 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Physics - Relativity Forum » Is physics a science?... |
|
Page 7 of 26 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 6, 7, 8 ... 24, 25, 26 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| PD... |
 Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 9:54 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 1, 5:39 am, John Kennaugh <J... at (no spam) notworking.freeserve.co.uk>
wrote:
[quote]Paul Stowe wrote:
On Oct 31, 7:08 am, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 31, 5:49 am, John Kennaugh <J... at (no spam) notworking.freeserve.co.uk
Well, you see, if you want to know what science does, you ask a
scientist.
Well if I ask a *scientist* - lets say a biologist what his science does
he would say that they have mapped the DNA molecule and know what
elements of it does. Their studies are aimed at working out more of what
does what and how it does it. Many of the physical processes are
understood many partially understood. He will talk of chemical
messengers and cell division and many other *physical* processes. He
will tell you that the tip of a growing branch sends chemical messengers
back down the branch which inhibit other nodes growing into branches and
if you cut the end of a branch those messages cease and other nodes grow
instead. Gardeners have known this for years - that is technology -
science tries to explain WHY and how.
Interesting to note that neither Darwin nor Mendel had any idea of DNA
or the physical basis for "heritable traits". However, they developed
highly successful models of how genetics and evolution work -- and in
Mendel's case, quite quantitative models -- even though the notion of
"heritable trait" was abstract and unexplained in physical terms. This
no doubt would have displeased you greatly.
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' I'll take the later as being better 'science'
every time. The prefix 'We don't know yet but, ...' is applied to
both in that historical context. BTW, arguing science is what
scientist do is like saying Catholicism is what Priest, Clerics, and
Cardinals do Or the law is what police do. It's political and based
on faulty logic. Science is well defined and independent of practices
and/or behavior. Science is the systematic pursuit of gaining the
most complete and cogent understanding of topic, period! It has
NOTHING! to do with personal or social practices. If it were based
solely upon 'what scientist do' Galileo, Kepler and others would have
been rightly banned from presenting their ideas.
And in fact, biologists STILL don't know how proteins fold or what it
is exactly about the nature of protein folding that gives them the
functions they have. But they have good *models* of protein function
based on some abstract properties. This no doubt displeases you
greatly.
Now, of course, we have a bit better idea how nondeterministic quantum
mechanical wavefunctions
That statement is an oxymoron...
... drive the chemistry that powers both protein
folding and DNA encoding of heritable traits. Thus, the UNDERLYING
explanation of Darwin's and Mendel's abstract "heritable traits" turns
out to be something that is perhaps surprising in its nature, but
nevertheless does provide explanatory power.
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. It's not random or acausal, for if
that were be no repeatable patterns. Out of so-called chaos comes
order, such as fractal behavior. And, as you should know by now,
fractals aren't acausal.
I'm sure you can see the parallels between "heritable traits" and
Einstein's postulates, and between the quantum mechanical basis for
biochemistry and the physical properties of spacetime.
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.
Yes if you want to know what science does, you ask a scientist - but not
a physicist - he will only tell you what physics does. He would tell you
that
".. it should be QUITE CLEAR that the most that human beings can aspire
to is to make models of the world -- we can never actually "know" what
Nature herself is really doing. We can only make
models and test them." Tom Roberts
In an earlier post which you have not responded to you asked
Models ARE explanations. What distinguishes in your mind a model from
an explanation? Be as precise as you can.
If we lived on a planet with constant cloud cover we might be unaware of
the existence of the moon. It doesn't mean we could not produce a
mathematical model predicting the tides. Searching for an explanation of
why the model works might lead us to discover the existence of the moon.
I could produce a model to predict train time tables. The input
parameters would be known data. (the starting points would be
empirically discovered). The model may not mention "rails" at all but
just because we can do the maths and get accurate predictions without
any mention of rails does not mean that rails do not exist.
I might suggest that a model is not an explanation of what is going on
and that an explanation required other things including rails. You would
claim that rails are unnecessary if you postulate that it is in the
nature of trains that they always travel on a fixed route.
Do you understand that now?
John, PD may understand (I don't think he's that stupid) but, is he
capable of acknowledgement, that's the real question.
I got a strong indication at one point that PD teaches/lectures in
physics. When asked he refused to answer but I think I hit the nail on
the head.
[/quote]
Why do you think it matters?
[quote]Such a person's role is to present (sell) physics to students
not to question it.
[/quote]
I'm sorry, but here I have to object. You have NO idea, obviously,
what a professor's role is in teaching students. The professor's job
is to make excellent investigators of nature, highly trained in the
best methodology obtained for that purpose -- the scientific method.
It is the full expectation that students who go on to be outstanding
investigators will make a singular mark, and you'll note that awards
and honors are given to those investigators that *break* with the
status quo. You only need look at the list of Nobel laureates and
their work to understand that. Positions of investigatory freedom and
support for such work, however, comes at the cost of demonstrating
competence with the methodology. This includes understanding how to
probe the validity of ANY idea (including time-ordered determinism)
with a well-crafted experimental test, as well as being comfortable
with the mathematical toolbox that is so useful in shorthanding
underlying concepts without excess baggage.
It is NOT the job of the professor to drum into student's head this
assertion or that assertion. It IS the job of the professor to get
students to see HOW we know those things we think we do know, as well
as those things we DON'T know and how we might go about finding the
answers to them. It is the poor student that just accepts things
without asking how we know, and it is also the poor student who just
reject things without entertaining the same.
[quote]Many of his posts seem to be well honed techniques
of presentation which carefully avoid problems. Others are put-downs
intended for the more difficult student and intended to make a student
look small - as if he has made a really stupid remark - when in fact he
is thinking for himself. If that be the case then acknowledgement > failure i.e. if he is forced to admit to his students that the subject
he is teaching is fundamentally flawed he can't do his job.
[/quote]
Forgive me if this sounds like sour grapes, uttered by someone who has
felt inadequate in the study of physics and finds it confusing. Might
I suggest you try again with an education in the subject, being more
selective with both your materials and your teachers?
I don't object you or anyone thinking for yourself. However, if you've
not availed yourself of the information that is pertinent to your
ponderings, then you have some work to do and that burden does lie on
you -- unless you've *paid* for the service of being guided through
it. If it your belief that you are entitled to an education that
satisfies you on Usenet, then I'm afraid I have bad news.
[quote]
For example, I
do understand the concepts of 'wavefunctions' in QM but simply don't
find stopping at accepting acausal shrugs as acceptable 'science'.
[/quote]
Who said anything about "acausal"?
[quote]That's not the basic definition of what science is defined to
accomplish.
[/quote]
If it's your belief that science is defined to find the deterministic,
time-ordered, material causes for things, then I'm afraid you have
been led astray.
[quote] If that is what it has politically evolved to in practice
today we have simply strayed from the fundamental core definition and
values, and yes, that is a judgement, and my opinion.
Mine too - as an outsider looking in.
[/quote]
Then why don't you become better educated on the subject, so that you
don't have to consider yourself an outsider looking in?
[quote]
I doubt John, Vern, and, I know that for myself, want nature to
conform to our wishes. Nature is what it is and we have no infulence
on that. Our job is to understand and 'describe' it processes and
properties in the simplest intergrated manner. Undefined abstractions
do not qualify, nor do equations that cannot be founded in describable
physical terms. Those simply point to current ignorance and
unfinished business and more importantly, violates the definition of
science as given above.
--
John Kennaugh[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| PD... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 10:02 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 1, 5:36 am, John Kennaugh <J... at (no spam) notworking.freeserve.co.uk>
wrote:
[quote]PD wrote:
On Oct 31, 5:49 am, John Kennaugh <J... at (no spam) notworking.freeserve.co.uk
wrote:
PD wrote:
On Oct 28, 6:54 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 28, 2:14 pm, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Well, you see, if you want to know what science does, you ask a
scientist.
Well if I ask a *scientist* - lets say a biologist what his science does
he would say that they have mapped the DNA molecule and know what
elements of it does. Their studies are aimed at working out more of what
does what and how it does it. Many of the physical processes are
understood many partially understood. He will talk of chemical
messengers and cell division and many other *physical* processes. He
will tell you that the tip of a growing branch sends chemical messengers
back down the branch which inhibit other nodes growing into branches and
if you cut the end of a branch those messages cease and other nodes grow
instead. Gardeners have known this for years - that is technology -
science tries to explain WHY and how.
Interesting to note that neither Darwin nor Mendel had any idea of DNA
or the physical basis for "heritable traits". However, they developed
highly successful models of how genetics and evolution work -- and in
Mendel's case, quite quantitative models -- even though the notion of
"heritable trait" was abstract and unexplained in physical terms. This
no doubt would have displeased you greatly.
Not in the least. Being a science and not merely a branch of mathematics
dealing with mathematical modelling the SCIENCE of biology considered it
a legitimate and vital part of SCIENCE to try and UNDERSTAND the
physical processes driving the model. They did not claim the model
EXPLAINED what was happening and certainly not that it was an adequate
explanation.
[/quote]
Oh yes, they did! Read up on the science here!
[quote]
And in fact, biologists STILL don't know how proteins fold or what it
is exactly about the nature of protein folding that gives them the
functions they have.
But they have good *models* of protein function
based on some abstract properties. This no doubt displeases you
greatly.
Not at all - they still consider it part of their SCIENCE to try and
find out why. A model which works is a reasonable starting point not an
end to itself. It was an empirical formula for black body radiation
which helped Planck come to his conclusion that light is quantized in
the days when physics was a science. The model was not 100% accurate but
the fact that it was as accurate as it was, was one clue.
[/quote]
I completely agree that NO theory presently is considered a
fundamental theory. There is NO model at hand presently where the
statement is made, "OK this is it, there is no deeper level, this is
just the way nature is and there is no point in looking further."
However, this does NOT mean that the deeper level will necessarily
satisfy your prejudicial belief that it must be time-ordered and
deterministic. And in fact, the remarkable thing is that you can
sometimes get at some features of an underlying theory without knowing
what the underlying theory is, exactly. This is the part I think you
don't get.
One of the remarkable things about Bell's Theorem is that it provides
a probe for whether there are ANY local hidden variables at work,
regardless of that the local hidden variables are. That is, even with
*complete ignorance* of any more fundamental mechanism underlying
quantum mechanics, you can tell whether that mechanism involves local
determinism. And the experimental test says, nope, not there.
[quote]
Now, of course, we have a bit better idea how nondeterministic quantum
mechanical wavefunctions drive the chemistry that powers both protein
folding and DNA encoding of heritable traits. Thus, the UNDERLYING
explanation of Darwin's and Mendel's abstract "heritable traits" turns
out to be something that is perhaps surprising in its nature, but
nevertheless does provide explanatory power.
I'm sure you can see the parallels between "heritable traits" and
Einstein's postulates,
Mendel observed and came up with a set of laws to explain his
observations.
[/quote]
Yes, he did. They were in fact postulates. Independent assortment,
separability of traits, particulate inheritance, etc.
[quote]Einstein did no new experiments. There was already an
explanation of the experiments whereas Mendel was original. The maths
Einstein came up with was not original. He interpreted the MMX result as
indicating that every observer is stationary w.r.t the aether - which is
what the second postulate is describing - and in so doing ignored three
things:
1/ That Lorentz had already shown mathematically that applied properly
Maxwell's theory showed that the MMX was incapable of detecting motion
w.r.t the aether
2/ That Maxwell's theory was seriously compromised because experiment
showed that light is particulate and therefore no longer a suitable
basis on which to build.
3/ That there was a simpler idea which fitted far better with the
particulate nature of light and required no aether and no need to
decimate our ideas regarding mechanics.
Mendel is a simple case of finding a law which fitted. Einstein is all
about choices of interpretation. I for one would certainly not hold up
Einstein as a good example of the way physics works. The lesson would
seem to be "ignore all the evidence and go with your hunch".
[/quote]
He didn't ignore any evidence. He just entertained a notion, based on
a hunch, that was different than the *customary* conclusion one would
derive from the evidence. That is not ignoring anything.
[quote]
and between the quantum mechanical basis for
biochemistry and the physical properties of spacetime.
Yes if you want to know what science does, you ask a scientist - but not
a physicist - he will only tell you what physics does. He would tell you
that
".. it should be QUITE CLEAR that the most that human beings can aspire
to is to make models of the world -- we can never actually "know" what
Nature herself is really doing. We can only make
models and test them." Tom Roberts
In an earlier post which you have not responded to you asked
Models ARE explanations. What distinguishes in your mind a model from
an explanation? Be as precise as you can.
If we lived on a planet with constant cloud cover we might be unaware of
the existence of the moon. It doesn't mean we could not produce a
mathematical model predicting the tides. Searching for an explanation of
why the model works might lead us to discover the existence of the moon.
I could produce a model to predict train time tables. The input
parameters would be known data. (the starting points would be
empirically discovered). The model may not mention "rails" at all but
just because we can do the maths and get accurate predictions without
any mention of rails does not mean that rails do not exist.
I might suggest that a model is not an explanation of what is going on
and that an explanation required other things including rails. You would
claim that rails are unnecessary if you postulate that it is in the
nature of trains that they always travel on a fixed route.
Do you understand that now?
Well Do you see now?
--
John Kennaugh[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Kennaugh... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 11:08 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Paul Stowe wrote:
[quote]On Nov 2, 6:55 am, Vern <vthod... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 29, 8:13 pm, doug <x... at (no spam) xx.com> wrote:
PaulStowewrote:
snip
John this whole line is a red-herring strawman argument sinces mediums
are Lorentxz invariant to their internal fields. In the end, you are
probably wasting your time trying to make PD think in terms of
physical processes. Ask him to provide any evidence that is in
conflict with the behavior of the medium model, even one.
Yes, you are wasting your time getting any scientist to accept your
personal prejudices and desire to go back to the science of the last
century for no reason. Have you learned yet why the aether was
abandoned? Or are you afraid to look? Or do you just like being
ignorant?
I think Paul and I have adequately demonstrated that we know the
reasons the luminiferous aether concept was abandoned, so that's just
a strawman.
You say that space-time does provide a model for light wave
propagation. Please describe that model in other than mathmatical
language.
Vern
Do you really think he can do that Vern? He manifests as a one-
dimensional caricature who is without any actual knowledge of physics
or comprehension of same.
I predict you'll get nowhere.
[/quote]
Doug inserts comments which he hopes will irritate. He never actually
engages in meaningful discussion. That is why my computer no longer
fetches his postings and they do not appear on my computer.
He is a troll so don't feed him.
--
John Kennaugh |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| doug... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 11:28 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Vern wrote:
[quote]On Oct 29, 8:13 pm, doug <x... at (no spam) xx.com> wrote:
Paul Stowe wrote:
snip
John this whole line is a red-herring strawman argument sinces mediums
are Lorentxz invariant to their internal fields. In the end, you are
probably wasting your time trying to make PD think in terms of
physical processes. Ask him to provide any evidence that is in
conflict with the behavior of the medium model, even one.
Yes, you are wasting your time getting any scientist to accept your
personal prejudices and desire to go back to the science of the last
century for no reason. Have you learned yet why the aether was
abandoned? Or are you afraid to look? Or do you just like being
ignorant?
I think Paul and I have adequately demonstrated that we know the
reasons the luminiferous aether concept was abandoned, so that's just
a strawman.
Except that you have not or you would try to attack those reasons.[/quote]
[quote]You say that space-time does provide a model for light wave
propagation. Please describe that model in other than mathmatical
language.
[/quote]
The description is the mathematical language. Learn it. Or see PD's
description as well.
[quote]
Vern[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| doug... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 11:29 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Paul Stowe wrote:
[quote]On Nov 2, 6:55 am, Vern <vthod... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 29, 8:13 pm, doug <x... at (no spam) xx.com> wrote:
PaulStowewrote:
snip
John this whole line is a red-herring strawman argument sinces mediums
are Lorentxz invariant to their internal fields. In the end, you are
probably wasting your time trying to make PD think in terms of
physical processes. Ask him to provide any evidence that is in
conflict with the behavior of the medium model, even one.
Yes, you are wasting your time getting any scientist to accept your
personal prejudices and desire to go back to the science of the last
century for no reason. Have you learned yet why the aether was
abandoned? Or are you afraid to look? Or do you just like being
ignorant?
I think Paul and I have adequately demonstrated that we know the
reasons the luminiferous aether concept was abandoned, so that's just
a strawman.
You say that space-time does provide a model for light wave
propagation. Please describe that model in other than mathmatical
language.
Vern
Do you really think he can do that Vern? He manifests as a one-
dimensional caricature who is without any actual knowledge of physics
or comprehension of same. I predict you'll get nowhere.
[/quote]
Says paul who is railing to have the universe change to meet his
prejudices. I predict that is not going to go well.
Have you learned why the aether concept was abandoned? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| doug... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 11:31 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
John Kennaugh wrote:
[quote]Paul Stowe wrote:
On Nov 2, 6:55 am, Vern <vthod... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 29, 8:13 pm, doug <x... at (no spam) xx.com> wrote:
PaulStowewrote:
snip
John this whole line is a red-herring strawman argument sinces
mediums
are Lorentxz invariant to their internal fields. In the end, you
are
probably wasting your time trying to make PD think in terms of
physical processes. Ask him to provide any evidence that is in
conflict with the behavior of the medium model, even one.
Yes, you are wasting your time getting any scientist to accept your
personal prejudices and desire to go back to the science of the last
century for no reason. Have you learned yet why the aether was
abandoned? Or are you afraid to look? Or do you just like being
ignorant?
I think Paul and I have adequately demonstrated that we know the
reasons the luminiferous aether concept was abandoned, so that's just
a strawman.
You say that space-time does provide a model for light wave
propagation. Please describe that model in other than mathmatical
language.
Vern
Do you really think he can do that Vern? He manifests as a one-
dimensional caricature who is without any actual knowledge of physics
or comprehension of same.
I predict you'll get nowhere.
Doug inserts comments which he hopes will irritate.
[/quote]
I point out the truth. Do you find that irritating?
He never actually
[quote]engages in meaningful discussion. That is why my computer no longer
fetches his postings and they do not appear on my computer.
He is a troll so don't feed him.
[/quote]
Lets see, you are the person who admits that he is not a scientist
nor a mathematician but you feel that science and the universe should
change to fit your prejudices. That seems to fit the troll definition. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| doug... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 11:34 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Paul Stowe wrote:
[quote]On Nov 2, 8:08 am, John Kennaugh <J... at (no spam) notworking.freeserve.co.uk
wrote:
PaulStowewrote:
On Nov 2, 6:55 am, Vern <vthod... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 29, 8:13 pm, doug <x... at (no spam) xx.com> wrote:
PaulStowewrote:
snip
John this whole line is a red-herring strawman argument sinces mediums
are Lorentxz invariant to their internal fields. In the end, you are
probably wasting your time trying to make PD think in terms of
physical processes. Ask him to provide any evidence that is in
conflict with the behavior of the medium model, even one.
Yes, you are wasting your time getting any scientist to accept your
personal prejudices and desire to go back to the science of the last
century for no reason. Have you learned yet why the aether was
abandoned? Or are you afraid to look? Or do you just like being
ignorant?
I think Paul and I have adequately demonstrated that we know the
reasons the luminiferous aether concept was abandoned, so that's just
a strawman.
You say that space-time does provide a model for light wave
propagation. Please describe that model in other than mathmatical
language.
Vern
Do you really think he can do that Vern? He manifests as a one-
dimensional caricature who is without any actual knowledge of physics
or comprehension of same.
I predict you'll get nowhere.
Doug inserts comments which he hopes will irritate. He never actually
engages in meaningful discussion. That is why my computer no longer
fetches his postings and they do not appear on my computer.
He is a troll so don't feed him.
--
John Kennaugh
I know... I do not respond to his nonsense...
[/quote]
Yes, you do not like it when I point out that you have no
clue why the aether concept was abandoned. You do not like
it when your ignorance of the history of science is pointed
out. You do not like it when I point out that you want
the universe to change to fit your prejudices and you do
not like it when I point out that your "explanations" from
the aether amount to nothing. I see why you want to hide. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| doug... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 11:58 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Paul Stowe wrote:
[quote]On Nov 1, 6:19 pm, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
"PaulStowe" <theaether... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
On Nov 1, 4:40 pm, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
"maxwell" <s... at (no spam) shaw.ca> wrote in message
Your knowledge of the history of biology appears to be as weak as your
demonstrated ignorance of the history of physics. Darwin's theory of
natural selection was almost dead in the water within biology by 1900
because he did not have a mechanism for genetic variation; his idea of
'blended inheritance' predicted that new traits would rapidly
disappear in the genetic stream. Mendel's views were rejected by
biologists by 1870 (not unknown as is commonly taught) since plants
were not seen as relevant to explaining sexual animal inheritance.
Mathematical biologists 'rediscovered' Mendel's ideas & accepted them
as they could be fitted into their mathematical approach to
populations (not individuals).
PD, you continue to ignore JK's distinction between explanation &
'math matching' - pity; but you do represent the current majority
approach in theoretical physics.
Physics explains a behavior by saying how it is caused by other known
behaviors. What makes the sky blue? Diffraction of light. What makes
light diffract? A change of speed of light in a medium. What makes
light change speed in a medium etc. At some stage in the chain of
explanations we must get to a fundamental that 'just is'.
Wrong, "We don't know YET!" is the proper answer. 'It just is' is
never an acceptable scientific answer.
Is there a reason why space has 3 dimensions and not 2 or 4 ..
Yes, because our 'models' created the concepts... As you know
spacetime is modeled as 4 dimensional.
[/quote]
So, in other words, "it just is'.
[quote]
does something force it to be that way?
Force, no. But we think the model that best fits is a 3-D spacial
model.
[/quote]
But you keep demanding to know why. But your statement is wrong
anyway.
[quote]
Does something force the shortest distance between two points to be
a straight line?
In the GR model, is this statement true?
[/quote]
By your lack of an answer, we will take this as "it just is".
[quote]
The problem with SR's
spacetime is, we do have an explanation of how light speed c get its
properties, you just don't like it.
Funny.. I was going to say the same to you. The geometry of spacetime gives
light its speed.
GREAT! Explain that, in narrative words. In other words, explain
where c comes from in,
(ct)^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2
I want to know what the spacetime model says about the origin of
Einstein's two 'postulate'. Tel us what c is.
[/quote]
PD did tell you. You did not like his answer.
[quote]
But you don't like it
What I don't like is lack of an explanation.
[/quote]
No, you do not like the explanations. You are quite happy with all
the "it just is" features of the aether but not in anything else.
Your prejudices are showing.
If you 'can' provide the
[quote]explanation of where c gets its properties that are postulated I'll
agree we have two competing models, without that though, Ockham's
Razor cuts in favor of the one that does provide the explanatory
power.
[/quote]
Your aether has no explanatory powers. It was abandoned a long time
ago.
[quote]
And it not at all like your stupid rail BS,
Its very much like it
OK, fine, you think it is. Now provide us basis for, and a means of
testing, the idea. And by the way, bullets fired on Earth do not
follow straight lines...
the characteristics are vell well known and
demonstrable in other situations.
Nope. LET just assumes there is some aether medium involved, movement in
which has these effects (coincidentally) the same on all fields,
Yes, as all media behave...
and all objects,
Which are made up of, and held together by what?
and all processes. That aether itself has never been detected.
Yes, it has. Just look at Faraday's works. Maxwell explains this
very well, your denial not withstanding.
Just like saying the invisible rails make the bullet fly along its path,
even though no rails have ever been detected .. but that those rails must
exist because bullets to fly along their path in the way they do, so there
MUST be something making it do that.
I don't think you're as stupid as your example implies. Bullets are
influenced by windage and gravity and thus two bullets fired from
EXACTLY the same rifle in a rigid rig most likely will not impact the
same point at great distances.
For example,
http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=...
And the other references given...[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| PD... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 12:20 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 2, 3:29 pm, John Kennaugh <J... at (no spam) notworking.freeserve.co.uk>
wrote:
[quote]PD wrote:
On Oct 31, 3:45 am, John Kennaugh <J... at (no spam) notworking.freeserve.co.uk
[snip for brevity]
Einstein wrote in 1905:
" Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet
and a conductor. The observable phenomenon here depends only on the
relative motion of the conductor and the magnet, whereas the customary
view draws a sharp distinction between the two cases in which either the
one or the other of these bodies is in motion. For if the magnet is in
motion and the conductor at rest, there arises in the neighbourhood of
the magnet an electric field with a certain definite energy, producing a
current at the places where parts of the conductor are situated. But if
the magnet is stationary and the conductor in motion, no electric field
arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet. In the conductor, however, we
find an electromotive force, to which in itself there is no
corresponding energy, but which gives rise assuming equality of relative
motion in the two cases discussed to electric currents of the same path
and intensity as those produced by the electric forces in the former
case."
As a matter of interest how do you teach that these days? Einstein
pointed out it was absurd but I'm not sure I was taught any different 60
years later.
Well, first of all, it's not absurd, since it is what is actually
measured.
It is absurd if there is not a description which depends ONLY on the
relative motion of a magnet and a conductor - as Einstein pointed out.
i.e. if physics treats it as two different phenomena depending on which
is moving.
[/quote]
And that is PRECISELY what a modern description of electromagnetism
does. That's why I referred you to the Berkeley Series. You'll also
notice that a modern treatment of electromagnetism will *start* with
the F_uv representation of the fields.
Now, what you will find in freshman physics texts is often the
*historical* treatment. There are LOTS of things in a freshman physics
text that are KNOWN to be incorrect. For example, it is often stated
that the way to transform a vector velocity to a different reference
frame is to simple add the velocity vectors -- this is KNOWN to be
wrong. For example, it is often stated that momentum is DEFINED to be
mass times velocity -- this is KNOWN to be wrong.
You may ask why it is done this way. The reason is purely pedagogical.
It is easier to teach students with a bridge concept, even if it needs
to be corrected later, in some cases. This is done through classroom
testing.
[quote]
I recall an interesting discussion in Wireless World many years ago. The
question was "If you take two wires together and wind a transformer with
them and if you then connect the finish ends together and to earth and
feed a signal into one of the starts, would the signal out of the other
start be in phase or out of phase?". One of the answers given was that
it is in phase but if you are answering a question in a physics paper
say they are out of phase as most physics teachers think they are.
Many years later I had a PhD Physics student working for me in the lab
and I mentioned this correspondence. He just would not believe me when I
said they were in phase. I had to prove it by having him wind a
transformer as described.
The way it is taught these days is very similar to the way it is
presented in the Berkeley Series books, in particular the
electrodynamics book.
I'm not familiar with that.
[/quote]
This is why I believe you are out of touch with they way the concepts
are ACTUALLY taught and how students are ACTUALLY thinking about
things. This is also why I suggested you get better acquainted with
the subject by availing yourself with better materials and better
instructors.
[quote]
Remember that when Einstein was working on it, Maxwell's equations
were pretty new
Maxwell published in 1864. 41 years before 1905. If that is "new" then
I'm obviously not as old as I thought  )
[/quote]
40 years is not a long time. The Higgs mechanism was proposed 40 years
ago, and it still hasn't been confirmed, and not everyone is convinced
it is correct.
At the time Einstein was worrying about Maxwell's equations, the fact
that they did not seem to behave like other mechanical laws had only
dawned on people about 10 years prior, and the problem was still
unsolved.
[quote]
and not much was understood about the properties of
electrodynamics.
Quite a lot happened in the 20th century to make
better sense if it.
Perhaps you should read Ivor Catt's view on standard EM theory. He would
have found it exceedingly useful had it worked. He found that in
practice it didn't.
Bzzzt. Try again.
You've just touted the Henri Wilson Foolishness.
"Those physical quantities that have equations that involve velocity
in them are OBVIOUSLY frame-dependent, and those that don't OBVIOUSLY
aren't."
Pffft.
Distance is not first order frame dependent.
And we discussed this too.
It is frame-dependent, period.
Is it? I don't accept that it is.
It is! It's an experimental fact. Calorimeter segmentation in fixed
target and collider experiments is that fact embodied in design.
My problem is that people like you quote the conclusion of an experiment
which you are perfectly happy to accept, because it conforms to your
belief yet you rarely know any of the details of the actual experiment.
[/quote]
But that is not the case, generally. Reading the details of the
experiment is a standard practice among research scientists.
[quote]On those occasions where I have obtained details of an experiment it is
rather more complicated than the conclusion implies.
[/quote]
Well, not really. But also consider that while the *first*
experimental result is considered seminal, it is rarely considered
sufficient in itself, and most researchers are ALSO familiar with
corroborating evidence gathered subsequently by independent
researchers. Usually, quoted evidence represents a BODY of evidence
that is being considered. However, in this forum, often only the
seminal experiments are quoted as a *starting point* for the reader's
investigation.
[quote]
According to Essen an expert on both
time and measurement theory Einstein broke a cardinal rule. Measurement
involves units and your set of units all interrelate. You have
fundamental units and derived units. Which you choose as fundamental is
a matter of choice but nor arbitrary. There must no duplication i.e. a
unit cannot be defined two or more contradictory ways.
Nor are they. Notice that the definition of those units is done in the
local rest reference frame only.
NOW yes but prior to Einstein time and distance were considered
universal.
[/quote]
And that's because they thought they *could* do that and that
experiment would not yield problems with that. When it turned out that
this ends up with problems (like the one I mention below), then this
consideration was reconsidered and considered to be premature.
[quote]
Einstein had the
fundamental units of length and time. Speed is a derived unit and is
whatever is measured using your fixed units of distance (m) and time
(s). On that basis distance and time are not frame dependent *by
definition*.
Nonsense. They are defined identically, locally, in all inertial
reference frames.
Only since Einstein re-defined them as being frame dependent a function
of v^2/c^2 by the act of declaring c to be frame independent.
[/quote]
No, sir. No.
The measurements to check the speed of c were always done LOCALLY.
There were no Lorentz transforms of distance required.
What was done was to check the speed using a *local* definition of the
meter and second, using the *prevailing* standards, and a local
measurement. This was done for the *same* signal in two different
reference frames.
Essen just has this wrong, wrong, wrong.
[quote]
By *defining* c as a constant Einstein broke the cardinal rule of
measurement.
To be fair, Einstein made no such definition. This definition was not
done until almost 15 years after Einstein's death. Please catch up on
your history.
The second postulate is what Essen is referring to. I have no idea what
you are referring to. The actual accepted value perhaps - that is down
to Essen as is the change from astronomical time to atomic clock time
and the definition of the meter in terms of wavelength - thus making the
value of c constant by definition.
[/quote]
This was ONLY done when it was determined with the *prior* standards
that c is *measurably* invariant. It's not like it was found to frame-
dependent using the prior definitions and then forced to be frame-
dependent by using a revised definition.
[quote]
To be fair to young Albert measurement theory was not as
well understood then as it is now, but he duplicated units. According to
Essen all Einstein did was to define a new unit of length which varies
with v^2/c^2 and a unit of time which varies with v^2/c^2 so that if you
measure the speed of light using those new units it is always c. He says
that while one may get it to work it serves no useful purpose.
And Essen was both mistaken and misguided. His expertise
notwithstanding.
An article of faith on your part.
[/quote]
No, I'm sorry. This is based on review of his work by me and by many.
He just made mistakes of fact. This happens to the best of people.
[quote]
Put simply the fixed value for the speed of light is not a property of
nature but has been made so *by definition*.
No, that is not correct. If you define time to be frame-independent,
then what you learn is the that physical processes then take different
times in different reference frames, and then you have to CHOOSE which
reference frame should be the one that all of them are referenced to.
Can you quote an actual experiment?
A particle that decays after a mean time of 4.8 microseconds in the
frame in which it is at rest then is OBSERVED to decay at 6.5
microseconds if it is moving in that frame.
If you insist that time be
frame independent, then this means that in the frame that is moving
along with the particle (that is, the particle is at rest in that
frame), the particle is decaying after 6.5 microseconds.
Is the frame that is moving along with the particle an inertial frame?
Again rather short on detail.
[/quote]
The g-2 experiment is a good example.
Muon beamlines at FNAL, BNL, and CERN are a good example.
The comparison of the same hadron-hadron interactions at SLAC (fixed
target) and ISR (collider) are a good example.
Usenet is not the place to get an education on these kinds of things.
If you want to get boned up on the experimental evidence, then get
yourself in the right environment to get guided through the material.
You may find you have to pay a fee for this service.
[quote]
Then you are
left with the challenge of explaining why, if there is no discernible
difference between the circumstances of the decay in the two frames
other than their relative motion, why it decays after 4.8 microseconds
in one and after 6.5 microseconds in the other. And if there is no
discernible difference between the two frames, why was the first
chosen as the standard to tie the second one to? Moreover, you find
that if instead you reversed the referencing by setting up a clock in
the second frame by an identical procedure, then the particle would
live for 4.8 microseconds in the second frame and 6.5 microseconds in
the first frame. This is *experimentally verified*. Given this,
perhaps you can tell me how Essen would suggest getting out of that
observational box?
Perhaps you might look in
Essen, L. (1971) The Special Theory of Relativity: A Critical Analysis,
Oxford University Press
Essen, L. (1978) "Relativity and Time Signals", Electronics and Wireless
World, Oct. 1978, p. 14;
Essen, L. (1988) "Relativity - Joke or Swindle?", Electronics and
Wireless World 94, 126 - 127.
For the answer. Essen was one of the most meticulous of people. He is
worthy of study.
[/quote]
Yes, he is. He just made a number of mistakes.
[quote]
With that definition length
and time are frame dependent. If *by definition* you make length and
time constant then the speed of light is frame dependent. Basically you
cannot make sense of any measurement unless you are clear what your
units are.
You cannot by definition make length vary sometimes by v^2/c^2 and
whenever you feel like it vary by v/c.
Whether the dependency is *calculated*
using an expansion method and whether that *calculational choice*
makes it appear in first order or second order is IRRELEVANT.
I'm not interested in what you *calculate*. I want to know the physical
process which causes the interval between two burst of light to change
when I change my speed. The only thing I have changed is my speed and
the obvious explanation is that I am now travelling at a different speed
w.r.t the light - as predicted by both LET and emission theory.
Do you understand that? The only thing I have changed is my speed. If my
speed w.r.t the light pulses hasn't changed my relationship with the
light pulses hasn't changed and therefore there can be no change in
their appearance. There is a change in their appearance the interval has
changed so I must have changed my speed w.r.t the light pulses.
[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John Kennaugh... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 4:29 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
PD wrote:
[quote]On Oct 31, 3:45 am, John Kennaugh <J... at (no spam) notworking.freeserve.co.uk
wrote:
PD wrote:
On Oct 29, 10:18 am, John Kennaugh <J... at (no spam) notworking.freeserve.co.uk
wrote:
PD wrote:
On Oct 29, 7:13 am, John Kennaugh <J... at (no spam) notworking.freeserve.co.uk
wrote:
PD wrote:
On Oct 27, 6:43 am, John Kennaugh <J... at (no spam) notworking.freeserve.co.uk
wrote:
PD wrote:
On Oct 24, 3:04 pm, John Kennaugh <J... at (no spam) notworking.freeserve.co.uk
wrote:
PD wrote:
Other points to be dealt with in another post time permitting.
Neither does it explain why the
speed of light appears constant to every observer and fails
explain why, when I change my speed the frequency changes
instantly.
On the contrary, again the structure of spacetime explains
and relativistic Doppler shift is EASILY derived from that.
Derived maybe. Explained no.
If it is a necessary consequence of that conceptual framework then
this is an explanation.
There is only one Doppler equation in SR. Whether the source
changes its
speed or I am the one that changes mine. The maths assume in
both cases
that the change in frequency is due to a different
wavelength being
generated at the source so my change of speed has to
affect the past
Not at all! This is a simple misconception on your part.
implication that the observer has causally reached
alter the source.
Suppose you are 1 ly from a source. I am happy to accept
that what I do
cannot affect what happened at the source 1 year ago - on the
grounds of
causality. I'm not sure on what grounds you rule it out )
If I change my speed then I am clearly changing my relationship
with the
light in transit. i.e. that light which left the source 1 year
previously. What is the physical nature of that change of
relationship?
A change in reference frame.
Here, let's take a classical example to make it more
sensible to you.
Let's take a bullet in flight, AFTER it has left the gun.
to collide with a tree stump and leave a certain amount of
the stump. We could, if we wish, use information from
sensors attached
to the tree stump to measure the energy deposited in the
stump and use
that to deduce the kinetic energy of the bullet.
Now, you and I both know that kinetic energy is frame dependent. In
one reference frame, the kinetic energy of the bullet will be
different than what it is in another reference frame. Gathering
information from the sensors in the stump, however, I have to
correctly get the kinetic energy value that is appropriate to THAT
reference frame. That is, just by choosing which reference frame in
which I will gather measurements about the collision of the
bullet and
the stump, I will get different values for the bullet's
kinetic energy
before the collision. Now, I did NOTHING as an observer to
the gun or the bullet in flight. Yet the kinetic energy is a frame-
dependent quantity, even as it is consistent with
measurements taken
in the stump.
If this does not make sense to you, then the locus of your
misunderstanding is not with special relativity but with CLASSICAL
mechanics.
You did not answer my question as to whether you are in fact
a physics
lecturer. It seems more likely from that reply. That is a standard
"put-down". It is intended to put a student in his place by
him when he has in fact made an intelligent comment. It is
CRAP, and I
believe that you are intelligent enough to know it is CRAP
which means
you are dishonest. For the sake of any student who has been
put down in
this way I say the following.
If I change my "Frame of reference" all I have done is change my
VELOCITY i.e. I have accelerated for a period. My VELOCITY
has changed
w.r.t other objects in the universe. The "Frame of reference" is a
mathematical abstraction and is totally unnecessary in
describing what
is happening in the circumstance under discussion. It is
introduced to
obscure.
It is not crap, it is not even relativistic physics. It is CLASSICAL
physics, which is the point I was trying to make to you.
A given physical process and set of events is something that takes
place in multiple reference frames at the same time. There is no need
for a single observer to change motion to move from one reference
frame to another. The principle of relativity is about a comparison of
those events as described in multiple reference frames at the same
time. This is a CLASSICAL physics concept.
As I said earlier, if you are having problem with classical physics,
let's straighten that out first before you further the confusion in
relativity.
Still crap. And you are intelligent enough to realise it. All the
CLASSICAL physics concepts you can quote are the result of a change in
speed. What you are trying to do is to say that because some things are
frame dependent anything you choose can be frame dependent. Classical
Physics can EXPLAIN why the things which are frame dependent in
classical physics ARE frame dependent
The rule is that if you change your VELOCITY relative to
something and a
parameter you are measuring is VELOCITY dependent then that parameter
will change.
Really? Explain that to electric and magnetic fields.
Got an answer for this one?
Einstein wrote in 1905:
" Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet
and a conductor. The observable phenomenon here depends only on the
relative motion of the conductor and the magnet, whereas the customary
view draws a sharp distinction between the two cases in which either the
one or the other of these bodies is in motion. For if the magnet is in
motion and the conductor at rest, there arises in the neighbourhood of
the magnet an electric field with a certain definite energy, producing a
current at the places where parts of the conductor are situated. But if
the magnet is stationary and the conductor in motion, no electric field
arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet. In the conductor, however, we
find an electromotive force, to which in itself there is no
corresponding energy, but which gives rise assuming equality of relative
motion in the two cases discussed to electric currents of the same path
and intensity as those produced by the electric forces in the former
case."
As a matter of interest how do you teach that these days? Einstein
pointed out it was absurd but I'm not sure I was taught any different 60
years later.
Well, first of all, it's not absurd, since it is what is actually
measured.
[/quote]
It is absurd if there is not a description which depends ONLY on the
relative motion of a magnet and a conductor - as Einstein pointed out.
i.e. if physics treats it as two different phenomena depending on which
is moving.
I recall an interesting discussion in Wireless World many years ago. The
question was "If you take two wires together and wind a transformer with
them and if you then connect the finish ends together and to earth and
feed a signal into one of the starts, would the signal out of the other
start be in phase or out of phase?". One of the answers given was that
it is in phase but if you are answering a question in a physics paper
say they are out of phase as most physics teachers think they are.
Many years later I had a PhD Physics student working for me in the lab
and I mentioned this correspondence. He just would not believe me when I
said they were in phase. I had to prove it by having him wind a
transformer as described.
[quote]The way it is taught these days is very similar to the way it is
presented in the Berkeley Series books, in particular the
electrodynamics book.
[/quote]
I'm not familiar with that.
[quote]Remember that when Einstein was working on it, Maxwell's equations
were pretty new
[/quote]
Maxwell published in 1864. 41 years before 1905. If that is "new" then
I'm obviously not as old as I thought )
[quote]and not much was understood about the properties of
electrodynamics.
Quite a lot happened in the 20th century to make
better sense if it.
[/quote]
Perhaps you should read Ivor Catt's view on standard EM theory. He would
have found it exceedingly useful had it worked. He found that in
practice it didn't.
[quote]Bzzzt. Try again.
You've just touted the Henri Wilson Foolishness.
"Those physical quantities that have equations that involve velocity
in them are OBVIOUSLY frame-dependent, and those that don't OBVIOUSLY
aren't."
Pffft.
Distance is not first order frame dependent.
And we discussed this too.
It is frame-dependent, period.
Is it? I don't accept that it is.
It is! It's an experimental fact. Calorimeter segmentation in fixed
target and collider experiments is that fact embodied in design.
[/quote]
My problem is that people like you quote the conclusion of an experiment
which you are perfectly happy to accept, because it conforms to your
belief yet you rarely know any of the details of the actual experiment.
On those occasions where I have obtained details of an experiment it is
rather more complicated than the conclusion implies.
[quote]
According to Essen an expert on both
time and measurement theory Einstein broke a cardinal rule. Measurement
involves units and your set of units all interrelate. You have
fundamental units and derived units. Which you choose as fundamental is
a matter of choice but nor arbitrary. There must no duplication i.e. a
unit cannot be defined two or more contradictory ways.
Nor are they. Notice that the definition of those units is done in the
local rest reference frame only.
[/quote]
NOW yes but prior to Einstein time and distance were considered
universal.
[quote]Einstein had the
fundamental units of length and time. Speed is a derived unit and is
whatever is measured using your fixed units of distance (m) and time
(s). On that basis distance and time are not frame dependent *by
definition*.
Nonsense. They are defined identically, locally, in all inertial
reference frames.
[/quote]
Only since Einstein re-defined them as being frame dependent a function
of v^2/c^2 by the act of declaring c to be frame independent.
[quote]By *defining* c as a constant Einstein broke the cardinal rule of
measurement.
To be fair, Einstein made no such definition. This definition was not
done until almost 15 years after Einstein's death. Please catch up on
your history.
[/quote]
The second postulate is what Essen is referring to. I have no idea what
you are referring to. The actual accepted value perhaps - that is down
to Essen as is the change from astronomical time to atomic clock time
and the definition of the meter in terms of wavelength - thus making the
value of c constant by definition.
[quote]
To be fair to young Albert measurement theory was not as
well understood then as it is now, but he duplicated units. According to
Essen all Einstein did was to define a new unit of length which varies
with v^2/c^2 and a unit of time which varies with v^2/c^2 so that if you
measure the speed of light using those new units it is always c. He says
that while one may get it to work it serves no useful purpose.
And Essen was both mistaken and misguided. His expertise
notwithstanding.
[/quote]
An article of faith on your part.
[quote]Put simply the fixed value for the speed of light is not a property of
nature but has been made so *by definition*.
No, that is not correct. If you define time to be frame-independent,
then what you learn is the that physical processes then take different
times in different reference frames, and then you have to CHOOSE which
reference frame should be the one that all of them are referenced to.
[/quote]
Can you quote an actual experiment?
[quote]A particle that decays after a mean time of 4.8 microseconds in the
frame in which it is at rest then is OBSERVED to decay at 6.5
microseconds if it is moving in that frame.
If you insist that time be
frame independent, then this means that in the frame that is moving
along with the particle (that is, the particle is at rest in that
frame), the particle is decaying after 6.5 microseconds.
[/quote]
Is the frame that is moving along with the particle an inertial frame?
Again rather short on detail.
[quote]Then you are
left with the challenge of explaining why, if there is no discernible
difference between the circumstances of the decay in the two frames
other than their relative motion, why it decays after 4.8 microseconds
in one and after 6.5 microseconds in the other. And if there is no
discernible difference between the two frames, why was the first
chosen as the standard to tie the second one to? Moreover, you find
that if instead you reversed the referencing by setting up a clock in
the second frame by an identical procedure, then the particle would
live for 4.8 microseconds in the second frame and 6.5 microseconds in
the first frame. This is *experimentally verified*. Given this,
perhaps you can tell me how Essen would suggest getting out of that
observational box?
[/quote]
Perhaps you might look in
Essen, L. (1971) The Special Theory of Relativity: A Critical Analysis,
Oxford University Press
Essen, L. (1978) "Relativity and Time Signals", Electronics and Wireless
World, Oct. 1978, p. 14;
Essen, L. (1988) "Relativity - Joke or Swindle?", Electronics and
Wireless World 94, 126 - 127.
For the answer. Essen was one of the most meticulous of people. He is
worthy of study.
[quote]With that definition length
and time are frame dependent. If *by definition* you make length and
time constant then the speed of light is frame dependent. Basically you
cannot make sense of any measurement unless you are clear what your
units are.
You cannot by definition make length vary sometimes by v^2/c^2 and
whenever you feel like it vary by v/c.
Whether the dependency is *calculated*
using an expansion method and whether that *calculational choice*
makes it appear in first order or second order is IRRELEVANT.
I'm not interested in what you *calculate*. I want to know the physical
process which causes the interval between two burst of light to change
when I change my speed. The only thing I have changed is my speed and
the obvious explanation is that I am now travelling at a different speed
w.r.t the light - as predicted by both LET and emission theory.
[/quote]
Do you understand that? The only thing I have changed is my speed. If my
speed w.r.t the light pulses hasn't changed my relationship with the
light pulses hasn't changed and therefore there can be no change in
their appearance. There is a change in their appearance the interval has
changed so I must have changed my speed w.r.t the light pulses.
[quote]
That explanation does NOT work with SR Doppler shift because SR denies
that your velocity w.r.t the light pulses HAS changed. The time between
pulses cannot change because you have changed your speed w.r.t
the light
pulses.
I know where you are trying to get to. The idea that I am changing from
one FoR which has one relationship w.r.t the source and always had, to
another with a different relationship w.r.t. the source which it always
had. This means that the physical spacing between the light pulses has
an infinite number of values in the same physical space; that one FoR
can magically support a different physical reality than another FoR.
That an infinite number of physical realities simultaneously exist.
A FoR does not physically exist so it cannot support a separate
physical
reality. You are thinking in purely mathematical terms where a FoR can
do what it likes. It is an absurdity but you have been doing it so long
you cannot see it. The spacing between two bursts of energy CANNOT have
an infinite number of different values in the same physical space
therefore SR fails where LET succeeds. LET simply says that your speed
w.r.t the light HAS changed so you measure a different interval. The
different interval is direct evidence that your real speed w.r.t the
light has changed.
You are locked in to thinking of the maths and confusing that with what
is happening physically. I challenge you to explain SR Doppler in
physical terms without mentioning frames which do not physically exist.
[rest of boondoggle having to do with change of one observer from one
reference frame to another snipped]
WHY? If it doesn't make sense point out the error.
[/quote]
"In 1946, in collaboration with A.C. Gordon-Smith, ESSEN used a
microwave cavity, of precisely known dimensions, and exploited his
expertise in time-measurement to establish the frequency for a variety
of its normal modes. As the wavelength of the modes was known from the
geometry of the cavity and from electromagnetic theory, knowledge of the
associated frequencies enabled a calculation of the speed of light.
Their result, 299,792±3 km/s, was substantially greater than the
prevailing sequence of optical measurements that had begun around the
start of the 20th century and Essen had to withstand some fierce
criticism and disbelief. Moreover, W.W. Hansen at Stanford University
had used a similar technique and obtained a measurement which was more
consistent with the conventional (optical) wisdom. However, a
combination of Essen's stubbornness, his iconoclasm and his belief in
his own skill at measurement (and a little help with calculations from
Alan Turing) inspired him to refine his apparatus and to repeat his
measurement in 1950, establishing a result of 299,792.5±1 km/s. This was
the value adopted by the 12th General Assembly of the Radio-Scientific
Union in 1957. Most subsequent measurements have been consistent with
this value. In 1983, the 17th Conférence Générale des Poids et Mesures
adopted the standard value, 299,792.458 km/s for the speed of light."
Now how come W.W. Hansen at Stanford University got an answer "more
consistent with conventional (optical) wisdom". An obvious case where
expectations affected the result of experiment.
--
John Kennaugh |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| doug... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 4:56 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
John Kennaugh wrote:
[quote]PD wrote:
On Oct 31, 3:45 am, John Kennaugh <J... at (no spam) notworking.freeserve.co.uk
wrote:
PD wrote:
On Oct 29, 10:18 am, John Kennaugh <J... at (no spam) notworking.freeserve.co.uk
wrote:
PD wrote:
On Oct 29, 7:13 am, John Kennaugh <J... at (no spam) notworking.freeserve.co.uk
wrote:
PD wrote:
On Oct 27, 6:43 am, John Kennaugh
J... at (no spam) notworking.freeserve.co.uk
wrote:
PD wrote:
On Oct 24, 3:04 pm, John Kennaugh
J... at (no spam) notworking.freeserve.co.uk
wrote:
PD wrote:
Other points to be dealt with in another post time permitting.
Neither does it explain why the
speed of light appears constant to every observer and
fails
explain why, when I change my speed the frequency changes
instantly.
On the contrary, again the structure of spacetime explains
and relativistic Doppler shift is EASILY derived from that.
Derived maybe. Explained no.
If it is a necessary consequence of that conceptual
framework then
this is an explanation.
There is only one Doppler equation in SR. Whether the
source
changes its
speed or I am the one that changes mine. The maths
assume in
both cases
that the change in frequency is due to a different
wavelength being
generated at the source so my change of speed has to
affect the past
Not at all! This is a simple misconception on your part.
implication that the observer has causally reached
alter the source.
Suppose you are 1 ly from a source. I am happy to accept
that what I do
cannot affect what happened at the source 1 year ago - on
the
grounds of
causality. I'm not sure on what grounds you rule it out )
If I change my speed then I am clearly changing my
relationship
with the
light in transit. i.e. that light which left the source 1
year
previously. What is the physical nature of that change of
relationship?
A change in reference frame.
Here, let's take a classical example to make it more
sensible to you.
Let's take a bullet in flight, AFTER it has left the gun.
to collide with a tree stump and leave a certain amount of
the stump. We could, if we wish, use information from
sensors attached
to the tree stump to measure the energy deposited in the
stump and use
that to deduce the kinetic energy of the bullet.
Now, you and I both know that kinetic energy is frame
dependent. In
one reference frame, the kinetic energy of the bullet will be
different than what it is in another reference frame.
Gathering
information from the sensors in the stump, however, I have to
correctly get the kinetic energy value that is appropriate
to THAT
reference frame. That is, just by choosing which reference
frame in
which I will gather measurements about the collision of the
bullet and
the stump, I will get different values for the bullet's
kinetic energy
before the collision. Now, I did NOTHING as an observer to
the gun or the bullet in flight. Yet the kinetic energy is
a frame-
dependent quantity, even as it is consistent with
measurements taken
in the stump.
If this does not make sense to you, then the locus of your
misunderstanding is not with special relativity but with
CLASSICAL
mechanics.
You did not answer my question as to whether you are in fact
a physics
lecturer. It seems more likely from that reply. That is a
standard
"put-down". It is intended to put a student in his place by
him when he has in fact made an intelligent comment. It is
CRAP, and I
believe that you are intelligent enough to know it is CRAP
which means
you are dishonest. For the sake of any student who has been
put down in
this way I say the following.
If I change my "Frame of reference" all I have done is
change my
VELOCITY i.e. I have accelerated for a period. My VELOCITY
has changed
w.r.t other objects in the universe. The "Frame of
reference" is a
mathematical abstraction and is totally unnecessary in
describing what
is happening in the circumstance under discussion. It is
introduced to
obscure.
It is not crap, it is not even relativistic physics. It is
CLASSICAL
physics, which is the point I was trying to make to you.
A given physical process and set of events is something that
takes
place in multiple reference frames at the same time. There is
no need
for a single observer to change motion to move from one reference
frame to another. The principle of relativity is about a
comparison of
those events as described in multiple reference frames at the
same
time. This is a CLASSICAL physics concept.
As I said earlier, if you are having problem with classical
physics,
let's straighten that out first before you further the
confusion in
relativity.
Still crap. And you are intelligent enough to realise it. All the
CLASSICAL physics concepts you can quote are the result of a
change in
speed. What you are trying to do is to say that because some
things are
frame dependent anything you choose can be frame dependent.
Classical
Physics can EXPLAIN why the things which are frame dependent in
classical physics ARE frame dependent
The rule is that if you change your VELOCITY relative to
something and a
parameter you are measuring is VELOCITY dependent then that
parameter
will change.
Really? Explain that to electric and magnetic fields.
Got an answer for this one?
Einstein wrote in 1905:
" Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet
and a conductor. The observable phenomenon here depends only on the
relative motion of the conductor and the magnet, whereas the customary
view draws a sharp distinction between the two cases in which either the
one or the other of these bodies is in motion. For if the magnet is in
motion and the conductor at rest, there arises in the neighbourhood of
the magnet an electric field with a certain definite energy, producing a
current at the places where parts of the conductor are situated. But if
the magnet is stationary and the conductor in motion, no electric field
arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet. In the conductor, however, we
find an electromotive force, to which in itself there is no
corresponding energy, but which gives rise assuming equality of relative
motion in the two cases discussed to electric currents of the same path
and intensity as those produced by the electric forces in the former
case."
As a matter of interest how do you teach that these days? Einstein
pointed out it was absurd but I'm not sure I was taught any different 60
years later.
Well, first of all, it's not absurd, since it is what is actually
measured.
It is absurd if there is not a description which depends ONLY on the
relative motion of a magnet and a conductor - as Einstein pointed out.
i.e. if physics treats it as two different phenomena depending on which
is moving.
[/quote]
So you are claiming that the results of an experiment that disagree
with your prejudices are wrong. You really need to learn a bit about
science.
[quote]
I recall an interesting discussion in Wireless World many years ago. The
question was "If you take two wires together and wind a transformer with
them and if you then connect the finish ends together and to earth and
feed a signal into one of the starts, would the signal out of the other
start be in phase or out of phase?". One of the answers given was that
it is in phase but if you are answering a question in a physics paper
say they are out of phase as most physics teachers think they are.
Many years later I had a PhD Physics student working for me in the lab
and I mentioned this correspondence. He just would not believe me when I
said they were in phase. I had to prove it by having him wind a
transformer as described.
The way it is taught these days is very similar to the way it is
presented in the Berkeley Series books, in particular the
electrodynamics book.
I'm not familiar with that.
Remember that when Einstein was working on it, Maxwell's equations
were pretty new
Maxwell published in 1864. 41 years before 1905. If that is "new" then
I'm obviously not as old as I thought )
and not much was understood about the properties of
electrodynamics.
Quite a lot happened in the 20th century to make
better sense if it.
Perhaps you should read Ivor Catt's view on standard EM theory. He would
have found it exceedingly useful had it worked. He found that in
practice it didn't.
Bzzzt. Try again.
You've just touted the Henri Wilson Foolishness.
"Those physical quantities that have equations that involve velocity
in them are OBVIOUSLY frame-dependent, and those that don't
OBVIOUSLY
aren't."
Pffft.
Distance is not first order frame dependent.
And we discussed this too.
It is frame-dependent, period.
Is it? I don't accept that it is.
It is! It's an experimental fact. Calorimeter segmentation in fixed
target and collider experiments is that fact embodied in design.
My problem is that people like you quote the conclusion of an experiment
which you are perfectly happy to accept, because it conforms to your
belief yet you rarely know any of the details of the actual experiment.
On those occasions where I have obtained details of an experiment it is
rather more complicated than the conclusion implies.
[/quote]
You, on the other hand, prefer to dismiss out of hand those
experiments which you do not like the results of. That is
why you remain a crank.
[quote]
According to Essen an expert on both
time and measurement theory Einstein broke a cardinal rule. Measurement
involves units and your set of units all interrelate. You have
fundamental units and derived units. Which you choose as fundamental is
a matter of choice but nor arbitrary. There must no duplication i.e. a
unit cannot be defined two or more contradictory ways.
Nor are they. Notice that the definition of those units is done in the
local rest reference frame only.
NOW yes but prior to Einstein time and distance were considered universal.
[/quote]
Yes, and he fixed that.
[quote]
Einstein had the
fundamental units of length and time. Speed is a derived unit and is
whatever is measured using your fixed units of distance (m) and time
(s). On that basis distance and time are not frame dependent *by
definition*.
Nonsense. They are defined identically, locally, in all inertial
reference frames.
Only since Einstein re-defined them as being frame dependent a function
of v^2/c^2 by the act of declaring c to be frame independent.
[/quote]
They are measured as frame dependent. I know reality is not your
strong point.
[quote]
By *defining* c as a constant Einstein broke the cardinal rule of
measurement.
To be fair, Einstein made no such definition. This definition was not
done until almost 15 years after Einstein's death. Please catch up on
your history.
The second postulate is what Essen is referring to.
[/quote]
Essen was a crank.
I have no idea what
[quote]you are referring to. The actual accepted value perhaps - that is down
to Essen as is the change from astronomical time to atomic clock time
and the definition of the meter in terms of wavelength - thus making the
value of c constant by definition.
[/quote]
It was chosen that way since all measurements showed it to be constant
and thus you get a portable distance standard. Essen did not like
that but it does not change the facts.
[quote]
To be fair to young Albert measurement theory was not as
well understood then as it is now, but he duplicated units. According to
Essen all Einstein did was to define a new unit of length which varies
with v^2/c^2 and a unit of time which varies with v^2/c^2 so that if you
measure the speed of light using those new units it is always c. He says
that while one may get it to work it serves no useful purpose.
And Essen was both mistaken and misguided. His expertise
notwithstanding.
An article of faith on your part.
[/quote]
No, since he disagrees with actual experiments, he is wrong.
[quote]
Put simply the fixed value for the speed of light is not a property of
nature but has been made so *by definition*.
No, that is not correct. If you define time to be frame-independent,
then what you learn is the that physical processes then take different
times in different reference frames, and then you have to CHOOSE which
reference frame should be the one that all of them are referenced to.
Can you quote an actual experiment?
[/quote]
There has been a century of experiments supporting that. For instance
see the gps system.
[quote]
A particle that decays after a mean time of 4.8 microseconds in the
frame in which it is at rest then is OBSERVED to decay at 6.5
microseconds if it is moving in that frame.
If you insist that time be
frame independent, then this means that in the frame that is moving
along with the particle (that is, the particle is at rest in that
frame), the particle is decaying after 6.5 microseconds.
Is the frame that is moving along with the particle an inertial frame?
Again rather short on detail.
[/quote]
You are either terribly ignorant or pretending to be.
[quote]
Then you are
left with the challenge of explaining why, if there is no discernible
difference between the circumstances of the decay in the two frames
other than their relative motion, why it decays after 4.8 microseconds
in one and after 6.5 microseconds in the other. And if there is no
discernible difference between the two frames, why was the first
chosen as the standard to tie the second one to? Moreover, you find
that if instead you reversed the referencing by setting up a clock in
the second frame by an identical procedure, then the particle would
live for 4.8 microseconds in the second frame and 6.5 microseconds in
the first frame. This is *experimentally verified*. Given this,
perhaps you can tell me how Essen would suggest getting out of that
observational box?
Perhaps you might look in
Essen, L. (1971) The Special Theory of Relativity: A Critical Analysis,
Oxford University Press
[/quote]
Essen is a crank.
[quote]
Essen, L. (1978) "Relativity and Time Signals", Electronics and Wireless
World, Oct. 1978, p. 14;
[/quote]
Essen is a crank.
[quote]
Essen, L. (1988) "Relativity - Joke or Swindle?", Electronics and
Wireless World 94, 126 - 127.
[/quote]
Essen is a crank.
[quote]
For the answer. Essen was one of the most meticulous of people. He is
worthy of study.
[/quote]
Essen is a crank. He, like you and paul want to ignore reality and
have the universe change to suit you
[quote]
With that definition length
and time are frame dependent. If *by definition* you make length and
time constant then the speed of light is frame dependent. Basically you
cannot make sense of any measurement unless you are clear what your
units are.
You cannot by definition make length vary sometimes by v^2/c^2 and
whenever you feel like it vary by v/c.
Whether the dependency is *calculated*
using an expansion method and whether that *calculational choice*
makes it appear in first order or second order is IRRELEVANT.
I'm not interested in what you *calculate*. I want to know the physical
process which causes the interval between two burst of light to change
when I change my speed. The only thing I have changed is my speed and
the obvious explanation is that I am now travelling at a different speed
w.r.t the light - as predicted by both LET and emission theory.
Do you understand that? The only thing I have changed is my speed. If my
speed w.r.t the light pulses hasn't changed my relationship with the
light pulses hasn't changed and therefore there can be no change in
their appearance. There is a change in their appearance the interval has
changed so I must have changed my speed w.r.t the light pulses.
[/quote]
Except that experiments show that c is constant. You cannot get around
that by your denial.
[quote]
That explanation does NOT work with SR Doppler shift because SR
denies
that your velocity w.r.t the light pulses HAS changed. The time
between
pulses cannot change because you have changed your speed w.r.t
the light
pulses.
I know where you are trying to get to. The idea that I am
changing from
one FoR which has one relationship w.r.t the source and always
had, to
another with a different relationship w.r.t. the source which
it always
had. This means that the physical spacing between the light
pulses has
an infinite number of values in the same physical space; that
one FoR
can magically support a different physical reality than another
FoR.
That an infinite number of physical realities simultaneously
exist.
A FoR does not physically exist so it cannot support a separate
physical
reality. You are thinking in purely mathematical terms where a
FoR can
do what it likes. It is an absurdity but you have been doing it
so long
you cannot see it. The spacing between two bursts of energy
CANNOT have
an infinite number of different values in the same physical space
therefore SR fails where LET succeeds. LET simply says that
your speed
w.r.t the light HAS changed so you measure a different
interval. The
different interval is direct evidence that your real speed
w.r.t the
light has changed.
You are locked in to thinking of the maths and confusing that
with what
is happening physically. I challenge you to explain SR Doppler in
physical terms without mentioning frames which do not
physically exist.
[rest of boondoggle having to do with change of one observer
from one
reference frame to another snipped]
WHY? If it doesn't make sense point out the error.
"In 1946, in collaboration with A.C. Gordon-Smith, ESSEN used a
microwave cavity, of precisely known dimensions, and exploited his
expertise in time-measurement to establish the frequency for a variety
of its normal modes. As the wavelength of the modes was known from the
geometry of the cavity and from electromagnetic theory, knowledge of the
associated frequencies enabled a calculation of the speed of light.
Their result, 299,792±3 km/s, was substantially greater than the
prevailing sequence of optical measurements that had begun around the
start of the 20th century and Essen had to withstand some fierce
criticism and disbelief. Moreover, W.W. Hansen at Stanford University
had used a similar technique and obtained a measurement which was more
consistent with the conventional (optical) wisdom. However, a
combination of Essen's stubbornness, his iconoclasm and his belief in
his own skill at measurement (and a little help with calculations from
Alan Turing) inspired him to refine his apparatus and to repeat his
measurement in 1950, establishing a result of 299,792.5±1 km/s. This was
the value adopted by the 12th General Assembly of the Radio-Scientific
Union in 1957. Most subsequent measurements have been consistent with
this value. In 1983, the 17th Conférence Générale des Poids et Mesures
adopted the standard value, 299,792.458 km/s for the speed of light."
Now how come W.W. Hansen at Stanford University got an answer "more
consistent with conventional (optical) wisdom". An obvious case where
expectations affected the result of experiment.
[/quote]
Yes, now so what?
> |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Ahmed Ouahi, Architect... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:12 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Physics requires a knowledge
However science is a knowledge
Therefore physics is a knowledge
As a science as a knowledge
--
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Best Regards!
"doug" <xx at (no spam) xx.com> kirjoitti
viestissä:aP2dnTUff7-iyHLXnZ2dnUVZ_vidnZ2d at (no spam) posted.docknet...
[quote]
John Kennaugh wrote:
PD wrote:
On Oct 31, 3:45 am, John Kennaugh <J... at (no spam) notworking.freeserve.co.uk
wrote:
PD wrote:
On Oct 29, 10:18 am, John Kennaugh <J... at (no spam) notworking.freeserve.co.uk
wrote:
PD wrote:
On Oct 29, 7:13 am, John Kennaugh <J... at (no spam) notworking.freeserve.co.uk
wrote:
PD wrote:
On Oct 27, 6:43 am, John Kennaugh
J... at (no spam) notworking.freeserve.co.uk
wrote:
PD wrote:
On Oct 24, 3:04 pm, John Kennaugh
J... at (no spam) notworking.freeserve.co.uk
wrote:
PD wrote:
Other points to be dealt with in another post time permitting.
Neither does it explain why the
speed of light appears constant to every observer and
fails
explain why, when I change my speed the frequency
changes
instantly.
On the contrary, again the structure of spacetime explains
and relativistic Doppler shift is EASILY derived from
that.
Derived maybe. Explained no.
If it is a necessary consequence of that conceptual
framework then
this is an explanation.
There is only one Doppler equation in SR. Whether the
source
changes its
speed or I am the one that changes mine. The maths
assume in
both cases
that the change in frequency is due to a different
wavelength being
generated at the source so my change of speed has to
affect the past
Not at all! This is a simple misconception on your part.
implication that the observer has causally reached
alter the source.
Suppose you are 1 ly from a source. I am happy to accept
that what I do
cannot affect what happened at the source 1 year ago - on
the
grounds of
causality. I'm not sure on what grounds you rule it out )
If I change my speed then I am clearly changing my
relationship
with the
light in transit. i.e. that light which left the source 1
year
previously. What is the physical nature of that change of
relationship?
A change in reference frame.
Here, let's take a classical example to make it more
sensible to you.
Let's take a bullet in flight, AFTER it has left the gun.
to collide with a tree stump and leave a certain amount of
the stump. We could, if we wish, use information from
sensors attached
to the tree stump to measure the energy deposited in the
stump and use
that to deduce the kinetic energy of the bullet.
Now, you and I both know that kinetic energy is frame
dependent. In
one reference frame, the kinetic energy of the bullet will be
different than what it is in another reference frame.
Gathering
information from the sensors in the stump, however, I have to
correctly get the kinetic energy value that is appropriate
to THAT
reference frame. That is, just by choosing which reference
frame in
which I will gather measurements about the collision of the
bullet and
the stump, I will get different values for the bullet's
kinetic energy
before the collision. Now, I did NOTHING as an observer to
the gun or the bullet in flight. Yet the kinetic energy is
a frame-
dependent quantity, even as it is consistent with
measurements taken
in the stump.
If this does not make sense to you, then the locus of your
misunderstanding is not with special relativity but with
CLASSICAL
mechanics.
You did not answer my question as to whether you are in fact a
physics
lecturer. It seems more likely from that reply. That is a
standard
"put-down". It is intended to put a student in his place by
him when he has in fact made an intelligent comment. It is
CRAP, and I
believe that you are intelligent enough to know it is CRAP
which means
you are dishonest. For the sake of any student who has been
put down in
this way I say the following.
If I change my "Frame of reference" all I have done is
change my
VELOCITY i.e. I have accelerated for a period. My VELOCITY has
changed
w.r.t other objects in the universe. The "Frame of
reference" is a
mathematical abstraction and is totally unnecessary in
describing what
is happening in the circumstance under discussion. It is
introduced to
obscure.
It is not crap, it is not even relativistic physics. It is
CLASSICAL
physics, which is the point I was trying to make to you.
A given physical process and set of events is something that
takes
place in multiple reference frames at the same time. There is
no need
for a single observer to change motion to move from one
reference
frame to another. The principle of relativity is about a
comparison of
those events as described in multiple reference frames at the
same
time. This is a CLASSICAL physics concept.
As I said earlier, if you are having problem with classical
physics,
let's straighten that out first before you further the
confusion in
relativity.
Still crap. And you are intelligent enough to realise it. All the
CLASSICAL physics concepts you can quote are the result of a
change in
speed. What you are trying to do is to say that because some
things are
frame dependent anything you choose can be frame dependent.
Classical
Physics can EXPLAIN why the things which are frame dependent in
classical physics ARE frame dependent
The rule is that if you change your VELOCITY relative to
something and a
parameter you are measuring is VELOCITY dependent then that
parameter
will change.
Really? Explain that to electric and magnetic fields.
Got an answer for this one?
Einstein wrote in 1905:
" Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet
and a conductor. The observable phenomenon here depends only on the
relative motion of the conductor and the magnet, whereas the customary
view draws a sharp distinction between the two cases in which either
the
one or the other of these bodies is in motion. For if the magnet is in
motion and the conductor at rest, there arises in the neighbourhood of
the magnet an electric field with a certain definite energy, producing
a
current at the places where parts of the conductor are situated. But if
the magnet is stationary and the conductor in motion, no electric field
arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet. In the conductor, however,
we
find an electromotive force, to which in itself there is no
corresponding energy, but which gives rise assuming equality of
relative
motion in the two cases discussed to electric currents of the same path
and intensity as those produced by the electric forces in the former
case."
As a matter of interest how do you teach that these days? Einstein
pointed out it was absurd but I'm not sure I was taught any different
60
years later.
Well, first of all, it's not absurd, since it is what is actually
measured.
It is absurd if there is not a description which depends ONLY on the
relative motion of a magnet and a conductor - as Einstein pointed out.
i.e. if physics treats it as two different phenomena depending on which
is moving.
So you are claiming that the results of an experiment that disagree
with your prejudices are wrong. You really need to learn a bit about
science.
I recall an interesting discussion in Wireless World many years ago. The
question was "If you take two wires together and wind a transformer with
them and if you then connect the finish ends together and to earth and
feed a signal into one of the starts, would the signal out of the other
start be in phase or out of phase?". One of the answers given was that it
is in phase but if you are answering a question in a physics paper say
they are out of phase as most physics teachers think they are.
Many years later I had a PhD Physics student working for me in the lab
and I mentioned this correspondence. He just would not believe me when I
said they were in phase. I had to prove it by having him wind a
transformer as described.
The way it is taught these days is very similar to the way it is
presented in the Berkeley Series books, in particular the
electrodynamics book.
I'm not familiar with that.
Remember that when Einstein was working on it, Maxwell's equations
were pretty new
Maxwell published in 1864. 41 years before 1905. If that is "new" then
I'm obviously not as old as I thought )
and not much was understood about the properties of
electrodynamics.
Quite a lot happened in the 20th century to make
better sense if it.
Perhaps you should read Ivor Catt's view on standard EM theory. He would
have found it exceedingly useful had it worked. He found that in practice
it didn't.
Bzzzt. Try again.
You've just touted the Henri Wilson Foolishness.
"Those physical quantities that have equations that involve
velocity
in them are OBVIOUSLY frame-dependent, and those that don't
OBVIOUSLY
aren't."
Pffft.
Distance is not first order frame dependent.
And we discussed this too.
It is frame-dependent, period.
Is it? I don't accept that it is.
It is! It's an experimental fact. Calorimeter segmentation in fixed
target and collider experiments is that fact embodied in design.
My problem is that people like you quote the conclusion of an experiment
which you are perfectly happy to accept, because it conforms to your
belief yet you rarely know any of the details of the actual experiment.
On those occasions where I have obtained details of an experiment it is
rather more complicated than the conclusion implies.
You, on the other hand, prefer to dismiss out of hand those
experiments which you do not like the results of. That is
why you remain a crank.
According to Essen an expert on both
time and measurement theory Einstein broke a cardinal rule. Measurement
involves units and your set of units all interrelate. You have
fundamental units and derived units. Which you choose as fundamental is
a matter of choice but nor arbitrary. There must no duplication i.e. a
unit cannot be defined two or more contradictory ways.
Nor are they. Notice that the definition of those units is done in the
local rest reference frame only.
NOW yes but prior to Einstein time and distance were considered
universal.
Yes, and he fixed that.
Einstein had the
fundamental units of length and time. Speed is a derived unit and is
whatever is measured using your fixed units of distance (m) and time
(s). On that basis distance and time are not frame dependent *by
definition*.
Nonsense. They are defined identically, locally, in all inertial
reference frames.
Only since Einstein re-defined them as being frame dependent a function
of v^2/c^2 by the act of declaring c to be frame independent.
They are measured as frame dependent. I know reality is not your
strong point.
By *defining* c as a constant Einstein broke the cardinal rule of
measurement.
To be fair, Einstein made no such definition. This definition was not
done until almost 15 years after Einstein's death. Please catch up on
your history.
The second postulate is what Essen is referring to.
Essen was a crank.
I have no idea what
you are referring to. The actual accepted value perhaps - that is down to
Essen as is the change from astronomical time to atomic clock time and
the definition of the meter in terms of wavelength - thus making the
value of c constant by definition.
It was chosen that way since all measurements showed it to be constant
and thus you get a portable distance standard. Essen did not like
that but it does not change the facts.
To be fair to young Albert measurement theory was not as
well understood then as it is now, but he duplicated units. According
to
Essen all Einstein did was to define a new unit of length which varies
with v^2/c^2 and a unit of time which varies with v^2/c^2 so that if
you
measure the speed of light using those new units it is always c. He
says
that while one may get it to work it serves no useful purpose.
And Essen was both mistaken and misguided. His expertise
notwithstanding.
An article of faith on your part.
No, since he disagrees with actual experiments, he is wrong.
Put simply the fixed value for the speed of light is not a property of
nature but has been made so *by definition*.
No, that is not correct. If you define time to be frame-independent,
then what you learn is the that physical processes then take different
times in different reference frames, and then you have to CHOOSE which
reference frame should be the one that all of them are referenced to.
Can you quote an actual experiment?
There has been a century of experiments supporting that. For instance
see the gps system.
A particle that decays after a mean time of 4.8 microseconds in the
frame in which it is at rest then is OBSERVED to decay at 6.5
microseconds if it is moving in that frame.
If you insist that time be
frame independent, then this means that in the frame that is moving
along with the particle (that is, the particle is at rest in that
frame), the particle is decaying after 6.5 microseconds.
Is the frame that is moving along with the particle an inertial frame?
Again rather short on detail.
You are either terribly ignorant or pretending to be.
Then you are
left with the challenge of explaining why, if there is no discernible
difference between the circumstances of the decay in the two frames
other than their relative motion, why it decays after 4.8 microseconds
in one and after 6.5 microseconds in the other. And if there is no
discernible difference between the two frames, why was the first
chosen as the standard to tie the second one to? Moreover, you find
that if instead you reversed the referencing by setting up a clock in
the second frame by an identical procedure, then the particle would
live for 4.8 microseconds in the second frame and 6.5 microseconds in
the first frame. This is *experimentally verified*. Given this,
perhaps you can tell me how Essen would suggest getting out of that
observational box?
Perhaps you might look in
Essen, L. (1971) The Special Theory of Relativity: A Critical Analysis,
Oxford University Press
Essen is a crank.
Essen, L. (1978) "Relativity and Time Signals", Electronics and Wireless
World, Oct. 1978, p. 14;
Essen is a crank.
Essen, L. (1988) "Relativity - Joke or Swindle?", Electronics and
Wireless World 94, 126 - 127.
Essen is a crank.
For the answer. Essen was one of the most meticulous of people. He is
worthy of study.
Essen is a crank. He, like you and paul want to ignore reality and
have the universe change to suit you
With that definition length
and time are frame dependent. If *by definition* you make length and
time constant then the speed of light is frame dependent. Basically you
cannot make sense of any measurement unless you are clear what your
units are.
You cannot by definition make length vary sometimes by v^2/c^2 and
whenever you feel like it vary by v/c.
Whether the dependency is *calculated*
using an expansion method and whether that *calculational choice*
makes it appear in first order or second order is IRRELEVANT.
I'm not interested in what you *calculate*. I want to know the physical
process which causes the interval between two burst of light to change
when I change my speed. The only thing I have changed is my speed and
the obvious explanation is that I am now travelling at a different
speed
w.r.t the light - as predicted by both LET and emission theory.
Do you understand that? The only thing I have changed is my speed. If my
speed w.r.t the light pulses hasn't changed my relationship with the
light pulses hasn't changed and therefore there can be no change in their
appearance. There is a change in their appearance the interval has
changed so I must have changed my speed w.r.t the light pulses.
Except that experiments show that c is constant. You cannot get around
that by your denial.
That explanation does NOT work with SR Doppler shift because SR
denies
that your velocity w.r.t the light pulses HAS changed. The time
between
pulses cannot change because you have changed your speed w.r.t
the light
pulses.
I know where you are trying to get to. The idea that I am
changing from
one FoR which has one relationship w.r.t the source and always
had, to
another with a different relationship w.r.t. the source which
it always
had. This means that the physical spacing between the light
pulses has
an infinite number of values in the same physical space; that
one FoR
can magically support a different physical reality than another
FoR.
That an infinite number of physical realities simultaneously
exist.
A FoR does not physically exist so it cannot support a separate
physical
reality. You are thinking in purely mathematical terms where a
FoR can
do what it likes. It is an absurdity but you have been doing it
so long
you cannot see it. The spacing between two bursts of energy
CANNOT have
an infinite number of different values in the same physical space
therefore SR fails where LET succeeds. LET simply says that
your speed
w.r.t the light HAS changed so you measure a different
interval. The
different interval is direct evidence that your real speed
w.r.t the
light has changed.
You are locked in to thinking of the maths and confusing that
with what
is happening physically. I challenge you to explain SR Doppler in
physical terms without mentioning frames which do not
physically exist.
[rest of boondoggle having to do with change of one observer
from one
reference frame to another snipped]
WHY? If it doesn't make sense point out the error.
"In 1946, in collaboration with A.C. Gordon-Smith, ESSEN used a microwave
cavity, of precisely known dimensions, and exploited his expertise in
time-measurement to establish the frequency for a variety of its normal
modes. As the wavelength of the modes was known from the geometry of the
cavity and from electromagnetic theory, knowledge of the associated
frequencies enabled a calculation of the speed of light. Their result,
299,792±3 km/s, was substantially greater than the prevailing sequence of
optical measurements that had begun around the start of the 20th century
and Essen had to withstand some fierce criticism and disbelief.
Moreover, W.W. Hansen at Stanford University had used a similar technique
and obtained a measurement which was more consistent with the
conventional (optical) wisdom. However, a combination of Essen's
stubbornness, his iconoclasm and his belief in his own skill at
measurement (and a little help with calculations from Alan Turing)
inspired him to refine his apparatus and to repeat his measurement in
1950, establishing a result of 299,792.5±1 km/s. This was the value
adopted by the 12th General Assembly of the Radio-Scientific Union in
1957. Most subsequent measurements have been consistent with this value.
In 1983, the 17th Conférence Générale des Poids et Mesures adopted the
standard value, 299,792.458 km/s for the speed of light."
Now how come W.W. Hansen at Stanford University got an answer "more
consistent with conventional (optical) wisdom". An obvious case where
expectations affected the result of experiment.
Yes, now so what?
[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Paul Stowe... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 7:20 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 2, 11:25 am, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 31, 12:45 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.
[/quote]
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...
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'). #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'... So, where is the explanation for the
structure of spacetime?, circle back. The is no such circular logic
in the physical medium model.
[quote]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.
[/quote]
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.
[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.
[/quote]
So, science is not, in your opinion, the pursuit of understanding the
natural world?
[quote]It has
NOTHING! to do with personal or social practices. If it were based
solely upon 'what scientist do' Galileo, Kepler and others would have
been rightly banned from presenting their ideas.
... drive the chemistry that powers both protein
folding and DNA encoding of heritable traits. Thus, the UNDERLYING
explanation of Darwin's and Mendel's abstract "heritable traits" turns
out to be something that is perhaps surprising in its nature, but
nevertheless does provide explanatory power.
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.
[/quote]
Equations can only quantify physical processes, they can NEVER BE an
explanatory cause.
[quote]If you don't know the conceptual basis behind the
equations and have gone equation-blind, thinking that the concepts ARE
the equations, then you simply need a better education in physics.
[/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.
[quote]It's not random or acausal, for if
that were be no repeatable patterns.
First of all, I never said things were acausal. I said that *time-
ordered*, *deterministic* causality is not the only option. If you are
inclined to whine, "But the only kind of causality I even *recognize*
is the time-ordered, deterministic one," then I can't help the
limitations of your conceptual framework.
[/quote]
Please list one example of reversal of time's arrow.
[quote]And no, randomness in some variables does NOT produce complete
nonrepeatability.
[/quote]
True randomness will. Even radioactive decay is not at all random.
[quote]I'm sure you can see the parallels between "heritable traits" and
Einstein's postulates, and between the quantum mechanical basis for
biochemistry and the physical properties of spacetime.
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.
[/quote]
You still need the requisite characteristics of propagation and,
again, the circle closes.
[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.
[/quote]
Space has no geometry. It is, by definition, a void. Any geometry
imposed upon it is a result of physical attributes. As you should
know, Euclidean geometry is the slow speed limiting case of inertial
movement.
[quote]Do you understand that now?
John, PD may understand (I don't think he's that stupid) but, is he
capable of acknowledgement, that's the real question. For example, I
do understand the concepts of 'wavefunctions' in QM but simply don't
find stopping at accepting acausal shrugs as acceptable 'science'.
That's not the basic definition of what science is defined to
accomplish. If that is what it has politically evolved to in practice
today we have simply strayed from the fundamental core definition and
values, and yes, that is a judgement, and my opinion.
I doubt John, Vern, and, I know that for myself, want nature to
conform to our wishes. Nature is what it is and we have no infulence
on that. Our job is to understand and 'describe' it processes and
properties in the simplest intergrated manner.
Even if nature doesn't exhibit time ordered determinism everywhere?
[/quote]
Where we think it does not we need to delve deeper... On this we are,
as from the beginning, at an impasse. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| PD... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 5:50 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 2, 11:20 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 2, 11:25 am, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 31, 12:45 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...
[/quote]
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.
Now, either you or Kennaugh blustered that deductive reasoning is
superior to inductive reasoning. Regardless whether that is a
defensible assessment, the fact is that science operates at least part
of the time in inductive mode.
[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').
[/quote]
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.
There is nothing other than prejudice that would suggest that one
should be considered and the other ignored.
[quote] #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'...
[/quote]
No, doesn't RESULT in. Is ACCOUNTED thereby.
[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.
[/quote]
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?
[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?
[/quote]
That is not a sufficient definition, no, because it also admits that
which is not science.
[quote]
It has
NOTHING! to do with personal or social practices. If it were based
solely upon 'what scientist do' Galileo, Kepler and others would have
been rightly banned from presenting their ideas.
... drive the chemistry that powers both protein
folding and DNA encoding of heritable traits. Thus, the UNDERLYING
explanation of Darwin's and Mendel's abstract "heritable traits" turns
out to be something that is perhaps surprising in its nature, but
nevertheless does provide explanatory power.
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.
[/quote]
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.
[quote]
If you don't know the conceptual basis behind the
equations and have gone equation-blind, thinking that the concepts ARE
the equations, then you simply need a better education in physics.
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.
[/quote]
The equations *codify* the conceptual basis. I don't know where you
got the notion that equations are something wholly separate from
physical explanations.
[quote]
It's not random or acausal, for if
that were be no repeatable patterns.
First of all, I never said things were acausal. I said that *time-
ordered*, *deterministic* causality is not the only option. If you are
inclined to whine, "But the only kind of causality I even *recognize*
is the time-ordered, deterministic one," then I can't help the
limitations of your conceptual framework.
Please list one example of reversal of time's arrow.
[/quote]
Sure. You get the WRONG answers, compared to experiment, in t-channel
fermion collisions if you do not include the contributions from
intermediaries traveling backwards in time. This is true in QED and
QCD. And QED is the mostly precisely tested theory ever.
[quote]
And no, randomness in some variables does NOT produce complete
nonrepeatability.
True randomness will. Even radioactive decay is not at all random.
[/quote]
I think you have a poor understanding of the randomness in quantum
mechanics.
[quote]
I'm sure you can see the parallels between "heritable traits" and
Einstein's postulates, and between the quantum mechanical basis for
biochemistry and the physical properties of spacetime.
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.
[/quote]
"requisite characteristics of propagation"??
[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.
[/quote]
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. 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?
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?
You insist on a definition of space that is
- not shared by scientists
- not verifiably part of our universe, except as a human-invented
abstraction
- not equipped to support even your own concept of aether, as it has
none of the properties required to do so
Where is the sense in that?
[quote] Any geometry
imposed upon it is a result of physical attributes. As you should
know, Euclidean geometry is the slow speed limiting case of inertial
movement.
Do you understand that now?
John, PD may understand (I don't think he's that stupid) but, is he
capable of acknowledgement, that's the real question. For example, I
do understand the concepts of 'wavefunctions' in QM but simply don't
find stopping at accepting acausal shrugs as acceptable 'science'.
That's not the basic definition of what science is defined to
accomplish. If that is what it has politically evolved to in practice
today we have simply strayed from the fundamental core definition and
values, and yes, that is a judgement, and my opinion.
I doubt John, Vern, and, I know that for myself, want nature to
conform to our wishes. Nature is what it is and we have no infulence
on that. Our job is to understand and 'describe' it processes and
properties in the simplest intergrated manner.
Even if nature doesn't exhibit time ordered determinism everywhere?
Where we think it does not we need to delve deeper... On this we are,
as from the beginning, at an impasse.[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Paul Stowe... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 12:07 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 3, 7:50 am, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]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.
[/quote]
Why hyperbolic? On what basis? Why not Euclidean, Elpitical?
Geometry alone cannot answer this question.
[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.
[/quote]
How can 'geometry' do anything? There must be a causal agent that
results in hyperbolic behavior. What is that agent?
[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.
[/quote]
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]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?
[/quote]
Loop Quantum Gravity, String theory, ... etc. Where is the
'observation'???
[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.
[/quote]
Me'thinks your definition is too narrow...
[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.
[/quote]
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]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.
[/quote]
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]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.
[/quote]
Randomness, or probabilities?
[quote]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"??
[/quote]
Yes, propagation... Signal delays from point A to point B.
[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.
[/quote]
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. 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.
[quote]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?
[/quote]
Our minds...
[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?
[/quote]
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]You insist on a definition of space that is - not shared by scientists
[/quote]
I did not invent the terms void & vacuum
[quote]- not verifiably part of our universe, except as a human-invented
abstraction
[/quote]
I agree, in our universe every volume is endowed with physical
properties, which, of course, lead Einstein back to the aether...
[quote]- not equipped to support even your own concept of aether, as it has
none of the properties required to do so
[/quote]
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"... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Mon Dec 14, 2009 9:39 pm
|
|