: doug on 22 Sep 2009 00:38 Jonah Thomas wrote: > "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: > >>"Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote > > >>>Relativity might not be the simplest geometric description. Or maybe >>>it is. >> >>its the simplest that works > > > The simplest known to date. > > >>>It might be provable that there is no simpler geometry that can get >>>the good parts of relativity and leave out the bad parts. >> >>There are no bad parts .. its very simple and 'good'. > > > I consider it a horrible flaw that minkowski space is not a division > ring. That is your problem. The universe is the way it is. There are a century of experiments which show relativity to be correct. There are no problems with it in its domain of applicability. You sound like a math type. Is that correct? > > >>>Or maybe the >>>bad parts are features and not bugs. >> >>Most likely. > > > When you multiply and divide nonzero vectors and you get zero vectors as > a result, that's a bug. Unless the real world demands that it work like > that. The universe is the way it is. It does not care what we think.
From: Jonah Thomas on 21 Sep 2009 23:43 doug <xx(a)xx.com> wrote: > Jonah Thomas wrote: > > "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: > >>"Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote > >>>It might be provable that there is no simpler geometry that can get > >>>the good parts of relativity and leave out the bad parts. > >> > >>There are no bad parts .. its very simple and 'good'. > > > > > > I consider it a horrible flaw that minkowski space is not a division > > ring. > > That is your problem. The universe is the way it is. There are a > century of experiments which show relativity to be correct. There > are no problems with it in its domain of applicability. You sound > like a math type. Is that correct? > > >>>Or maybe the > >>>bad parts are features and not bugs. > >> > >>Most likely. > > > > > > When you multiply and divide nonzero vectors and you get zero > > vectors as a result, that's a bug. Unless the real world demands > > that it work like that. > The universe is the way it is. It does not care what we think. Do you know of examples where the universe demands that you multiply nonzero vectors and get a zero vector as a result? If not, it's possible that this feature is not necessary to the universe. The universe does not care what we think it ought to be like. And it does not care whether we make math mistakes by choosing the wrong metric. So my stand is that if something better shows up that works, I'll prefer it. And failing that I'll use whatever works in the ways I can get it to work.
From: Inertial on 21 Sep 2009 23:52 "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:20090921232839.09ffa4c1.jethomas5(a)gmail.com... > "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote > >> > Relativity might not be the simplest geometric description. Or maybe >> > it is. >> >> its the simplest that works > > The simplest known to date. The only simpler is simple 3D space and time with galilean tranforms, and that doesn't work. SR is so simple, there is not really any scope for getting significantly simpler >> > It might be provable that there is no simpler geometry that can get >> > the good parts of relativity and leave out the bad parts. >> >> There are no bad parts .. its very simple and 'good'. > > I consider it a horrible flaw that minkowski space is not a division > ring. That's not a flaw .. its something you don't like. >> > Or maybe the >> > bad parts are features and not bugs. >> >> Most likely. > > When you multiply and divide nonzero vectors and you get zero vectors as > a result, that's a bug. I'll have to look into that claim > Unless the real world demands that it work like > that. The real world does seem to be best modelled by minkowski.
From: Inertial on 21 Sep 2009 23:54 "Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:20090921234303.3feeb1f0.jethomas5(a)gmail.com... > doug <xx(a)xx.com> wrote: >> Jonah Thomas wrote: >> > "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >>"Jonah Thomas" <jethomas5(a)gmail.com> wrote > >> >>>It might be provable that there is no simpler geometry that can get >> >>>the good parts of relativity and leave out the bad parts. >> >> >> >>There are no bad parts .. its very simple and 'good'. >> > >> > >> > I consider it a horrible flaw that minkowski space is not a division >> > ring. >> >> That is your problem. The universe is the way it is. There are a >> century of experiments which show relativity to be correct. There >> are no problems with it in its domain of applicability. You sound >> like a math type. Is that correct? >> >> >>>Or maybe the >> >>>bad parts are features and not bugs. >> >> >> >>Most likely. >> > >> > >> > When you multiply and divide nonzero vectors and you get zero >> > vectors as a result, that's a bug. Unless the real world demands >> > that it work like that. >> The universe is the way it is. It does not care what we think. > > Do you know of examples where the universe demands that you multiply > nonzero vectors and get a zero vector as a result? Provide an example in Minkowski space. Then map that to the real world > If not, it's possible > that this feature is not necessary to the universe. > > The universe does not care what we think it ought to be like. And it > does not care whether we make math mistakes by choosing the wrong > metric. Exactly .. nor does it care what we might think is a not-nice feature of such a metric > So my stand is that if something better shows up that works, I'll prefer > it. And failing that I'll use whatever works in the ways I can get it to > work. So you'll stick with minkowski space then .. as it is what works best in terms of matching with reality. Other models may be easier to use and seem nicer to your sensibilities, but that doesn't mean they are good models of our reality.
From: Jerry on 22 Sep 2009 01:22
On Sep 21, 9:23 am, Jonah Thomas <jethom...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: > > This is your prejudice talking. Common sense is accepting that the > > world is the way it is. Wanting it to be something else is > > philosophy. > > Unfortunately, no. Common sense is accepting that the world works the > way common sense says it does. Accepting things that violate common > sense requires some sort of uncommon sense. That is a completely backwards and perverted viewpoint. What passes for "common sense" in physics has changed immensely over the past few centuries. Only a few centuries ago, it was totally obvious that heavier objects fell faster than lighter objects. It was totally obvious that the motion of the planets required a prime mover. It was common sense that the celestial sphere rotated about a stationary Earth. If you threw an stone, the common sense view was that "impetus" kept the stone moving in a straight line until the impetus ran out, after which the stone would fall like a rock. It was obvious that the motions of the heavenly bodies followed perfect circles. The world is not obligated to match our common sense notions of how it ought to work. If there is a clash between our intuitions and the results of experiment, it is -WE- who need to adjust our intuitions to match the way the world works, not the other way around. Intuition is trainable. One of my favorite physics books is Thinking Physics, by Lewis Carroll Epstein. This book presents hundreds of simple scenarios requiring little or no mathematics, which test one's grasp of physics concepts at the "gut" level. When I first read the book a number of years ago, after having passed several semesters of college physics with reasonably high grades, I was embarrassed to learn that I didn't grasp physics anywhere near as well as my grades seemed to indicate. I could solve equations and apply formulas, but my "common sense" was still in a feeble state, and it often collided with reality. Jerry |