 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Physics - Relativity Forum » Lightspeed exceeded... |
|
Page 6 of 7 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Vern... |
 Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 10:36 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 29, 3:11 pm, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 29, 2:01 pm, Vern <vthod... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[/quote]
<snip>
[quote]I'm just adhering to the causality principle as outlined by Tom
VanFlandern (link below).
And why do you think this is an indispensable principle that applies
to nature?
[/quote]
Without it anything goes and there is no way to tell what's real.
[quote] There are on violations of those principles
in kinetic theory.
Yes, but that may be why kinetic theory is not sufficient to describe
everything in nature.
Just because a theory respects a rule that IN YOUR HEAD you think is
indispensable does not mean that it is right.
[/quote]
It's not just in my head. It's a principle that's guided physicists
throughout the development of physics. Only during the last 100 years
has it been deviated from.
[quote]
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/PhysicsHasItsPrinciples.asp
I'm curious what you think are the critical elements of a "physical
theory" are and WHY those are indispensable elements, and what you
think are the critical elements of a true "explanation" and WHY those
are indispensable elements.
Just the necessity of not violaing causality principles.
WHY do you think that is an indispensable element?
[/quote]
Otherwise there is no test for what is real.
<snip>
[quote]I guess I should have said causality principles instead of logic, but
I think you really knew what I meant. We've been talking about
causality for some time now.
Ah, yes, so it isn't logic at all, then. It is a PRESUMED principle
that you are demanding that nature respect.
[/quote]
The two (logic and the cauality principle) are intrinsically linked.
Again, where something can be explained within the framework of the
causality principle, it should be preferred over any explanation that
violates the principle as there is no way to judge the evidence in the
non-causality explanation (anything can happen magically).
Vern |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| PD... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 11:05 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 29, 3:23 pm, Vern <vthod... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 29, 2:39 pm, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 29, 1:07 pm, Vern <vthod... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
snip
Sure, the issue is whether any explanation is provided. Just saying
that space-time has properties such that it causes the propagation of
light waves is not sufficient for the purposes of a theory. From
Wikipedia:
"A theory, in the scientific sense of the word, is an analytic
structure designed to explain a set of empirical observations. A
scientific theory does two things:
1) it identifies this set of distinct observations as a class of
phenomena, and
2) makes assertions about the underlying reality that brings about or
affects this class."
Which is satisfied by spacetime and QED.
Sorry, not according to the principles of causality. Neither make
assertions about the underlying reality, unless you invoke magic.
You seem to buy into the philosophy that no explanation of how
something works is necessary.
You still haven't explained what you think are necessary elements of
"explanation".
I think Tom VanFlandern's causality principles are necessary and I
believe that physicists historically followed those principles. The
break from those principles appears to have begun with SR.
[/quote]
and quantum mechanics, yes.
Tom VanFlandern's causality principles appear to be in conflict with a
number of experimental results, including delayed choice experiments
in quantum mechanics and those experiments in strong support for
special relativity.
Now, this did come as a shock for a number of physicists in the first
half of the 20th century, who firmly believed that principles similar
to TVF's were essential to nature and therefore to science. However,
since science is the study of how nature actually is, and when
experimental results started coming in that were wholly consistent
with theories that dispensed with this principle, then the natural
question to ask is whether that principle really does apply to reality
or is just being held onto in our minds as a comfortable security
blanket.
PD |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| PD... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 12:13 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 29, 3:36 pm, Vern <vthod... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 29, 3:11 pm, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 29, 2:01 pm, Vern <vthod... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
snip
I'm just adhering to the causality principle as outlined by Tom
VanFlandern (link below).
And why do you think this is an indispensable principle that applies
to nature?
Without it anything goes and there is no way to tell what's real.
[/quote]
Nonsense. It's not ANYTHING goes. There are well-defined models that
are much more tightly constrained than "anything goes" without
demanding strict time-ordered deterministic causality. This is
reminiscent of the panic that came about when quantum mechanics
treated nature as leaving some physical parameters as random, the
panickers saying "But then you are saying you don't know ANYTHING!"
It's not black and white.
[quote]
There are on violations of those principles
in kinetic theory.
Yes, but that may be why kinetic theory is not sufficient to describe
everything in nature.
Just because a theory respects a rule that IN YOUR HEAD you think is
indispensable does not mean that it is right.
It's not just in my head. It's a principle that's guided physicists
throughout the development of physics.
Only during the last 100 years
has it been deviated from.
[/quote]
Right, when we gathered enough evidence that this rule does not
necessarily apply.
Just because WE have used it and it was useful at the time does not
mean that it has a fundamental reality.
[quote]
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/PhysicsHasItsPrinciples.asp
I'm curious what you think are the critical elements of a "physical
theory" are and WHY those are indispensable elements, and what you
think are the critical elements of a true "explanation" and WHY those
are indispensable elements.
Just the necessity of not violaing causality principles.
WHY do you think that is an indispensable element?
Otherwise there is no test for what is real.
[/quote]
Oh, BS. See above.
[quote]
snip
I guess I should have said causality principles instead of logic, but
I think you really knew what I meant. We've been talking about
causality for some time now.
Ah, yes, so it isn't logic at all, then. It is a PRESUMED principle
that you are demanding that nature respect.
The two (logic and the cauality principle) are intrinsically linked.
[/quote]
BS again. You say you cannot think logically while at the same time
not being slave to this principle? That is YOUR limitation, not that
of humans in general.
[quote]Again, where something can be explained within the framework of the
causality principle, it should be preferred over any explanation that
violates the principle
[/quote]
Nonsense.
[quote]as there is no way to judge the evidence in the
non-causality explanation (anything can happen magically).
[/quote]
It's not magic at all if there is a way to calculate what happens and
that's what happens! That's a far cry from "anything can happen".
PD |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| eric gisse... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 2:33 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Vern wrote:
[quote]On Oct 24, 8:26 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
I wonder if he's managed to find that Physics Today article yet, or if
he's still struggling to find it because I didn't give him the author's
name. Nothing says 'treasure hunt' like article, volume, and page number.
That was a standard Uncle Al reference.
Is this the article you are touting?
http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/Walsworth/pdf/PT_Romalis0704.pdf
As John Kennaugh has been saying for years in this group, SR's second
postulate is just stating the known properties of a medium (invarience
of c).
[/quote]
John Kennaugh is an idiot, as is anyone who believes this.
[quote]
Paul's looking for something that can't be explained with an ether
model. Didn't you understand Paul's comment that you can't use
Lorentz invarience as an argument against an ether?
[/quote]
I understand the comment however I just know it to be stupid because unlike
Paul, John, and apparently you, I have actually studied fluid mechanics and
know the claim of Lorentz invariance being a property of fluids is patently
wrong.
[quote]
I'm still waiting for you to state what you think the reason(s) was/
were for the historical abandonment of the lumiferious aether.
[/quote]
Other than experiments which explicitly contradict the claims of aether of
that time, and physical theory existing which works perfectly fine without
aether?
[quote]I've
given you all the textbook ones, but you acted like they were the
wrong ones.
Vern[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Inertial... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 3:44 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Vern" <vthodge2 at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f03a6552-b00f-4d4c-9fdb-f3d5304330c1 at (no spam) v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
[quote]On Oct 28, 10:24 pm, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
"Vern" <vthod... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:699a66a7-3f97-443e-bc8a-3765c6c8db8c at (no spam) g23g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
Can you explain to me how space-time provides a model for light?
EMR, such as light, is a change in E and M fields. Without SR, a change
in
field would apply everywhere at one. With the limitations of speed of
information to c, that means that the information about the change of a
field cannot travel faster than c. That is why you get the change
propagating like a wave. No need for an aether.
How is that a model? A physical field is evidence for an underlying
medium. Limitations of the speed of information transfer is also
indicative of the information being carried by a medium.
[/quote]
So if an object moves from A to B .. then there must be a medium for it to
move through?
Clearly your mind is stuck with the notion of a medium and you feel the need
to introduce one where one is not required. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| doug... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 7:18 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
eric gisse wrote:
[quote]doug wrote:
Paul Stowe wrote:
On Oct 26, 11:29 am, Vern <vthod... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 23, 5:02 pm, doug <x... at (no spam) xx.com> wrote:
Vern wrote:
snip
The common reasons cited for the abandonment of the luminiferous
aether are that no motion relative to it could be detected, it had to
be a solid to sustain transverse waves or conversely if it was not a
solid, its longitudinal waves could not account for polarization, the
theories of relativity negated the need for it (Occam's razor) and
wave/particle duality.
snip
Here you ARE alluding to the fact that there was a debate about the
luminiferous aether not being able to account for the photoelectric
effect. Which is it?
No, I am alluding to the fact that science moved on a century
ago on this topic. It is fun for the armchair cranks likestowe
to try to sound educated by making odd claims.
Yes, a century ago, with the misconceptions of the time, aether theory
could not move forward. That's no reason not to re-examine it in
light of today's knowledge.
The debate is over and has been for a long time. Why are you
looking to beat a dead horse?
Looking at something with new knowledge and perspectives is not
beating a dead horse.
At least we got PD to acknowledge that the aether medium model cannot
be falsified by MMX type experiments and that it does indeed have
observable and measurable properties. That's some progress.
Well, you missed the word "unique". You have made no progress at atll.
By the way, have you ever looked up the reason that science abandoned
the aether? Have you tried to refute any of that? So far you have
presented nothing either new or interesting.
I gave him the Physics Today article that discussed the history of searches
for violations of Lorentz invariance and aether searches in general, but it
appears he just couldn't muster the willpower to go to the library and look
it up.
[/quote]
Well, no, of course he cannot look up anything that shows him to be
wrong. Just as he has no idea why the aether concept was abandoned,
he does not want facts to get in his way.
[quote]
Cheers,
Vern
[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| doug... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 7:23 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Vern wrote:
[quote]On Oct 24, 8:26 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
I wonder if he's managed to find that Physics Today article yet, or if he's
still struggling to find it because I didn't give him the author's name.
Nothing says 'treasure hunt' like article, volume, and page number.
That was a standard Uncle Al reference.
Is this the article you are touting?
http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/Walsworth/pdf/PT_Romalis0704.pdf
As John Kennaugh has been saying for years in this group, SR's second
postulate is just stating the known properties of a medium (invarience
of c).
You would think that Kennaugh would have learned something by[/quote]
now. That says something about his desire to not learn.
[quote]Paul's looking for something that can't be explained with an ether
model. Didn't you understand Paul's comment that you can't use
Lorentz invarience as an argument against an ether?
[/quote]
Well, paul says lots of things without justification.
[quote]
I'm still waiting for you to state what you think the reason(s) was/
were for the historical abandonment of the lumiferious aether. I've
given you all the textbook ones, but you acted like they were the
wrong ones.
[/quote]
I have not seen you present any.
[quote]
Vern[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| doug... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 7:28 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Vern wrote:
[quote]On Oct 29, 10:35 am, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 28, 9:17 pm, Vern <vthod... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Can you explain to me how space-time provides a model for light? How
does space-time propagate a light wave?
Sure. Spacetime is imbued with certain measurable properties,
including those values we ascribe to something called the
electromagnetic field. But that field *means* a certain subset of
properties of spacetime. That field's values are governed by a
particular set of physical laws, which are at the core of a theory
called QED.
That is not a description of a model for light propagation as it
offers no explanation for how an electromagnetic field is created.
QED is a mathematical theory and offers nothing in the way of a
model.
[/quote]
Look at the equations. They explain it all. The fact that you
cannot understand them or do not like them is your problem.
[quote]
Space-time only provides a
model for gravity, at best,
Kinetic theory only provides a *model* for a gas-like medium. What's
your point?
My point was made in the later statement about the field vs. geometric
interpretation of GR. Again, space-time provides no model for light
or gravity without invoking a physical field, which needs an
underlying substance.
[/quote]
The equations work. You want philosophy. That is a different
newsgroup.
[quote]
and then only the field interpretation
(which is essentially validation of a medium), not the geometric
interpretation, is free of force initiation problems (Tom VanFlandern
argued this extensively with Tom Roberts).
A non-ether interpretation of SR results in a violation of time-
ordering.
And why do you think that time-ordering is a NECESSARY feature of
nature? Are you convinced that there are a certain class of assertions
that you are free to impose on nature?
So why wouldn't an ether model be preferable as it
encompasses everything SR gives us and does not violate causality.
Whoa, hold on there pal. Who says causality is NECESSARILY time
ordered? Are you imposing your idealized notion on nature, or are you
trying to find out how nature works?
The issue is of two competing theories, one which provides a model for
reality with no violations of logic, the other which offers no model
and violates logical principles. Which is preferred?
[/quote]
The one that gives the correct answers. And you are on the losing side
there.
[quote]
Vern[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| doug... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 7:28 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Vern wrote:
[quote]On Oct 28, 10:24 pm, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
"Vern" <vthod... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:699a66a7-3f97-443e-bc8a-3765c6c8db8c at (no spam) g23g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
Can you explain to me how space-time provides a model for light?
EMR, such as light, is a change in E and M fields. Without SR, a change in
field would apply everywhere at one. With the limitations of speed of
information to c, that means that the information about the change of a
field cannot travel faster than c. That is why you get the change
propagating like a wave. No need for an aether.
How is that a model?
[/quote]
Look at the equations.
A physical field is evidence for an underlying
[quote]medium. Limitations of the speed of information transfer is also
indicative of the information being carried by a medium.
[/quote]
No, your comment is an indication that you want your prejudices
to run the universe. It does not care.
[quote]
Vern[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| doug... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 7:30 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Vern wrote:
[quote]On Oct 29, 2:39 pm, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 29, 1:07 pm, Vern <vthod... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
snip
Sure, the issue is whether any explanation is provided. Just saying
that space-time has properties such that it causes the propagation of
light waves is not sufficient for the purposes of a theory. From
Wikipedia:
"A theory, in the scientific sense of the word, is an analytic
structure designed to explain a set of empirical observations. A
scientific theory does two things:
1) it identifies this set of distinct observations as a class of
phenomena, and
2) makes assertions about the underlying reality that brings about or
affects this class."
Which is satisfied by spacetime and QED.
Sorry, not according to the principles of causality. Neither make
assertions about the underlying reality, unless you invoke magic.
[/quote]
So what you are saying is that if you do not like a theory, then
it must be wrong. That is not how the universe works.
[quote]
You seem to buy into the philosophy that no explanation of how
something works is necessary.
You still haven't explained what you think are necessary elements of
"explanation".
I think Tom VanFlandern's causality principles are necessary and I
believe that physicists historically followed those principles. The
break from those principles appears to have begun with SR.
Complain to the universe.[/quote]
> Vern |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| doug... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 7:31 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Vern wrote:
[quote]On Oct 29, 3:11 pm, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 29, 2:01 pm, Vern <vthod... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
snip
I'm just adhering to the causality principle as outlined by Tom
VanFlandern (link below).
And why do you think this is an indispensable principle that applies
to nature?
Without it anything goes and there is no way to tell what's real.
[/quote]
That is a pretty silly assertion on your part.
[quote]
There are on violations of those principles
in kinetic theory.
Yes, but that may be why kinetic theory is not sufficient to describe
everything in nature.
Just because a theory respects a rule that IN YOUR HEAD you think is
indispensable does not mean that it is right.
It's not just in my head. It's a principle that's guided physicists
throughout the development of physics. Only during the last 100 years
has it been deviated from.
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/PhysicsHasItsPrinciples.asp
I'm curious what you think are the critical elements of a "physical
theory" are and WHY those are indispensable elements, and what you
think are the critical elements of a true "explanation" and WHY those
are indispensable elements.
Just the necessity of not violaing causality principles.
WHY do you think that is an indispensable element?
Otherwise there is no test for what is real.
[/quote]
The universe does not care what you want.
[quote]
snip
I guess I should have said causality principles instead of logic, but
I think you really knew what I meant. We've been talking about
causality for some time now.
Ah, yes, so it isn't logic at all, then. It is a PRESUMED principle
that you are demanding that nature respect.
The two (logic and the cauality principle) are intrinsically linked.
[/quote]
No, your prejudices are showing but that is different.
[quote]Again, where something can be explained within the framework of the
causality principle, it should be preferred over any explanation that
violates the principle as there is no way to judge the evidence in the
non-causality explanation (anything can happen magically).
[/quote]
You want a specific form to the universe. It is not listening.
[quote]
Vern[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Vern... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 5:53 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 29, 5:05 pm, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 29, 3:23 pm, Vern <vthod... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[/quote]
<snip>
[quote]I think Tom VanFlandern's causality principles are necessary and I
believe that physicists historically followed those principles. The
break from those principles appears to have begun with SR.
and quantum mechanics, yes.
Tom VanFlandern's causality principles appear to be in conflict with a
number of experimental results, including delayed choice experiments
in quantum mechanics and those experiments in strong support for
special relativity.
Now, this did come as a shock for a number of physicists in the first
half of the 20th century, who firmly believed that principles similar
to TVF's were essential to nature and therefore to science. However,
since science is the study of how nature actually is, and when
experimental results started coming in that were wholly consistent
with theories that dispensed with this principle, then the natural
question to ask is whether that principle really does apply to reality
or is just being held onto in our minds as a comfortable security
blanket.
[/quote]
This is the issue exactly. Paul's point was that there are no
experimental results that cannot be explained with an ether model and
ether models do not violate the historical principles that have guided
physicists. So instead of assuming that nature does not conform to
those principles and only relying on conformance with equations to
determine what is real, physicists should have struck to their
principles. But it's never too late. Unless an ether model is
falsified by an experimental result, it is superior to any theory
which does not adhere to those historical principles.
Yes, this is philosophy, but it is an inherent part of physics.
The discussion should be limited to only those experimental results
which you believe cannot be explained with an ether model, so that you
can see (if ether theory cannot be falsified) that abandoning the
historical principles is unnecessary.
Vern |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Vern... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 5:56 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 29, 4:33 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]Vern wrote:
[/quote]
<snip>
[quote]I'm still waiting for you to state what you think the reason(s) was/
were for the historical abandonment of the lumiferious aether.
Other than experiments which explicitly contradict the claims of aether of
that time, and physical theory existing which works perfectly fine without
aether?
[/quote]
I didn't think there was anything I was missing.
Vern |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Vern... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 5:59 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 29, 9:23 pm, doug <x... at (no spam) xx.com> wrote:
[quote]Vern wrote:
[/quote]
<snip>
[quote]I'm still waiting for you to state what you think the reason(s) was/
were for the historical abandonment of the lumiferious aether. I've
given you all the textbook ones, but you acted like they were the
wrong ones.
I have not seen you present any.
[/quote]
Message numbers 326 and 329 in this post.
Vern |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| PD... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:34 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 30, 10:53 am, Vern <vthod... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 29, 5:05 pm, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 29, 3:23 pm, Vern <vthod... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
snip
I think Tom VanFlandern's causality principles are necessary and I
believe that physicists historically followed those principles. The
break from those principles appears to have begun with SR.
and quantum mechanics, yes.
Tom VanFlandern's causality principles appear to be in conflict with a
number of experimental results, including delayed choice experiments
in quantum mechanics and those experiments in strong support for
special relativity.
Now, this did come as a shock for a number of physicists in the first
half of the 20th century, who firmly believed that principles similar
to TVF's were essential to nature and therefore to science. However,
since science is the study of how nature actually is, and when
experimental results started coming in that were wholly consistent
with theories that dispensed with this principle, then the natural
question to ask is whether that principle really does apply to reality
or is just being held onto in our minds as a comfortable security
blanket.
This is the issue exactly. Paul's point was that there are no
experimental results that cannot be explained with an ether model and
ether models do not violate the historical principles that have guided
physicists. So instead of assuming that nature does not conform to
those principles and only relying on conformance with equations to
determine what is real, physicists should have struck to their
principles. But it's never too late. Unless an ether model is
falsified by an experimental result, it is superior to any theory
which does not adhere to those historical principles.
[/quote]
And I just don't buy that. There is not a single principle in
philosophy or in physics that says, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
There is not a single principle in philosophy or physics that says,
"The conceptual incumbent has an inherent advantage."
All different conceptual frameworks, regardless of historical
precedent, are on an equal and level plane.
LET and SR make common predictions over a certain *class* of
phenomena. However, SR has established itself as yielding power where
LET does not.
1. It leads directly, conceptually, to GR, which is highly successful
and contains many unique and verified predictions.
2. It immediately points to why the *other* boson-mediated
interactions (strong and weak nuclear forces) *also* have to be
Lorentz-invariant, where this has to be put in by hand and in a highly
contrived way via LET.
Now you may complain that LET hasn't been given a chance, and that it
deserves lots of people working on it to see if these two issues can
be resolved in a way that is at least as elegant as the way that SR
did. In that case, you are more than welcome to work on it. Most other
physicists have evaluated the likelihood of success in that channel
(where success means in actually accomplishing the task, not career
success), and have decided it is too high a risk to engage with.
In addition, LET demands that there are TWO entities -- space and a
medium -- that are inextricably entwined and it's the *pair* that hold
the physical properties attributed to SR's *single* entity spacetime,
not to mention a completely independent time dimension. The only
difference between these two claims other than the obvious doubling of
complexity, is an apparent belief by some that we are in the position
to *insist* to nature that spacetime cannot possibly bear those
properties because of a HUMAN-imposed definition that space and time
are propertiless.
[quote]
Yes, this is philosophy, but it is an inherent part of physics.
The discussion should be limited to only those experimental results
which you believe cannot be explained with an ether model, so that you
can see (if ether theory cannot be falsified) that abandoning the
historical principles is unnecessary.
Vern[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Dec 11, 2009 9:52 am
|
|