 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Physics - Relativity Forum » Is physics a science?... |
|
Page 8 of 24 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 7, 8, 9 ... 22, 23, 24 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| PD... |
 Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 12:36 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 3, 4:07 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 3, 7:50 am, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 2, 11:20 pm, PaulStowe<theaether... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Simply incomplete, needing further explanation. Now, if two concepts
existed one which say's 'well, that's just the nature of biology is'
and another that says 'it has to be the result of some molecular
structure and processes'
Note that Darwin nor Mendel made neither of the latter statement.
I don't know where you are getting this mantra that "That's just how
nature is". I've told you repeatedly that the *structure* of spacetime
accounts for much of the stuff that you've been told "that's just the
way it is", but you've steadfastly ignored it. Not my problem at that
point.
Repetition of lie is still a lie. I am not ignoring your so-called
'structure of spacetime'. quoting from,
http://www.physics.orst.edu/~tevian/paradigm9/protect/hyperbolic.pdf
"In which it is shown that special relativity IS just hyperbolic
geometry"
So, you take Einstein's two postulates -> SR and then take SR -
hyperbolic geometry and then claim that 'the structure of spacetime'
results in SR. That is a classical circular argument. Let's go
around again, sigh...
No. The claim that SR -> hyperbolic geometry is incorrect. Hyperbolic
geometry is the underlying explanation for SR, *inferred* not deduced
from SR.
Hyperbolic geometry is no more deduced from the postulates than DNA
was deduced from Mendel's genetics. Science is a *burrowing* activity,
where deeper understanding is obtained by *inference* from prior
facts.
The correct historical statement is that:
Einstein's postulates -> SR
and then later
Hyberbolic geometry of the universe -> Einstein's postulates -> SR.
Why hyperbolic? On what basis? Why not Euclidean, Elpitical?
Geometry alone cannot answer this question.
[/quote]
Why is the aether massless?
[quote]
By definition, Ad Hoc postulates!
1. Light is 'measured' invariant for inertial systems
2. Light speed is not affected by motion of objects
So, what are the basis of these 'postulates'? Well, #2 comes directly
from well known behavior of physical mediums and nothing else (so
without that basis one has to assume 'it just is').
You are not listening to what I just said. #2 comes directly from a
COUPLE of possible candidates: One is physical media, with a fairly
serious constraint on the nature of the interaction mediated therein.
Another is hyperbolic geometry.
How can 'geometry' do anything?
[/quote]
A geometric structure CERTAINLY has implications that follow directly.
Including a limitation on speed and the frame-invariance of that
limiting speed. If you fail to see that geometry can have any
implications, then I'm sorry, you really have vapor-lock about the
physical meaning behind geometric concepts.
[quote] There must be a causal agent that
results in hyperbolic behavior. What is that agent?
[/quote]
We don't know yet! It does tend to fall out naturally from spin-foam
lattices. But on the other hand, there are unanswered questions about
aether theories as well. No theory to date answers ALL "why"
questions. Having unanswered "why" questions is not a demerit against
a theory. Moreover, to project that the underlying answer to the "why"
question MUST be time-ordered deterministic is simply an article of
religious faith.
[quote]
There is nothing other than prejudice that would suggest that one
should be considered and the other ignored.
#1 was, at the
time, more problematic. For this Lorentz make one 'ad hoc' postulate,
the 'contraction' (for him, at that time, it too was, 'it just is').
Einstein even usurped that. The required behavior for this 'results
in hyperbolic geometry'...
No, doesn't RESULT in. Is ACCOUNTED thereby.
OK, what makes it hyperbolic rather than say Euclidean? If I ask
enough times maybe the point will get across that geometry cannot
create physicality.
[/quote]
Of course it can. The fact that there is a remaining question of "why"
does NOT mean that the explanation is not a causal one that accounts
for physical behavior. There are remaining unanswered "why" questions
for ANY theory, including kinetic theory. It's just that when you get
to a kinetic theory, the "why" questions are whispered and when you
get to one that isn't kinetic you holler "WHY? WHY? WHY?"
[quote]
So, where is the explanation for the
structure of spacetime?, circle back. The is no such circular logic
in the physical medium model.
It's political and based
on faulty logic. Science is well defined and independent of practices
and/or behavior.
And that is nonsense. Science is *defined* by a methodology. That's
why it's called the scientific method.
The scientific method is,
Observation
Hypothesis (posit an explanation)
Test
Validate/Falsify
It's NOT! just,
Hypothesis
Test
Validate/Falsify
Which is why Newton never thought his gravity equation was a valid
explanation of gravity.
I'm sorry, you must have a typo in the above somewhere. Wherever did
you get the notion that observation is left out of current physics?
Loop Quantum Gravity, String theory, ... etc. Where is the
'observation'???
[/quote]
The observation is in the observed symmetries of the interactions.
Just like the periodicity of the elements led to the periodic table.
Observation of *properties* can be used in extracting a model. The
observation does not necessarily have to do with looking at little
things under a microscope. At the time kinetic theory was developed,
no one even had a clear idea how big an atom was.
[quote]
Science is the systematic pursuit of gaining the
most complete and cogent understanding of topic, period!
I'm sorry, but that's not the case. Otherwise philosophy and
mathematics and industrial design would be included in science. Much
as you'd like it to be broader, so that it could be deemed more
inclusive (so that you could be arguably included), it's not the case.
So, science is not, in your opinion, the pursuit of understanding the
natural world?
That is not a sufficient definition, no, because it also admits that
which is not science.
Me'thinks your definition is too narrow...
[/quote]
I'm sorry, but I disagree. I would like a definition that separates
mathematics from science, please, and philosophy from science. Yours
doesn't do it.
[quote]
Ignorance is never a good foundation in science. Understanding what
gives rise to the resulting equation (NOT! the equations themselves)
is the true pursuit of knowledge.
That's right. Equations are expressions for statements that can be
said in words.
Equations can only quantify physical processes, they can NEVER BE an
explanatory cause.
You are not listening. Equations are shorthand statements for
equivalent statements in verbal language, insofar as that language
permits, and it reflects underlying conceptual foundations. If you
find this to be not true, then you've been poorly educated.
I disagree, equations are literally that, precise expressions of how
two or more physical properties are related. It never says A causes B
it says A 'equals' B. Thus the term 'equation'. Again, examples, F > MA, F = GMm/r^2 neither states what the symbols M, m, A, G, r,
represent nor do they provide any explanation of their properties. If
I wrote M = q/(nu) does this tell you what q or nu is? These can
NEVER! provide conceptual foundations.
[/quote]
That is just bullshit.
Newton's 2nd law is a statement that forces are the causal agents on
one side of the equation that produce the response in motion on the
other side.
You do not have a good idea of what equations in science MEAN.
[quote]
Where have I ever argued that equations provide a basis? Just the
opposite, they provide the means of quantifying behavior but can NEVER
be the root cause.
The equations *codify* the conceptual basis. I don't know where you
got the notion that equations are something wholly separate from
physical explanations.
That's because I didn't have such a notion. , It's like the phrase 'in
the daytime the sky is blue' we can express this in pseudo math as S_d
= B. But that doesn't tell you how it gets that way. E = mc^2
doesn't explain how it is two times the standard KE = 0.5mv^2 or, what
causes the difference. They can't do it, they can express
relationships precisely, thus the term, quantify...
And no, randomness in some variables does NOT produce complete
nonrepeatability.
True randomness will. Even radioactive decay is not at all random.
I think you have a poor understanding of the randomness in quantum
mechanics.
Randomness, or probabilities?
No, I cannot. Now when a perfectly good explanation exists that given
the foundational basis FOR! the characteristics of c, which is the
sole basis for those postulates.
Sorry, but it is NOT the sole basis for those postulates and that's
precisely my point.
If the universe is structured with a hyperbolic spacetime geometry,
then those postulates follow directly from that structure, simply and
natively.
You still need the requisite characteristics of propagation and,
again, the circle closes.
"requisite characteristics of propagation"??
Yes, propagation... Signal delays from point A to point B.
[/quote]
And why is the time-orderedness of that required? or even supported
*exclusively* by experiment?
And what about quantum entanglement, where no such signal (slower than
c) is even possible?
[quote]
If the universe is structure with a Euclidean space and time geometry
(actually with independent space and time structures), THEN you need
an additional medium to generate a speed limit AND you need a
constraint on the dynamics of the medium to produce source
independence.
So there are TWO vying bases for those postulates, NOT one.
Space has no geometry. It is, by definition, a void.
That is YOUR definition. It is YOU and only YOU that have demanded
that space be defined as that which has no properties.
And yet it is a ridiculous statement if you think about it a minute.
If there are two points taken in space, then there is a distance
between those two points that distinguish the two.
I can 'use' spherical 'geometry' r, theta, phi, cylinderical
'geometry' r, theta, h, cartesian 'geometry' x, y, z, it's my choice
since a void has, by definition, no physical properties or
chsracteristics.
[/quote]
Regardless of coordinate choice, the distance remains, notice. It is a
*property* of the space.
[quote] You're right though, our minds insist on imposing
some form of geometry onto any void space. If it is truly a void, it
won't matter one iota which we choose.
Otherwise, the two
points are indistinguishable. Furthermore, you would not be able to
order points in a line if there were no comparative distance between A
and B and between A and C. Now, if there is no geometry in space, then
where does this distance come from?
Our minds...
[/quote]
Ah, so there IS NO PHYSICAL distance between two particles of aether
separated by void?
Really?
So if particles A is separated from B and from C, then there is no way
to order the separations AB, BC, AC?
[quote]
Furthermore, you have said that aether is particulate and occupies
space, with void between the aether constituents. If this space has no
geometry by which to quantify the amount of void between the aether
constituents, then how does one defined a density (even a *number*
density) of the aether?
Pick one. Cartesian works well.
[/quote]
That's a GEOMETRY!
[quote] In an aether model there are only
three primal quantities mass, length, time. Length is the defined
linear distance between elements.
[/quote]
Those elements residing at locations in space, separated by a void.
Now, are you saying that the elements in the aether are also
accompanied by something else IN THE AETHER that tracks the distance
between the elements in the aether? If so, then what is this other
element in the aether that carries this property of distance between
the particle elements of the aether?
[quote] Your spacetime hyperbolic geometry
is a resultant of its internal physical processes. This is the sole
reason that it has this uniqueness over all other geometric
possibilities. In other words, spacetime geometry isn't 'just there'
and geometry alone cannot and does does not inbue space with any
physicality.
You insist on a definition of space that is - not shared by scientists
I did not invent the terms void & vacuum
[/quote]
No, but you sure are insisting that void means "absent all properties,
including geometry", which is certainly not what scientists say.
[quote]
- not verifiably part of our universe, except as a human-invented
abstraction
I agree, in our universe every volume
[/quote]
of space and time.
[quote]is endowed with physical
properties, which, of course, lead Einstein back to the aether...
- not equipped to support even your own concept of aether, as it has
none of the properties required to do so
Not true. With a kinetic particulate medium imbuding all of the
universe the void is filled,
[/quote]
I'm sorry, but you said the particles of aether are SEPARATED by void,
and so that void cannot be filled.
[quote]endowing it with the requisite physical
properties. As Einstein said, and you seem to agree here, "space
without aether is unthinkable"...[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| doug... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 5:47 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Paul Stowe wrote:
[quote]On Nov 3, 7:50 am, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 2, 11:20 pm, PaulStowe<theaether... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Simply incomplete, needing further explanation. Now, if two concepts
existed one which say's 'well, that's just the nature of biology is'
and another that says 'it has to be the result of some molecular
structure and processes'
Note that Darwin nor Mendel made neither of the latter statement.
I don't know where you are getting this mantra that "That's just how
nature is". I've told you repeatedly that the *structure* of spacetime
accounts for much of the stuff that you've been told "that's just the
way it is", but you've steadfastly ignored it. Not my problem at that
point.
Repetition of lie is still a lie. I am not ignoring your so-called
'structure of spacetime'. quoting from,
http://www.physics.orst.edu/~tevian/paradigm9/protect/hyperbolic.pdf
"In which it is shown that special relativity IS just hyperbolic
geometry"
So, you take Einstein's two postulates -> SR and then take SR -
hyperbolic geometry and then claim that 'the structure of spacetime'
results in SR. That is a classical circular argument. Let's go
around again, sigh...
No. The claim that SR -> hyperbolic geometry is incorrect. Hyperbolic
geometry is the underlying explanation for SR, *inferred* not deduced
from SR.
Hyperbolic geometry is no more deduced from the postulates than DNA
was deduced from Mendel's genetics. Science is a *burrowing* activity,
where deeper understanding is obtained by *inference* from prior
facts.
The correct historical statement is that:
Einstein's postulates -> SR
and then later
Hyberbolic geometry of the universe -> Einstein's postulates -> SR.
Why hyperbolic? On what basis? Why not Euclidean, Elpitical?
Geometry alone cannot answer this question.
[/quote]
You are wandering off into philosophy. Experiments tell us what
it is. You want to tell us how you think it should be.
[quote]
By definition, Ad Hoc postulates!
1. Light is 'measured' invariant for inertial systems
2. Light speed is not affected by motion of objects
So, what are the basis of these 'postulates'? Well, #2 comes directly
from well known behavior of physical mediums and nothing else (so
without that basis one has to assume 'it just is').
You are not listening to what I just said. #2 comes directly from a
COUPLE of possible candidates: One is physical media, with a fairly
serious constraint on the nature of the interaction mediated therein.
Another is hyperbolic geometry.
How can 'geometry' do anything?
[/quote]
Look at the structure of SR. You have never done that and your
ignorance is showing..
There must be a causal agent that
[quote]results in hyperbolic behavior. What is that agent?
[/quote]
Geometry. Do some study.
[quote]
There is nothing other than prejudice that would suggest that one
should be considered and the other ignored.
#1 was, at the
time, more problematic. For this Lorentz make one 'ad hoc' postulate,
the 'contraction' (for him, at that time, it too was, 'it just is').
Einstein even usurped that. The required behavior for this 'results
in hyperbolic geometry'...
No, doesn't RESULT in. Is ACCOUNTED thereby.
OK, what makes it hyperbolic rather than say Euclidean?
[/quote]
What would make it Euclidean rather than hyperbolic. You are
trying to put your prejudices in here and the universe is not
listening.
If I ask
[quote]enough times maybe the point will get across that geometry cannot
create physicality.
[/quote]
So you feel that your repeating your stupid statements enough
will somehow give them validity?
[quote]
So, where is the explanation for the
structure of spacetime?, circle back. The is no such circular logic
in the physical medium model.
It's political and based
on faulty logic. Science is well defined and independent of practices
and/or behavior.
And that is nonsense. Science is *defined* by a methodology. That's
why it's called the scientific method.
The scientific method is,
Observation
Hypothesis (posit an explanation)
Test
Validate/Falsify
It's NOT! just,
Hypothesis
Test
Validate/Falsify
Which is why Newton never thought his gravity equation was a valid
explanation of gravity.
I'm sorry, you must have a typo in the above somewhere. Wherever did
you get the notion that observation is left out of current physics?
Loop Quantum Gravity, String theory, ... etc. Where is the
'observation'???
Science is the systematic pursuit of gaining the
most complete and cogent understanding of topic, period!
I'm sorry, but that's not the case. Otherwise philosophy and
mathematics and industrial design would be included in science. Much
as you'd like it to be broader, so that it could be deemed more
inclusive (so that you could be arguably included), it's not the case.
So, science is not, in your opinion, the pursuit of understanding the
natural world?
That is not a sufficient definition, no, because it also admits that
which is not science.
Me'thinks your definition is too narrow...
[/quote]
You want it to include your prejudices and ignorance.
[quote]
Ignorance is never a good foundation in science. Understanding what
gives rise to the resulting equation (NOT! the equations themselves)
is the true pursuit of knowledge.
That's right. Equations are expressions for statements that can be
said in words.
Equations can only quantify physical processes, they can NEVER BE an
explanatory cause.
You are not listening. Equations are shorthand statements for
equivalent statements in verbal language, insofar as that language
permits, and it reflects underlying conceptual foundations. If you
find this to be not true, then you've been poorly educated.
I disagree, equations are literally that, precise expressions of how
two or more physical properties are related. It never says A causes B
it says A 'equals' B. Thus the term 'equation'. Again, examples, F =
MA, F = GMm/r^2 neither states what the symbols M, m, A, G, r,
represent nor do they provide any explanation of their properties. If
I wrote M = q/(nu) does this tell you what q or nu is? These can
NEVER! provide conceptual foundations.
[/quote]
You really have no clue about science. This is sad.
[quote]
Where have I ever argued that equations provide a basis? Just the
opposite, they provide the means of quantifying behavior but can NEVER
be the root cause.
The equations *codify* the conceptual basis. I don't know where you
got the notion that equations are something wholly separate from
physical explanations.
That's because I didn't have such a notion. , It's like the phrase 'in
the daytime the sky is blue' we can express this in pseudo math as S_d
= B. But that doesn't tell you how it gets that way. E = mc^2
doesn't explain how it is two times the standard KE = 0.5mv^2 or, what
causes the difference. They can't do it, they can express
relationships precisely, thus the term, quantify...
[/quote]
Yes, and you use the equations to do that.
[quote]
And no, randomness in some variables does NOT produce complete
nonrepeatability.
True randomness will. Even radioactive decay is not at all random.
I think you have a poor understanding of the randomness in quantum
mechanics.
Randomness, or probabilities?
Both.
No, I cannot. Now when a perfectly good explanation exists that given
the foundational basis FOR! the characteristics of c, which is the
sole basis for those postulates.
Sorry, but it is NOT the sole basis for those postulates and that's
precisely my point.
If the universe is structured with a hyperbolic spacetime geometry,
then those postulates follow directly from that structure, simply and
natively.
You still need the requisite characteristics of propagation and,
again, the circle closes.
"requisite characteristics of propagation"??
Yes, propagation... Signal delays from point A to point B.
[/quote]
That is set by the hyperbolic geometry.
[quote]
If the universe is structure with a Euclidean space and time geometry
(actually with independent space and time structures), THEN you need
an additional medium to generate a speed limit AND you need a
constraint on the dynamics of the medium to produce source
independence.
So there are TWO vying bases for those postulates, NOT one.
Space has no geometry. It is, by definition, a void.
That is YOUR definition. It is YOU and only YOU that have demanded
that space be defined as that which has no properties.
And yet it is a ridiculous statement if you think about it a minute.
If there are two points taken in space, then there is a distance
between those two points that distinguish the two.
I can 'use' spherical 'geometry' r, theta, phi, cylinderical
'geometry' r, theta, h, cartesian 'geometry' x, y, z, it's my choice
since a void has, by definition, no physical properties or
chsracteristics.
[/quote]
By YOUR definition. Your definition has nothing to do with science.
You're right though, our minds insist on imposing
[quote]some form of geometry onto any void space. If it is truly a void, it
won't matter one iota which we choose.
Otherwise, the two
points are indistinguishable. Furthermore, you would not be able to
order points in a line if there were no comparative distance between A
and B and between A and C. Now, if there is no geometry in space, then
where does this distance come from?
Our minds...
[/quote]
You are babbling.
[quote]
Furthermore, you have said that aether is particulate and occupies
space, with void between the aether constituents. If this space has no
geometry by which to quantify the amount of void between the aether
constituents, then how does one defined a density (even a *number*
density) of the aether?
Pick one. Cartesian works well. In an aether model there are only
three primal quantities mass, length, time. Length is the defined
linear distance between elements. Your spacetime hyperbolic geometry
is a resultant of its internal physical processes. This is the sole
reason that it has this uniqueness over all other geometric
possibilities. In other words, spacetime geometry isn't 'just there'
and geometry alone cannot and does does not inbue space with any
physicality.
[/quote]
Except, of course, this is just your prejudice talking. The universe
is not listening to you.
[quote]
You insist on a definition of space that is - not shared by scientists
I did not invent the terms void & vacuum
[/quote]
That was not what he said.
[quote]
- not verifiably part of our universe, except as a human-invented
abstraction
I agree, in our universe every volume is endowed with physical
properties, which, of course, lead Einstein back to the aether...
[/quote]
Except, of course, it did not.
[quote]
- not equipped to support even your own concept of aether, as it has
none of the properties required to do so
Not true. With a kinetic particulate medium imbuding all of the
universe the void is filled, endowing it with the requisite physical
properties. As Einstein said, and you seem to agree here, "space
without aether is unthinkable"...
[/quote]
You seem to think taking snippets out of context means something.
That is why you will never do any science. Well, that and your prejudice
and ignorance. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Vern... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 3:53 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 3, 5:36 pm, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 3, 4:07 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[/quote]
<snip>
[quote]Why hyperbolic? On what basis? Why not Euclidean, Elpitical?
Geometry alone cannot answer this question.
Why is the aether massless?
[/quote]
You appear to be having problems understanding the basic concepts of
an aether. Taking a look at the book, "A History of the Theories of
Aether and Electricity" by Whittaker would help. Paul found it online
through UCal, I believe.
The issue of geometry is interesting. If you assume that space has no
structure, and assume that any object may move in any direction within
it, including in a straight line or in a curved line, there are two
choices, I believe: (1) is that movement in a straight line is not the
result of space forcing movement only in a straight line, it is just
that with no forces acting on a body, there is no reason for the body
to move in a curved line. It would take a force acting on the body to
make it move in a curved line; (2) that space is somehow forcing the
body to move in a straight line and that is due to space being
Euclidean (or a curved line if space is hyperbolic).
The second choice would require space to have properties that can
force an object to do something, the first option would not. I
believe the Cartesians used the first option as their basis for the
concept of space.
Vern |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| PD... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 4:37 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 4, 7:53 am, Vern <vthod... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 3, 5:36 pm, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 3, 4:07 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
snip
Why hyperbolic? On what basis? Why not Euclidean, Elpitical?
Geometry alone cannot answer this question.
Why is the aether massless?
You appear to be having problems understanding the basic concepts of
an aether. Taking a look at the book, "A History of the Theories of
Aether and Electricity" by Whittaker would help. Paul found it online
through UCal, I believe.
[/quote]
The "why" question remains, and that's the point. There are as many
unanswered "why" questions about aether as there are about why
spacetime has the structure it does.
[quote]
The issue of geometry is interesting. If you assume that space has no
structure,
[/quote]
Why assume that?
[quote]and assume that any object may move in any direction within
it, including in a straight line or in a curved line, there are two
choices, I believe: (1) is that movement in a straight line is not the
result of space forcing movement only in a straight line, it is just
that with no forces acting on a body, there is no reason for the body
to move in a curved line.
[/quote]
However, notice the unanswered "why" question: WHY is momentum
conserved? (As opposed to some other possible quantity)
[quote] It would take a force acting on the body to
make it move in a curved line; (2) that space is somehow forcing the
body to move in a straight line and that is due to space being
Euclidean (or a curved line if space is hyperbolic).
[/quote]
No. Hyperbolic space is *flat*. Please learn the concepts first before
trying to analyze them.
[quote]
The second choice would require space to have properties that can
force an object to do something, the first option would not.
[/quote]
No, it does not. Even in curved space, objects travel in *straight
lines* -- a geodesic is locally straight. There is no straighter line
possible in curved space. You may need to brush up on some basic
concepts of what "straight" means in the geometry of curved spaces.
[quote] I
believe the Cartesians used the first option as their basis for the
concept of space.
[/quote]
They did no such thing. You'll recall what Aristotle thought about
motion in space.
[quote]
Vern[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Paul Stowe... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 7:43 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 4, 6:37 am, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 4, 7:53 am, Vern <vthod... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 3, 5:36 pm, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 3, 4:07 pm, PaulStowe<theaether... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
snip
Why hyperbolic? On what basis? Why not Euclidean, Elpitical?
Geometry alone cannot answer this question.
Why is the aether massless?
You appear to be having problems understanding the basic concepts of
an aether. Taking a look at the book, "A History of the Theories of
Aether and Electricity" by Whittaker would help. Paul found it online
through UCal, I believe.
The "why" question remains, and that's the point. There are as many
unanswered "why" questions about aether as there are about why
spacetime has the structure it does.
[/quote]
Your 'why' question does NOT! remain unanswered. The aether entities
have momentum and that has intrinsic mass. They cannot be stopped by
any means available to you and therefore the concept of 'rest' cannot
be applied to them. Wvave structures consisting of them can create
standing patterns and those would manifest a rest mass, thus the QM
view of 'matter'. But the aether entities cannot be considered matter
nor can the normal term material as commonly defined be applied to
them. The issue remain for 'geometry' however. For geometry to
become physically real it must be a result of some physical object or
process. Whenever that is true the real question isn't the geometry,
its what is creating it...
In fact, there are a lot less unanswered questions within the aether
model than conventional theories. for example, it answers,
Where does the impedence of free-space come from
What light is, how it gets its basic behavior (including the
Lorentz Transform), the physical origin of c^2 = 1/uz
What is elemental charge and what causes two different
entities to carry the same value
The basic nature of radioactive decay
The origin and nature of temperature
The thermoelectric coupling
The nature of gravity
How gravity and the rest can be integrated
And, of course, the hisdtorical properties that were derived from it.
[quote]The issue of geometry is interesting. If you assume that space has no
structure,
Why assume that?
[/quote]
Because, if it does have structure you're left with the questions
like, "where does it come from?", "why not some other?" we know where
the 'structure' comes from in the medium model.
[quote]and assume that any object may move in any direction within
it, including in a straight line or in a curved line, there are two
choices, I believe: (1) is that movement in a straight line is not the
result of space forcing movement only in a straight line, it is just
that with no forces acting on a body, there is no reason for the body
to move in a curved line.
However, notice the unanswered "why" question: WHY is momentum
conserved? (As opposed to some other possible quantity)
[/quote]
Why are there any conservation laws? This leads directly to can you
get something from nothing? If the answer is no you get conservation
laws, if yes then it doesn't have to be conserved.
[quote]It would take a force acting on the body to
make it move in a curved line; (2) that space is somehow forcing the
body to move in a straight line and that is due to space being
Euclidean (or a curved line if space is hyperbolic).
No. Hyperbolic space is *flat*. Please learn the concepts first before
trying to analyze them.
[/quote]
Semantics... and IMO a redefinition of the term 'flat'. To me flat
means without curvature, period!
[quote]The second choice would require space to have properties that can
force an object to do something, the first option would not.
No, it does not. Even in curved space, objects travel in *straight
lines* -- a geodesic is locally straight. There is no straighter line
possible in curved space. You may need to brush up on some basic
concepts of what "straight" means in the geometry of curved spaces.
[/quote]
Again semantical quibbling. The surface of a sphere is 'flat' as its
radius -> oo... Thus a small enough segment is 'asymtonically' flat
but no rational person would claim that a sphere's geometry is
'flat'.
> > Vern |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| PD... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 9:32 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 4, 11:43 am, Paul Stowe <theaether... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[endless circling snipped, and getting to the newer ground]
[quote]
and assume that any object may move in any direction within
it, including in a straight line or in a curved line, there are two
choices, I believe: (1) is that movement in a straight line is not the
result of space forcing movement only in a straight line, it is just
that with no forces acting on a body, there is no reason for the body
to move in a curved line.
However, notice the unanswered "why" question: WHY is momentum
conserved? (As opposed to some other possible quantity)
Why are there any conservation laws? This leads directly to can you
get something from nothing? If the answer is no you get conservation
laws, if yes then it doesn't have to be conserved.
[/quote]
But this "can you get something from nothing?" rule does not apply in
general. Rest mass, for example, is NOT conserved, and yes, you can
get rest mass in a final state where there was nothing before. Kinetic
energy is not conserved. Lepton number appears to be not conserved.
[quote]
It would take a force acting on the body to
make it move in a curved line; (2) that space is somehow forcing the
body to move in a straight line and that is due to space being
Euclidean (or a curved line if space is hyperbolic).
No. Hyperbolic space is *flat*. Please learn the concepts first before
trying to analyze them.
Semantics... and IMO a redefinition of the term 'flat'. To me flat
means without curvature, period!
[/quote]
That's correct. Minkowski space, which is hyperbolic, is flat, not
curved. As I said, it would be better if you learned the subject a bit
more before attempting to critique it.
[quote]
The second choice would require space to have properties that can
force an object to do something, the first option would not.
No, it does not. Even in curved space, objects travel in *straight
lines* -- a geodesic is locally straight. There is no straighter line
possible in curved space. You may need to brush up on some basic
concepts of what "straight" means in the geometry of curved spaces.
Again semantical quibbling. The surface of a sphere is 'flat' as its
radius -> oo...
[/quote]
A line of longitude on the 2D surface of a sphere is also *straight*,
according to any accepted definition of straight in a 2D space.
[quote]Thus a small enough segment is 'asymtonically' flat
but no rational person would claim that a sphere's geometry is
'flat'.
[/quote]
But Minkowski space is flat, not curved, even though it has a
hyperbolic geometry. Please, Paul, learn a bit more. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Paul Stowe... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 9:54 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 4, 11:32 am, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 4, 11:43 am, PaulStowe<theaether... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[endless circling snipped, and getting to the newer ground]
and assume that any object may move in any direction within
it, including in a straight line or in a curved line, there are two
choices, I believe: (1) is that movement in a straight line is not the
result of space forcing movement only in a straight line, it is just
that with no forces acting on a body, there is no reason for the body
to move in a curved line.
However, notice the unanswered "why" question: WHY is momentum
conserved? (As opposed to some other possible quantity)
Why are there any conservation laws? This leads directly to can you
get something from nothing? If the answer is no you get conservation
laws, if yes then it doesn't have to be conserved.
But this "can you get something from nothing?" rule does not apply in
general. Rest mass, for example, is NOT conserved, and yes, you can
get rest mass in a final state where there was nothing before. Kinetic
energy is not conserved. Lepton number appears to be not conserved.
It would take a force acting on the body to
make it move in a curved line; (2) that space is somehow forcing the
body to move in a straight line and that is due to space being
Euclidean (or a curved line if space is hyperbolic).
No. Hyperbolic space is *flat*. Please learn the concepts first before
trying to analyze them.
Semantics... and IMO a redefinition of the term 'flat'. To me flat
means without curvature, period!
That's correct. Minkowski space, which is hyperbolic, is flat, not
curved. As I said, it would be better if you learned the subject a bit
more before attempting to critique it.
The second choice would require space to have properties that can
force an object to do something, the first option would not.
No, it does not. Even in curved space, objects travel in *straight
lines* -- a geodesic is locally straight. There is no straighter line
possible in curved space. You may need to brush up on some basic
concepts of what "straight" means in the geometry of curved spaces.
Again semantical quibbling. The surface of a sphere is 'flat' as its
radius -> oo...
A line of longitude on the 2D surface of a sphere is also *straight*,
according to any accepted definition of straight in a 2D space.
Thus a small enough segment is 'asymtonically' flat
but no rational person would claim that a sphere's geometry is
'flat'.
But Minkowski space is flat, not curved, even though it has a
hyperbolic geometry. Please, Paul, learn a bit more.
[/quote]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbolic_geometry
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/HyperbolicGeometry.html
Yup, the lines look straight & 'flat' to me.. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| PD... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 10:18 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 4, 1:54 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 4, 11:32 am, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 4, 11:43 am, PaulStowe<theaether... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[endless circling snipped, and getting to the newer ground]
and assume that any object may move in any direction within
it, including in a straight line or in a curved line, there are two
choices, I believe: (1) is that movement in a straight line is not the
result of space forcing movement only in a straight line, it is just
that with no forces acting on a body, there is no reason for the body
to move in a curved line.
However, notice the unanswered "why" question: WHY is momentum
conserved? (As opposed to some other possible quantity)
Why are there any conservation laws? This leads directly to can you
get something from nothing? If the answer is no you get conservation
laws, if yes then it doesn't have to be conserved.
But this "can you get something from nothing?" rule does not apply in
general. Rest mass, for example, is NOT conserved, and yes, you can
get rest mass in a final state where there was nothing before. Kinetic
energy is not conserved. Lepton number appears to be not conserved.
It would take a force acting on the body to
make it move in a curved line; (2) that space is somehow forcing the
body to move in a straight line and that is due to space being
Euclidean (or a curved line if space is hyperbolic).
No. Hyperbolic space is *flat*. Please learn the concepts first before
trying to analyze them.
Semantics... and IMO a redefinition of the term 'flat'. To me flat
means without curvature, period!
That's correct. Minkowski space, which is hyperbolic, is flat, not
curved. As I said, it would be better if you learned the subject a bit
more before attempting to critique it.
The second choice would require space to have properties that can
force an object to do something, the first option would not.
No, it does not. Even in curved space, objects travel in *straight
lines* -- a geodesic is locally straight. There is no straighter line
possible in curved space. You may need to brush up on some basic
concepts of what "straight" means in the geometry of curved spaces.
Again semantical quibbling. The surface of a sphere is 'flat' as its
radius -> oo...
A line of longitude on the 2D surface of a sphere is also *straight*,
according to any accepted definition of straight in a 2D space.
Thus a small enough segment is 'asymtonically' flat
but no rational person would claim that a sphere's geometry is
'flat'.
But Minkowski space is flat, not curved, even though it has a
hyperbolic geometry. Please, Paul, learn a bit more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbolic_geometryhttp://mathworld.wolfram.com/HyperbolicGeometry.html
Yup, the lines look straight & 'flat' to me..
[/quote]
Please. Look up Minkowski space. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| doug... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 12:56 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Paul Stowe wrote:
[quote]On Nov 4, 6:37 am, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 4, 7:53 am, Vern <vthod... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 3, 5:36 pm, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 3, 4:07 pm, PaulStowe<theaether... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
snip
Why hyperbolic? On what basis? Why not Euclidean, Elpitical?
Geometry alone cannot answer this question.
Why is the aether massless?
You appear to be having problems understanding the basic concepts of
an aether. Taking a look at the book, "A History of the Theories of
Aether and Electricity" by Whittaker would help. Paul found it online
through UCal, I believe.
The "why" question remains, and that's the point. There are as many
unanswered "why" questions about aether as there are about why
spacetime has the structure it does.
Your 'why' question does NOT! remain unanswered. The aether entities
have momentum and that has intrinsic mass. They cannot be stopped by
any means available to you and therefore the concept of 'rest' cannot
be applied to them. Wvave structures consisting of them can create
standing patterns and those would manifest a rest mass, thus the QM
view of 'matter'. But the aether entities cannot be considered matter
nor can the normal term material as commonly defined be applied to
them. The issue remain for 'geometry' however. For geometry to
become physically real it must be a result of some physical object or
process. Whenever that is true the real question isn't the geometry,
its what is creating it...
In fact, there are a lot less unanswered questions within the aether
model than conventional theories. for example, it answers,
Where does the impedence of free-space come from
[/quote]
It does not answer the question. Mu and epsilon are units
conversion factors.
[quote]
What light is, how it gets its basic behavior (including the
Lorentz Transform), the physical origin of c^2 = 1/uz
[/quote]
Well, that comes from the geometry.
[quote]
What is elemental charge and what causes two different
entities to carry the same value
[/quote]
That is not explained at all.
[quote]
The basic nature of radioactive decay
[/quote]
No, not that either.
[quote]
The origin and nature of temperature
[/quote]
No, not that either.
[quote]
The thermoelectric coupling
[/quote]
No, not that either.
[quote]
The nature of gravity
[/quote]
No, not that either.
[quote]
How gravity and the rest can be integrated
[/quote]
No, not that either.
[quote]
And, of course, the hisdtorical properties that were derived from it.
[/quote]
So far you are batting zero.
[quote]
The issue of geometry is interesting. If you assume that space has no
structure,
Why assume that?
Because, if it does have structure you're left with the questions
like, "where does it come from?", "why not some other?" we know where
the 'structure' comes from in the medium model.
[/quote]
Well, you have assumed the structure of 3D and time only.
[quote]
and assume that any object may move in any direction within
it, including in a straight line or in a curved line, there are two
choices, I believe: (1) is that movement in a straight line is not the
result of space forcing movement only in a straight line, it is just
that with no forces acting on a body, there is no reason for the body
to move in a curved line.
However, notice the unanswered "why" question: WHY is momentum
conserved? (As opposed to some other possible quantity)
Why are there any conservation laws?
[/quote]
Not answered by your aether.
This leads directly to can you
[quote]get something from nothing?
[/quote]
Or can you get nothing from something.
If the answer is no you get conservation
[quote]laws, if yes then it doesn't have to be conserved.
[/quote]
And that relates to aether how?
[quote]
It would take a force acting on the body to
make it move in a curved line; (2) that space is somehow forcing the
body to move in a straight line and that is due to space being
Euclidean (or a curved line if space is hyperbolic).
No. Hyperbolic space is *flat*. Please learn the concepts first before
trying to analyze them.
Semantics... and IMO a redefinition of the term 'flat'. To me flat
means without curvature, period!
[/quote]
Since you have no idea what science uses for terms, you get
yourself into trouble and look silly.
[quote]
The second choice would require space to have properties that can
force an object to do something, the first option would not.
No, it does not. Even in curved space, objects travel in *straight
lines* -- a geodesic is locally straight. There is no straighter line
possible in curved space. You may need to brush up on some basic
concepts of what "straight" means in the geometry of curved spaces.
Again semantical quibbling.
[/quote]
In other words, you are wrong and trying to wiggle out from under
that.
The surface of a sphere is 'flat' as its
[quote]radius -> oo... Thus a small enough segment is 'asymtonically' flat
but no rational person would claim that a sphere's geometry is
'flat'.
Vern[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| eric gisse... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 2:57 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Inertial... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 5:53 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"PD" <thedraperfamily at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2b1bd6fc-c626-4b8b-9b86-7ef021fa3a1b at (no spam) d5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
[quote]On Nov 4, 1:54 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 4, 11:32 am, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 4, 11:43 am, PaulStowe<theaether... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[endless circling snipped, and getting to the newer ground]
and assume that any object may move in any direction within
it, including in a straight line or in a curved line, there are
two
choices, I believe: (1) is that movement in a straight line is
not the
result of space forcing movement only in a straight line, it is
just
that with no forces acting on a body, there is no reason for the
body
to move in a curved line.
However, notice the unanswered "why" question: WHY is momentum
conserved? (As opposed to some other possible quantity)
Why are there any conservation laws? This leads directly to can you
get something from nothing? If the answer is no you get conservation
laws, if yes then it doesn't have to be conserved.
But this "can you get something from nothing?" rule does not apply in
general. Rest mass, for example, is NOT conserved, and yes, you can
get rest mass in a final state where there was nothing before. Kinetic
energy is not conserved. Lepton number appears to be not conserved.
It would take a force acting on the body to
make it move in a curved line; (2) that space is somehow forcing
the
body to move in a straight line and that is due to space being
Euclidean (or a curved line if space is hyperbolic).
No. Hyperbolic space is *flat*. Please learn the concepts first
before
trying to analyze them.
Semantics... and IMO a redefinition of the term 'flat'. To me flat
means without curvature, period!
That's correct. Minkowski space, which is hyperbolic, is flat, not
curved. As I said, it would be better if you learned the subject a bit
more before attempting to critique it.
The second choice would require space to have properties that can
force an object to do something, the first option would not.
No, it does not. Even in curved space, objects travel in *straight
lines* -- a geodesic is locally straight. There is no straighter
line
possible in curved space. You may need to brush up on some basic
concepts of what "straight" means in the geometry of curved spaces.
Again semantical quibbling. The surface of a sphere is 'flat' as its
radius -> oo...
A line of longitude on the 2D surface of a sphere is also *straight*,
according to any accepted definition of straight in a 2D space.
Thus a small enough segment is 'asymtonically' flat
but no rational person would claim that a sphere's geometry is
'flat'.
But Minkowski space is flat, not curved, even though it has a
hyperbolic geometry. Please, Paul, learn a bit more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbolic_geometryhttp://mathworld.wolfram.com/HyperbolicGeometry.html
Yup, the lines look straight & 'flat' to me..
Please. Look up Minkowski space.
[/quote]
Also see the definition of what 'flat' means
http://www.answers.com/topic/flat-space
http://www.answers.com/topic/flat-space-time
Minkowski spacetime is a geometry that is flat. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Vern... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 3:34 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 4, 5:53 pm, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
[quote]"PD" <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
[/quote]
<snip>
[quote]Please. Look up Minkowski space.
Also see the definition of what 'flat' means
http://www.answers.com/topic/flat-space
http://www.answers.com/topic/flat-space-time
Minkowski spacetime is a geometry that is flat.
[/quote]
In terms of a model for explaining known phenomena, space-time in the
absense of gravity would then only be posited to account for a speed
limit, right, and as a result, mass must increase as speeds approach
"c" and time slows down. And the mechanism (how it's caused) for this
is still unknown. Under this "theory" when an object is accelerated
to .9 c and then the forces which caused the acceleration are removed,
would the object continue to move at the achieved velocity, or would
the object slow down?
Vern |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| PD... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 3:57 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 5, 7:34 am, Vern <vthod... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 4, 5:53 pm, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
"PD" <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
snip
Please. Look up Minkowski space.
Also see the definition of what 'flat' means
http://www.answers.com/topic/flat-space
http://www.answers.com/topic/flat-space-time
Minkowski spacetime is a geometry that is flat.
In terms of a model for explaining known phenomena, space-time in the
absense of gravity would then only be posited to account for a speed
limit,
[/quote]
And the invariance of that limit with respect to inertial reference
frame, or if you like, independence on source speed.
[quote]right, and as a result, mass must increase as speeds approach
"c" and time slows down.
[/quote]
These are comic-book versions of what relativity says. The invariant
mass remains invariant. There was once a bridge concept called
"relativistic mass" which was the product of two terms in the
relativistic equation of momentum, so that the product could look
something like the classical equation of momentum. This bridge concept
is no longer really thought of as being useful, it being much more
straightforward to just recognize that the classical expression is
simply an approximation to the more correct one.
[quote] And the mechanism (how it's caused) for this
is still unknown.
[/quote]
There is no "mechanism" needed. Even in classical physics, the kinetic
energy of a single object can be zero and nonzero at the same time in
two different reference frames. There is no "mechanism" of how the
kinetic energy suddenly appeared in one frame when it was zero in the
other. (And in fact, since those measurements apply at the same time,
even classically, there is no "before" and "after" between which a
mechanism can work.) There are just some physical properties that are
frame-dependent, without any "mechanism" involved in the frame-
dependence of those properties.
[quote] Under this "theory" when an object is accelerated
to .9 c and then the forces which caused the acceleration are removed,
would the object continue to move at the achieved velocity, or would
the object slow down?
[/quote]
Yes, it would continue to move at the achieved velocity. Momentum
conservation holds even relativistically.
PD |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Vern... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 4:28 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 5, 8:57 am, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 5, 7:34 am, Vern <vthod... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[/quote]
<snip>
[quote] And the mechanism (how it's caused) for this
is still unknown.
There is no "mechanism" needed. Even in classical physics, the kinetic
energy of a single object can be zero and nonzero at the same time in
two different reference frames. There is no "mechanism" of how the
kinetic energy suddenly appeared in one frame when it was zero in the
other. (And in fact, since those measurements apply at the same time,
even classically, there is no "before" and "after" between which a
mechanism can work.) There are just some physical properties that are
frame-dependent, without any "mechanism" involved in the frame-
dependence of those properties.
[/quote]
It makes no sense to talk about mechanisms in relation to changing
reference frames, as they are arbitrary. In any one reference frame,
it should be assumed that any interaction involving matter must have a
mechanism. Obviously bodily contact was the historical standard. It
would be acceptable to say that the mechanism is unknown, but it
violates all principles of logic and reason to say that there is no
mechanism.
Vern |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| PD... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 4:31 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 5, 8:28 am, Vern <vthod... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 5, 8:57 am, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 5, 7:34 am, Vern <vthod... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
snip
And the mechanism (how it's caused) for this
is still unknown.
There is no "mechanism" needed. Even in classical physics, the kinetic
energy of a single object can be zero and nonzero at the same time in
two different reference frames. There is no "mechanism" of how the
kinetic energy suddenly appeared in one frame when it was zero in the
other. (And in fact, since those measurements apply at the same time,
even classically, there is no "before" and "after" between which a
mechanism can work.) There are just some physical properties that are
frame-dependent, without any "mechanism" involved in the frame-
dependence of those properties.
It makes no sense to talk about mechanisms in relation to changing
reference frames, as they are arbitrary.
[/quote]
Yet you asked about mass in different reference frames -- before and
after an acceleration.
[quote] In any one reference frame,
it should be assumed that any interaction involving matter must have a
mechanism.
[/quote]
But the acceleration of a mass isn't in one reference frame. The mass
in any one frame is constant. The so-called "relativistic mass" is a
relation between mass-like terms in two different reference frames. It
helps to know what relativity actually SAYS.
[quote] Obviously bodily contact was the historical standard. It
would be acceptable to say that the mechanism is unknown, but it
violates all principles of logic and reason to say that there is no
mechanism.
Vern[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Mon Nov 30, 2009 3:29 pm
|
|