Re: Update on history of relativity
Harry
"Juan R." <juanrgo...@canonicalscience.com> wrote in message
news:1133276487.7...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
The Canonical Research on history of relativity has been updated.
http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2005/08/what-is-history-of-relativity-theory.html
Previous blog-news has been substituted by a resume of paper on history
of relativity.
SNIP
> Well, Poincaré reduced phenomena to the PoR and the variational
principle via new simultaneity (non-Galilean). Poincaré was the first
rejecting Lorentz absolute aether,
In which paper and where exactly do you think that he rejected Lorentz's
ether concept?
Harald
surrealis...@hotmail.com
> The Canonical Research on history of relativity has been updated.
>
> http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com/2005/08/what-is-history-of-relativity-theory.html
>
> Previous blog-news has been substituted by a resume of paper on history
> of relativity.
>
> done.
>
> Rigor and honesty would be primary objects. Unjustified rejection of
> research is not accepted (and just ignored).
>
> Of course, anyone with contrary views can write a rebutal paper or
> simply a page on the internet!
>
> ***********************************************************************
>
> Next i reply an interesting comment by surrealistic-dr...@hotmail.com
> on Einstein WAS smart thread
>
>
> surrealis...@hotmail.com ha escrito:
>
> > Juan R. wrote:
> > > Which is also supported by Nobel Fundation
> > >
> > > http://nobelprize.org/physics/educational/relativity/history-1.html
> > >
> > > Moreover, they admit that Poincaré was the first one proving absence
> > > of absolute motion, etc.
> >
> > Such cannot be proved.
>
> I think that they refer to a scientific proof not to absolute proof.
To accept or reject absolute motion is no more than to accept or reject
a formal point of view lacking any physical content by itself either
way. You get to freely invent your ontology. It's the entire theory,
not its individual parts, that has the physical content.
>
> > > Regarding the supposed failure of Poincaré
> > > for obtaining full relativity is precisely that has been shown
> > > incorrect in recent research. I and others have proved that Poincaré
> > > obtained SR before Einstein...
> > >
> > > In a recent Physics Today [December 2001 Volume 54, Number 12], the
> > > historian of science Stephen G. Brush said
> > >
> > > "The French mathematician Henri Poincaré provided inspiration for both
> > > Einstein and Picasso. Einstein read Poincaré's Science and Hypothesis
> > > (French edition 1902, German translation 1904) and discussed it with
> > > his friends in Bern. He might also have read Poincaré's 1898 article
> > > on the measurement of time, in which the synchronization of clocks was
> > > discussed--a topic of professional interest to Einstein as a patent
> > > examiner."
I have no doubt that Einstein was partially inspired by Poincare's
writings, but Poincare did not invent SR, no matter how "close" people
say he got to it. You either got it or you didn't get it. Simply
espousing a few relativistic principles is NOT enough!
Poincare did not invent the PoR. Galileo did centuries prior to
Poincare! Einstein did not need Poincare for him to be a total believer
in the PoR. This is quite evident from Einstein's thought experiment he
had when he was 16 years old. He talked about what a light wave would
look like as you ran abreast of it. The point to make of this is:
Einstein did not say in the formulation of this experiment that one had
to first identify the rest frame of the ether and then perform the
experiment in THAT frame. Any inertial frame was fine for this
experiment (SPoR).
Einstein gave a very clear exposition on his motivations for SR in his
essay "Relativity and the Problem of Space" (Ideas and Opinions), in
which he said (368-369):
<BEGIN QUOTE>
During the second half of the nineteenth century, in connection with
the researches of Faraday and Maxwell, it became more and more clear
that the description of electromagnetic processes in terms of field was
vastly superior to a treatment on the basis of the mechanical concepts
of material points. By the introduction of the field concept in
electro-dynamics, Maxwell succeeded in predicting the existence of
electromagnetic waves, the essential identity of which with light waves
could not be doubted, if only because of the equality of their velocity
of propagation. As a result of this, optics was, in principle, absorbed
by electrodynamics. One psychological effect of this immense success
was that the field concept gradually won greater independence from the
mechanistic framework of classical physics.
Nevertheless, it was at first taken for granted that electro-magnetic
fields had to be interpreted as states of the ether, and it was
zealously sought to explain these states as mechanical ones. But as
these efforts always met with frustration, science gradually became
accustomed to the idea of renouncing such a mechanical interpretation.
Nevertheless, the conviction still remained that electromagnetic fields
must be states of the ether, and this was the position at the turn of
the century.
The ether-theory brought with it the question: how does the ether
behave from the mechanical point of view with respect to ponderable
bodies? Does it take part in the motions of the bodies, or do its parts
remain at rest relatively to each other? Many ingenious experiments
were undertaken to decide this question. The following important facts
should be mentioned in this connection: the "aberration" of the fixed
stars in consequence of the annual motion of the earth, and the
"Doppler effect," i.e., the influence of the relative motion of the
fixed stars on the frequency of the light reaching us from them, for
known frequencies of emission. The results of all these facts and
experiments, except for one, the Michelson-Morley experiment, were
explained by H. A. Lorentz on the assumption that the ether does not
take part in the motions of ponderable bodies, and that the parts of
the ether have no relative motions at all with respect to each other.
Thus the ether appeared, as it were, as the embodiment of a space
absolutely at rest. But the investigation of Lorentz accomplished still
more. It explained all the electromagnetic and optical processes within
ponderable bodies known at that time, on the assumption that the
influence of ponderable matter on the electric field-and conversely-is
due solely to the fact that the constituent particles of matter carry
electrical charges, which share the motion of the particles. Concerning
the experiment of Michelson and Morley, H. A. Lorentz showed that the
result obtained at least does not contradict the theory of an ether at
rest.
In spite of all these beautiful successes the state of the theory was
not yet wholly satisfactory, and for the following reasons. Classical
mechanics, of which it could not be doubted that it holds with a close
degree of approximation, teaches the equivalence of all inertial
systems or inertial "spaces" for the formulation of natural laws, i.e.,
the invariance of natural laws with respect to the transition from one
inertial system to another. Electromagnetic and optical experiments
taught the same thing with considerable accuracy. But the foundation
of electromagnetic theory taught that a particular inertial system must
be given preference, namely, that of the luminiferous ether at rest.
This view of the theoretical foundation was much too unsatisfactory.
Was there no modification that, like classical mechanics, would uphold
the equivalence of inertial systems (special principle of relativity)?
<END QUOTE>
In other words, to Einstein, the most important sticking point he had
against the Lorentz theory was precisely that it violated the PoR by
insisting that one inertial frame was special above all the rest!
And in another place he clarified (H. A. Lorentz, Creator and
Personality" p. 75, Ideas and Opinions):
<BEGIN QUOTE>
H. A. Lorentz even discovered the "Lorentz transformation," later
called after him, though without recognizing its group character. To
him Maxwell's equations in empty space held only for a particular
coordinate system distinguished from all other coordinate systems by
its state of rest. This was a truly paradoxical situation because the
theory seemed to restrict the inertial system more strongly than did
classical mechanics. This circumstance, which from the empirical point
of view appeared completely unmotivated, was bound to lead to the
theory of special relativity.
<END QUOTE>
As we know, classical mechanics declared the total equivalence of all
inertial systems.
> >
> > We will never know the extent to which Einstein drew on the work of
> > Poincaré in the development of SR. Einstein was adamant that what held
> > up his effort to rid the ether from the foundation of physics was his
> > trouble with finding a place for absolute time in the new theory. He
> > claimed that he found the solution only when it became clear to him
> > that time cannot be absolutely defined (yes, that's how he stated it --
> > no hype at all). If anyone had access to Poincaré's work it was
> > Poincaré, yet Poincaré did not come up with SR. SR is a theory, not a
> > farrago of discoveries and popular headlines.
>
> Yes history is not one of exact science, but one can 'prove' things at
> a reasonable level. Einstein said that newer read Poincaré and just a
> ten years ago paper by Lorentz.
Where is your reference for this bizarre claim about Poincare and
Lorentz?
> There is evidence that Einstein read
> 1902 Poincaré, including testimony of two Einstein colleagues. There
> rather evidence that Einstein would wrote some technical paper on
> Poincaré clocks synchronizing method, because paper was accesible to
> Einstein and because similar papers were then read by Einstein at the
> Office. There is historical evidence that several Poincaré papers was
> being lectured just then at Einstein place, etc.
>
> Moreover, entire pieces of Poincaré papers appear in Einstein 1905.
> For example, Einstein first postulate is practically a literary copy
> -word by word- of Poincaré /principle of relativity/.
Of course! How many ways can it be stated concisely? It a pretty simple
principle. The principle of relativity, first extracted from the laws
of mechanics, either respects the laws of E&M or it does not. Take your
pick.
> Other evidence
> support thesis, for example Einstein used the same mathematical
> notation that Lorentz used in his crucial 1904 paper (which Einstein
> claimed newer read), etc.
>
> In my opinion, Poincaré already obtained full SR (see also multiple
> references supporting my point).
Most historians disagree with you. Einstein's generation of physicsts
in 1905 disagree with you. Poincare seems to have disagreed wtih you.
> But even if we do not agree here, it
> is clear that Einstein was not pioneering, which was the popular
The distortion is the fault of ignorant physicists and popularizers of
relativity, not Einstein's fault. Read Einstein's essays in Ideas and
Opinions if you want to know what Einstein thought about his relativity
theories. Even today most physicists do NOT read this insightful book.
>
> > >
> > > Curoiusly years after Einstein claimed that newer read Poincaré and
> > > that his theory of relativity was totally new...
Give this reference for the claim that "Einstein claimed that newer
read Poincaré and that his theory of relativity was totally new." In
fact, he claimed just the opposite on both counts!
> > >
> > > How would we name to a guy who read and copy the work of others and
> > > after claim that his work is novel and revolutionary and that NEWER
> > > read works of Poincaré? C. Jon Bjerknes choosed the word
> > > "plagiarism"...
He is wrong.
> > >
> > > If anyone want do some serious criticism on the current view Einstein
> > > copied his works from others can do via providing serious evidence and
> > > data and submiting a serious paper to any journal on history of
> > > science.
> > >
> > > For example, if you claim that Einstein obtained GR before Hilbert,
> > > present us a published paper by einstien before Hilbert one. If you
> > > wanty claim that Einstein was the first claiming constancy of c or that
> > > time was relative, present us a Einstein's paper published before 1902.
> >
> > This is a perfect example of what goes around comes around. Relativists
> > and relativity polularists have done immense harm to relativity by
> > stressing the bizarre aspects of relativity. Einstein was not impressed
> > by those flashy aspects at all. He was a minimalist-theory hunter, not
> > a headline hunter.
>
> I am not sure,
then read his book Ideas and Opinions.
> traditional portrait of Einstein being a 'shy' genious
> appears inconsistent.
He was absorbed in his work, but not shy as an adult. Who cares anyway?
What difference does it make? My uncle, who took a relativity class
from Einstein, described him as a quiet and pensive man, even as he
taught the class, writing tensor equations down on the blackboard.
> His life was not plain. I believe that Einstein
> was very arrogant and loved fame.
History shows you wrong on that. That violates the testmony of most the
people who were close to him. It's nothing less than defamation of
character. But that's just par for the course around this NG. In
particular, Infeld rejected that slur against Einstein repeatedly in
his books.
> However, the true history of
> relativity may be highlighted, and this is independent if Einstein
> popularity was helded by himself (some people call him a good marketing
> guy) or by others with 'obscure' motives (the War, atomic bomb and
> energy, clear rivality between french and german mathematicians, etc).
Some people are great liars. And you are free to believe anything you
want about Einstein. But that doesn't make you right.
>
> > Einstein found no personal reward to be found in claiming priority of
> > the constancy of the speed of light. He certainly wasn't the first to
> > say it, because he claimed it was an existing empirical result known to
> > physics on which he based SR.
>
> I cannot agree here. Precisely, the traditional thesis Einstein
> obtained SR and Poincaré failed is usually sustained in the fact
> Einstein explicitely postulated the constancy of c, which Poincaré
> newer did because worked a different axiomatic theory (with same
> physics predictions).
To Einstein the Light Principle was empirical fact, established by
experimentalists before he even started to refound E&M. He said on this
in his essay "The Problem of Space, Ether, and the Field in Physics"
(p. 283, Ideas and Opinions):
<BEGIN QUOTE>
We start with the special theory of relativity. This theory is still
based directly on an empirical law, that of the constancy of the
velocity of light.
<END QUOTE>
Now, in a formal system of any physical theory on electrodynamics, one
can either treat this principle as a theorem or as a postulate.
Einstein chose to treat it as the latter and see what he could deduce
from it.
> In fact, i found an explicit quote from Poincaré
> claiming that c was a constant. For Poincaré, constancy of c was a
> theorem.
A theorem deduced from what premises? The ether hypothesis? If one
treats Maxwell's equations as a consistent source of predictions for
E&M observations made from an inertial frame then it predicts the
constancy of the speed of light too! The question to Einstein in 1905
was this: What is the simplest theory he could invent that replaced
Lorentz's theory with a theory containing only mass points and fields,
consistent with the PoR?
> I think that Einstein clearly benefit from that. In fact, i
> cite a preprint by Rovelly (that anyone cited on spr) where he claims
> that Einstein may be considered the true father of SR because
> recognized that c was constant. But precisely Poincaré did first!
That is pure bullshit from ignorant relativity popularizers. Einstein
was not first, and he never claimed to be! It was NOT that Einstein
originated the Light Principle, but what he did with it in SR, that
distinghuishes him in the history of physics! Einstein never claimed to
have originated the Light Principle per se. But in using it as a
postulate of SR, Einstein rightly claimed to have invented a
"principle" theory to replace Lorentz's "constructive" theory.
>
> > physics on which he based SR. Einstein was not out to prove relative
> > time or E = mc^2.
>
> Yes, but popular books written by physicists, the rather irrational
> NOVA pages on 'Einstein legacy' based in pure marketing, and all that
> clearly thought us the wrong history!
Then READ the book Ideas and Opinions and forget about the hyping
promoters!
>
> > accomplishment: All he wanted to do was to reduce the number of
> > independent ontological objects in the foundation to physics by
> > eliminating ether (a nonempirical space of absolute rest) as an
> > irreducible object, distinct from mass particle and EM field. Einstein
> > regarded the luminiferous ether in Lorentz's theory as violating his
> > sense of the PoR. What Einstein accomplished ontologically in his two
> > theories of relativity is apparently so esoteric that few physicists
> > even appreciate it
>
> Well, Poincaré reduced phenomena to the PoR and the variational
> principle via new simultaneity (non-Galilean). Poincaré was the first
> rejecting Lorentz absolute aether, and do not forget that in subsequent
> years Einstein ***recovered the aether***.
So what! Poincare did not submit for publication to a physics journal
the THEORY of relativity. That's the point!
> Curiously after of 1919,
> Einstein recovered Poincaré aether for both SR and GR and agreed with
> Lorentz that some aether concept was needed on relativity theory.
> Mainstream physicists just ignore those 'dangerous' Einstein papers for
> maintaining the 'marketing' of the heroe.
They are not dangerous for me, though. There are billions of notions of
ether. In fact, any space-filling "thing" will pass as one! The latter
"ether" Einstein referred to (the metric) was not a mechanical ether,
though. That's the point, and he made it himself in the essay.
The reason you don't get the importance of this fact is because physics
is not taught from the historical perspective. Since you don't know the
evolution of physics, you don't see how formal points of view evolved
dramatically over the last 400 years. For over 200 years, from Newton
till the beginning of the twentieth century, physics was under the
burden to explain all things mechanically. This program was soundly
defeated by four things at the beginning of the twentieth century:
1) the failure of the mechanical program to make a workable mechanical
theory of E&M.
2) the failure of classical physics to account for the ultraviolet
catastophe and the stability of the atom.
3) the success of Einstein to replace Lorentz's theory with SR.
4) the success of Einstein to make a particle model of light and use it
to predict the photo-electric effect.
Freed from the draconian restrictions of the mechanical program,
physicists in the beginning of the twentienth century were at last free
to invent creative theories on pragmatic grounds using formal points of
view of their own choosing.
>
> > Einstein's motive to generalize SR had nothing to do with black holes
> > or anything else that the popular media thinks about. He was motivated
> > to further cleanup the foundation to physics. He thought that the
> > duality between inertial and noninertial motion was troubling, and he
> > thought the dualism between particle, with its total diff equation of
> > motion, and field, with its PDEs, was annoying (the basis of his
> > unified field theory after GR). Einstein was also bothered by Newton's
> > absolute rest space by which acceleration was to make sense in Newton's
> > mechanics. But none of that was interesting to popular audiences.
>
> Yes! somewhat as historians agree that Einstein newer formulated SR by
> clock paradoxes (Einstein was really perplexed by EM difficulties)
> Somewhat as history of Newton discovering gravitation from a falling
> apple is a myth, etc.
>
> http://www.canonicalscience.com/en/researchzone/history.xml (this is
> XML thecnology see html root http://www.canonicalscience.com if you
> cannot access it)
>
> Poincaré was the first formulating a pionnering relativistic gravity,
> and reducing Mercury perihelion to 32'' (now we know that SR effects
> alone cannot explain all of perihelion) in 1905-06.
Einstein claimed to have begun the generalization of SR in flat
spacetime to include gravity but that this approached failed. He later
found the principle of equivalence to be the key insight on how to
proceed.
>
> Regarding particle-field duality. Einstein wanted to obtain the concept
> of particle (and GR equations of motion) from singularities of fields,
> that is not popularly explained is that his method failed and
> Fock-school method is today used fro deriving geodesics from "nabla G".
Which has nothing to do with the priority question of 1905 or even of
1915.
>
> I am not sure now but Einstein rejected BH and i think also existence
> of gravitational waves. It is more, it appears that Einstein newer hold
> the curved spacetime view, but did not research on this still.
What?
oriel36
I really feel sorry for your dilemma,truncate the acceptance of
relativity out of a cloth cut to Maxwell onwards and nobody cares,after
all,relativity was after this guy called Newton.
Go back to Newton and you have the explicit comment from this the rogue
himself that he explicitly rejects an aether never mind associating it
with 'absolute space ' * .
It is such a funny,funny thing to witness everyone attempting to get a
story straight and everyone will fail because Isaac set it up that way.
As for Albert,well he took his chances with associating aether with
absolute space * * and sealed yours and everyone else's fate whether
you like it or not.
* "The fictitious matter which is imagined as filling the whole of
space
is of no use for explaining the phenomena of Nature, since the motions
of the planets and comets are better explained without it, by means of
gravity; and it has never yet been explained how this matter accounts
for gravity. The only thing which matter of this sort could do, would
be to interfere with and slow down the motions of those large
celestial bodies, and weaken the order of Nature; and in the
microscopic pores of bodies, it would put a stop to the vibrations of
their parts which their heat and all their active force consists in.
Further, since matter of this sort is not only completely useless, but
would actually interfere with the operations of Nature, and [314]
weaken them, there is no solid reason why we should believe in any
such matter at all. Consequently, it is to be utterly rejected."
Newton in Optics ( 1704 )
** " "In order to be able to look upon the rotation of the system, at
least
formally, as something real, Newton objectivises space. Since he
classes his absolute space together with real things, for him rotation
relative to an absolute space is also something real. Newton might no
less well have called his absolute space ``Ether''; what is essential
is merely that besides observable objects, another thing, which is not
perceptible, inust be looked upon as real, to enable acceleration or
rotation to be looked upon as something real. "
http://www.mountainman.com.au/aether_0.html
The good news is that you can't even save Newton for who in the hell
would want a mechanical solar system based on terrestial ballistics.
There you go Harry,I am rightly proud that absolutely no person here in
this forum will now run with Albert's story,not even the most rabid
aetherist or Newtonian.
Gerald L. O'Barr
Please try to understand what I will try to say.
I believe that there is an ether, so your prejudices
will probably not allow you to read farther. That is
fine. It would not do you any good if you have such
prejudices to read more. So please do not read more!
******************************
All modern-day theories have math equations that
are used to make predictions. This is fine. Math is
required to make exact predictions, and we must have
exact predictions to make the decisions that have to
be made. But these math equations have to come from
somewhere.
With Newton's law of gravity, his math was just
made up. It was a guess. It might have been a guess
based upon logic, reasonableness, etc., but it was
still a guess, not a math that was developed from any
deeper assumptions.
PV = nRT is also math, but it comes from a deeper
assumption, a physical assumption that reality (of
gases) consists of particles that physically collide,
etc. The theory is not PV = nRT. PV = nRT is the
results of the theory. The theory is a physical
theory. The math is developed from the physical
assumptions of the theory.
It should be noted that just a math theory, like
Newton's law of gravity, can be most useful, even
perfect or exact. But it is only math, and being
only math, it is impossible for it to tell us the
physical causes of the actions being seen, or the
how's or wherefores, etc. But with a physical based
theory, every cause is presented, and can be
physically understood. There are many advantages
with a theory when it has a physical base.
For Special Relativity (SR), the math is not from
any physical assumptions. Within SR, no physical
explanations are possible. Sometimes it is said that
SR is a principle theory. That is understandable, to
call it a principle theory. The principles upon
which SR is based are that light velocity is a
constant c, and the forms of all equations in all
frames are of the same form. These principles are
really just two math assumptions, that light velocity
is a math constant c, and all math forms have the
same math form. None of these principle assumptions
tell us physically why c is a constant, or physically
why all equations are of the same form.
Now after saying all this, why waste so much time?
Because Lorntz's ether theory (LET) results in the
same math as SR. Now you do not often hear any of
this, but it is true. On the kinematics level, these
two theories are the identical theory. But one is
based upon simple math, the other has a physical
base. And I say, that the physical based theory is
superior to the math based theory. You can reference
my seven or more years on this net if you want to
understand more of this.
We are now at the point where I want to be. In
the posts you have so far seen, a statement was made
that SR, not being based on the physical ether, makes
it superior to LET. There is no science to this
decision. There is no science that has ever been
done to date, that shows that SR is correct, and LET
is not correct. All these decisions are based upon
personal feelings. They are only personal choices,
where some feel that SR is simpler, and therefore
better. But none of these acts are based upon any
scientific fact. I therefore beg you, to so state
this fact. You have a right to choose SR over LET,
as a human being. But you do not have a scientific
right to do such things. And you should be sure to
make all this known, in any scientific presentation,
that is discussing these theories!
Let me say all this again, so you can be sure what
is being said: In terms of present-day science, we
actually do not scientifically know whether there
really is an ether or not. It is unscientific to
infer that there is no ether. It is fine to accept,
as a personal decision, that a theory that does not
use an ether is correct. But it is scientifically
wrong to automatically say that a theory that does
use an ether is wrong. To be scientific, you could
reject a theory that uses an ether, if that theory
produced wrong predictions. So far, LET does not
produce any wrong predictions, in the limit where it
applies (the same limit as for SR.)
I hope you will properly understand this problem,
and even more, I hope you will have the scientific
integrity to state such facts in your article.
Thank you for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@yahoo.com>
PD
Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
> What long posts these have become!
>
> Please try to understand what I will try to say.
> I believe that there is an ether, so your prejudices
> will probably not allow you to read farther. That is
> fine. It would not do you any good if you have such
> prejudices to read more. So please do not read more!
>
> ******************************
> All modern-day theories have math equations that
> are used to make predictions. This is fine. Math is
> required to make exact predictions, and we must have
> exact predictions to make the decisions that have to
> be made. But these math equations have to come from
> somewhere.
Your naivete about how these physical laws arose is astounding.
> With Newton's law of gravity, his math was just
> made up. It was a guess. It might have been a guess
> based upon logic, reasonableness, etc., but it was
> still a guess, not a math that was developed from any
> deeper assumptions.
That is poppycock. There were several physical realizations that went
into this law:
1. Newton's 2nd law and the observation that the acceleration of
falling objects was independent of mass => the force is proportional to
the mass being pulled
2. Newton's 3rd law => the force is proportional to the product of the
interacting masses
3. Proximity yields a greater gravitational pull => the force is
proportional to an inverse power of the distance between the bodies
4. The acceleration of the moon is observed to be 1/3600th of that of a
body falling near the surface => the inverse power of the distance is
2.
Once you know what observations went into this law, it's hard to see
how it could have been guessed to be anything else. Still, the genius
was in the synthesis and not the guess.
> PV = nRT is also math, but it comes from a deeper
> assumption, a physical assumption that reality (of
> gases) consists of particles that physically collide,
> etc.
This is also historical crapola. The microscopic (kinetic) theory of
ideal gases followed the ideal gas law by a century.
What went into the ideal gas law were three experimental observations.
1. P is proportional to 1/V. (Boyle's law)
2. V is proportional to T. (Charles's law)
3. V is proportional to n. (Avogadro's law)
>From this, the ideal gas law is an obvious consolidation. There was
*nothing* understood about colliding bodies in the gas at the time of
its formulation.
> The theory is not PV = nRT. PV = nRT is the
> results of the theory. The theory is a physical
> theory. The math is developed from the physical
> assumptions of the theory.
> It should be noted that just a math theory, like
> Newton's law of gravity, can be most useful, even
> perfect or exact. But it is only math, and being
> only math, it is impossible for it to tell us the
> physical causes of the actions being seen, or the
> how's or wherefores, etc. But with a physical based
> theory, every cause is presented, and can be
> physically understood. There are many advantages
> with a theory when it has a physical base.
And you apparently don't know of the *assumptions* that go into the
kinetic theory of gases, nor where those assumptions can be taken to be
valid and not valid. See "triple point" or "van der Waals" in Google.
What is the physical basis for the validity of those assumptions?
>
> For Special Relativity (SR), the math is not from
> any physical assumptions.
This is also complete hokum. The physical assumption is that
1. The Maxwell theory of electromagnetism is a correct law of physics.
2. Like all other physical laws, changing to another inertial frame of
reference has no bearing on that law.
If you're looking for a mechanism for *why* the speed of light is
constant, then look at fact (1), where that information is contained.
> Within SR, no physical
> explanations are possible. Sometimes it is said that
> SR is a principle theory. That is understandable, to
> call it a principle theory. The principles upon
> which SR is based are that light velocity is a
> constant c, and the forms of all equations in all
> frames are of the same form. These principles are
> really just two math assumptions, that light velocity
> is a math constant c, and all math forms have the
> same math form. None of these principle assumptions
> tell us physically why c is a constant, or physically
> why all equations are of the same form.
> Now after saying all this, why waste so much time?
> Because Lorntz's ether theory (LET) results in the
> same math as SR. Now you do not often hear any of
> this, but it is true. On the kinematics level, these
> two theories are the identical theory.
Yes, but SR deviates from LET in one important aspect. It makes
statements about the manifest covariance of the kinematics, but also
about the manifest covariance of the *dynamics* -- that is, the nature
of the physical laws that govern the interactions. All of them. About
this, LET is silent. It is particularly SR's voice in this matter that
makes it more successful than LET.
PD
Dirk Van de moortel
"PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1133302241.2...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
> > What long posts these have become!
> >
> > Please try to understand what I will try to say.
> > I believe that there is an ether, so your prejudices
> > will probably not allow you to read farther. That is
> > fine. It would not do you any good if you have such
> > prejudices to read more. So please do not read more!
> >
> > ******************************
> > All modern-day theories have math equations that
> > are used to make predictions. This is fine. Math is
> > required to make exact predictions, and we must have
> > exact predictions to make the decisions that have to
> > be made. But these math equations have to come from
> > somewhere.
>
> Your naivete about how these physical laws arose is astounding.
Can you blame someone like this?
http://www.theobarrs.com/images/400/glofam/family1.jpg
Dirk Vdm
Bill Hobba
Anyone is openly invited to comment, critize, correct the research done.
Try this for starters. Your link states:
Special relativity was mainly an achievement of Lorentz and Poincaré. Their
views were complemented by Einstein, Planck, Minkowski, and some other
authors.
Untrue. For example see page 168 of Pias - Subtle is the Lord:
'It is evident that as late as 1909 Poicare did not know that the
contraction of rods is a consequence of the two Einstein Postulates.
Poincare therefore did not understand one of the most basic traits of
Special Relativity.'
The rest of your rubbish if full of similar misconceptions and selective
quotes deliberately designed to present your spin rather than a balanced
analysis of the evidence.
.
Bill
Gerald L. O'Barr
PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> . . .
<deletes>
O'Barr wrote:
>> All modern-day theories have math equations that
>> are used to make predictions. This is fine. Math
>> is required to make exact predictions, and we must
>> have exact predictions to make the decisions that
>> have to be made. But these math equations have to
>> come from somewhere.
PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Your naivete about how these physical laws arose is
>astounding.
O'Barr comments: Thanks for the compliment!
O'Barr wrote:
>> With Newton's law of gravity, his math was just
>> made up. It was a guess. It might have been a
>> guess based upon logic, reasonableness, etc., but
>> it was still a guess, not a math that was
>> developed from any deeper assumptions.
PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>That is poppycock. There were several physical
>realizations that went into this law:
>1. Newton's 2nd law and the observation that the
>acceleration of falling objects was independent of
>mass => the force is proportional to the mass being
>pulled
O'Barr comments:
Exactly correct. In pure (free) space, all
objects, no matter what their mass, accelerate the
same. But there were not then, nor is there now, any
physical reasons given as to why this is true. It is
only an observation that it appears to be true. I
stand by my original statement.
PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>2. Newton's 3rd law => the force is proportional to
>the product of the interacting masses
O'Barr comments:
When using the appropriate constant (G), one can
certainly assume that the resulting force might be
proportional to the mass of the object causing the
attraction, and the mass of the object responding to
the attraction. But again and again, there are no
physical reasons or causes given to establish any of
this. I have to stand with what I originally said!
PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>3. Proximity yields a greater gravitational pull =>
>the force is proportional to an inverse power of the
>distance between the bodies
O'Barr comments:
And this might really be expected. But again,
since the origin of the force is not physically
defined, it can only be a guess. I stand with what I
originally said.
PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>4. The acceleration of the moon is observed to be
>1/3600th of that of a body falling near the surface
>=> the inverse power of the distance is 2.
>
>Once you know what observations went into this law,
>it's hard to see how it could have been guessed to
>be anything else. Still, the genius was in the
>synthesis and not the guess.
O'Barr comments:
The question is not how easy or logical all the
guessing might have been. The point being made was
that there were no physical reasons provided by
Newton why all these things were physically true.
The math was not derived from any physical theory
that was producing these force, it was only the
application of math that matched what was observed.
O'Barr wrote:
>> PV = nRT is also math, but it comes from a deeper
>> assumption, a physical assumption that reality (of
>> gases) consists of particles that physically
>> collide, etc.
PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>This is also historical crapola. The microscopic
>(kinetic) theory of ideal gases followed the ideal
>gas law by a century. What went into the ideal gas
>law were three experimental observations.
>1. P is proportional to 1/V. (Boyle's law)
>2. V is proportional to T. (Charles's law)
>3. V is proportional to n. (Avogadro's law)
>From this, the ideal gas law is an obvious
>consolidation. There was *nothing* understood about
>colliding bodies in the gas at the time of its
>formulation.
O'Barr comments:
And so? However true it is that this math was
able to be developed as math, it is now known today
by its physical development! And why is this? It is
known today by its physical development because the
physical is always superior to just a math
presentation. Thank you for confirming all this. In
exactly the same way, SR will eventually be fully and
completely explained by an ether (a physical)
approach, because pure math is not superior to a
physical development.
O'Barr wrote (about the kinetic theory of gases):
>> The theory is not PV = nRT. PV = nRT is the
>> results of the theory. The theory is a physical
>> theory. The math is developed from the physical
>> assumptions of the theory.
>> It should be noted that just a math theory, like
>> Newton's law of gravity, can be most useful, even
>> perfect or exact. But it is only math, and being
>> only math, it is impossible for it to tell us the
>> physical causes of the actions being seen, or the
>> how's or wherefores, etc. But with a physical
>> based
>> theory, every cause is presented, and can be
>> physically understood. There are many advantages
>> with a theory when it has a physical base.
PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>And you apparently don't know of the *assumptions*
>that go into the kinetic theory of gases, nor where
>those assumptions can be taken to be valid and not
>valid. See "triple point" or "van der Waals" in
>Google. What is the physical basis for the validity
>of those assumptions?
O'Barr comments:
If you do not know the differences between just a
math theory from a theory that is based upon a
physical base, as exhibited in Newton's law of
gravity and in the kinetic theory of gases, then
there is no use to go on. It would not do any good
to study all the theories in the world.
O'Barr wrote:
> For Special Relativity (SR), the math is not from
> any physical assumptions.
PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>This is also complete hokum. The physical
>assumption is that
>1. The Maxwell theory of electromagnetism is a
>correct law of physics.
>2. Like all other physical laws, changing to another
>inertial frame of reference has no bearing on that
>law.
>
>If you're looking for a mechanism for *why* the
>speed of light is constant, then look at fact (1),
>where that information is contained.
O'Barr comments:
So if I read you correctly, how many assumptions
are there in SR? Why don't you list all of them, and
then we can compare them with LET.
A math relationship that describes or mimics the
actions of physical objects does not make the theory
a physical theory. You seem confused with what words
mean. The word 'heavy' is not 'heavy,' just because
it is the word for heavy. And the word 'theory' is
not itself 'a theory' just because it is the word for
theories. And neither is a physical theory a
physical theory just because it is used in a test
that include physical objects.
A pure math theory, just a math theory, is not the
same as a physical theory, no matter how the theories
might be used or applied. The origin of a theory
cannot be changed by its use! You are insane!
O'Barr wrote: . . .
>> Within SR, no physical explanations
>> are possible. Sometimes it is said that SR
>> is a principle theory. That is understandable, to
>> call it a principle theory. The principles upon
>> which SR is based are that light velocity is a
>> constant c, and the forms of all equations in all
>> frames are of the same form. These principles are
>> really just two math assumptions, that light
>> velocity is a math constant c, and all math forms
>> have the same math form. None of these principle
>> assumptions tell us physically why c is a
>> constant, or physically why all equations are of
>> the same form.
>> Now after saying all this, why waste so much
>> time? Because Lorntz's ether theory (LET) results
>> in the same math as SR. Now you do not often hear
>> any of this, but it is true. On the kinematics
>> level, these two theories are the identical
>> theory.
PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Yes, but SR deviates from LET in one important
>aspect. It makes statements about the manifest
>covariance of the kinematics, but also about the
>manifest covariance of the *dynamics* -- that is,
>the nature of the physical laws that govern the
>interactions. All of them. About this, LET is
>silent. It is particularly SR's voice in this
>matter that makes it more successful than LET.
O'Barr comments:
And here is where your prejudices show so clearly.
The ***voice*** of SR is whatever you want it to say.
You want it to say many things! You do not seem to
understand that the ***voice*** of LET can be the
exact same as SR. And it is only your own
unwillingness to let the ***voice*** be the same that
is a problem.
LET, the extended LET, is just as able to say what
SR is able to say, if you would only think about it!
LET results in the exact same reality, and the
reality that results from LET is thus able to do the
same things that SR can do. You cannot escape this!
LET works upon more levels that SR. In LET,
there is the absolute. But the absolute results in a
level that is exactly what is seen in SR. Once you
get to the level that is SR, then you can switch into
SR math and never miss a beat. Surely you must know
all this! LET does not change SR, it explains it.
And it explains it perfectly!
Thanks for reading.
ste...@nomail.com
> What long posts these have become!
> Please try to understand what I will try to say.
> I believe that there is an ether, so your prejudices
> will probably not allow you to read farther. That is
> fine. It would not do you any good if you have such
> prejudices to read more. So please do not read more!
> ******************************
> PV = nRT is also math, but it comes from a deeper
> assumption, a physical assumption that reality (of
> gases) consists of particles that physically collide,
> etc. The theory is not PV = nRT. PV = nRT is the
> results of the theory. The theory is a physical
> theory. The math is developed from the physical
> assumptions of the theory.
What is the physical explanation for why particles
collide and bounce off of each other? Where is
the justification for that assumption? Why is
that assumption more "physical" than the assumption
that matter attracts matter?
Stephen
Gerald L. O'Barr
Stephen <step...@nomail.com> wrote:
> Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> . . .
O'Barr wrote:
>> PV = nRT is also math, but it comes from a deeper
>> assumption, a physical assumption that reality (of
>> gases) consists of particles that physically
>> collide, etc. The theory is not PV = nRT.
>> PV = nRT is the
>> results of the theory. The theory is a physical
>> theory. The math is developed from the physical
>> assumptions of the theory. . . .
Stephen wrote:
>What is the physical explanation for why particles
>collide and bounce off of each other? Where is
>the justification for that assumption? Why is
>that assumption more "physical" than the assumption
>that matter attracts matter?
O'Barr comments:
Stephen! It is good to hear from you again. Your
post did not get attached to my post, but you seem to
be trying to address me and my comments. So I will
answer you, even though you attached your post to the
wrong person. Why did you attach your post to PD, the
wrong person? Is it your reader's fault? Your
reader does not allow you to post to the correct
person?
You want to know which is the more physical? That
seems to be a silly question. Who cares what is the
more physical? Is your left hand more physical than
your right hand? Things are either physical or they
are not.
What is the physical explanation for why
particles collide and bounce off of each other?
Well, if we assume that there are repulsive force
fields around particles, and if these force fields
are stronger than the dynamic motions of these
particles towards each other, they appear to bounce
not for any physical reason (not due to any physical
contact), but because their fields end up redirecting
them away from each other. Is this the answer you
wanted?
I am not really sure of the point you are
trying to make. Solid matter is solid matter, and
therefore two solid-matter particles can not occupy
the same space. So when two solid-matter particles
come towards each other, each seeking to occupy the
same space, they must push each other away. This
makes as much common sense as can be made. So I must
not understand your question.
For two particles to attract each other, or affect
each other in any way, when not in physical contact,
is strange, and cannot be physically explained. Did
you really want me to say these things? Le Sage knew
this. Everyone who lived in the days of Newton knew
all this. Are you saying that we no longer know what
they knew?
We know that we live in a physical world. We know
what realistic theories are, and what is solid, real,
and viable. But those who believe in SR, they
worship this SR theory, and since they worship only a
math theory, then we get told that math is all there
is. We are told that math is all that is important.
They have to say this, in order to uphold their
religion. Thus we get fed a constant stream of lies,
of how everything is now different, and odd, and we
must give up all of our original beliefs. And we
must do all this so that they can worship their
religion.
But none of this is true. None of this is
scientific. There is no test that exists that
supports SR over LET! It is all just a personal
choice, not a scientific choice. And for this, they
will all be laughed at, as we come to see through all
these lies.
Thanks for reading.
ste...@nomail.com
No, the problem is on your end. I replied to you,
and the headers show that.
> You want to know which is the more physical? That
> seems to be a silly question. Who cares what is the
> more physical? Is your left hand more physical than
> your right hand? Things are either physical or they
> are not.
No, it is not a silly question.
> What is the physical explanation for why
> particles collide and bounce off of each other?
> Well, if we assume that there are repulsive force
> fields around particles, and if these force fields
> are stronger than the dynamic motions of these
> particles towards each other, they appear to bounce
> not for any physical reason (not due to any physical
> contact), but because their fields end up redirecting
> them away from each other. Is this the answer you
> wanted?
I want to know the physical reason for why things
bounce off of each other.
> I am not really sure of the point you are
> trying to make. Solid matter is solid matter, and
> therefore two solid-matter particles can not occupy
> the same space.
Says who? Do you have experimental verification
of that? Every instance you have ever observed
of physical objects bouncing off of each other
was due to repulsive force fields. You seem
to not have a physical explanation for these
force fields, and instead just rely on the
blatant assumption that solid matter cannot
occupy the same space.
> So when two solid-matter particles
> come towards each other, each seeking to occupy the
> same space, they must push each other away. This
> makes as much common sense as can be made. So I must
> not understand your question.
You have not explained the physical reason why
two solid objects cannot occupy the same space,
nor the physical reason why or how they push
each other. Can you describe in detail how
the particles affect each other when they collide?
> For two particles to attract each other, or affect
> each other in any way, when not in physical contact,
> is strange, and cannot be physically explained.
You cannot even explain how the affect each other
when they are in physical contact. Just claiming
that it is "common sense" is not an explanation.
So, once again, what is the physical explanation
for why gas molecules, or any particles, bounce off of each other?
Stephen
Koobee Wublee
"Bill Hobba" <rub...@junk.com> wrote in message
news:hm5jf.6988$ea6....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Juan R. wrote:
> Anyone is openly invited to comment, critize, correct the research done.
>
> Try this for starters. Your link states:
> Special relativity was mainly an achievement of Lorentz and Poincaré.
> Their views were complemented by Einstein, Planck, Minkowski, and some
> other authors.
>
> Untrue. For example see page 168 of Pias - Subtle is the Lord:
> 'It is evident that as late as 1909 Poicare did not know that the
> contraction of rods is a consequence of the two Einstein Postulates.
> Poincare therefore did not understand one of the most basic traits of
> Special Relativity.'
Abraham Pais was full of BS. Classical Lorentz Transforms have already
hinted at these postulates of Einstein's. That is without these postulates,
there cannot be Lorentz Tranforms. You need to return that book for a full
refund because Abraham Pais did not understand Lorentz Transforms.
Bill Hobba
"Koobee Wublee" <kub...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:mqbjf.73$La5.67@fed1read01...
>
> "Bill Hobba" <rub...@junk.com> wrote in message
> news:hm5jf.6988$ea6....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> Juan R. wrote:
>> Anyone is openly invited to comment, critize, correct the research done.
>>
>> Try this for starters. Your link states:
>> Special relativity was mainly an achievement of Lorentz and Poincaré.
>> Their views were complemented by Einstein, Planck, Minkowski, and some
>> other authors.
>>
>> Untrue. For example see page 168 of Pias - Subtle is the Lord:
>> 'It is evident that as late as 1909 Poicare did not know that the
>> contraction of rods is a consequence of the two Einstein Postulates.
>> Poincare therefore did not understand one of the most basic traits of
>> Special Relativity.'
>
> Abraham Pais was full of BS. Classical Lorentz Transforms have already
> hinted at these postulates of Einstein's. That is without these
> postulates, there cannot be Lorentz Tranforms.
Since LET has exactly the same transformations but not the postulates of SR
you are trivially incorrect. Learn the basics then repost. However I doubt
you will since you have been given that advice for some time now and ignored
it.
Bill
Koobee Wublee
>
>> Abraham Pais was full of BS. Classical Lorentz Transforms have already
>> hinted at these postulates of Einstein's. That is without these
>> postulates, there cannot be Lorentz Tranforms.
>
> Since LET has exactly the same transformations but not the postulates of
> SR you are trivially incorrect. Learn the basics then repost. However I
> doubt you will since you have been given that advice for some time now and
> ignored it.
Calm down, dude. Since the classical Lorentz Transforms created the Twins
Paradox mess, it cannot be possibly correct. LET is in the same dump as SR.
After all, LET and SR share the same mathematics thus the same fate.
Helmut Wabnig
wrote:
There is no real Twin Paradox, there is only a"so-called Twin paradox"
Mathematically it is fully solvable and without remaining
contradictions.
w.
Harry
Harry ha escrito:
> "Juan R." <juanrgo...@canonicalscience.com> wrote
> > Well, Poincaré reduced phenomena to the PoR and the variational
> principle via new simultaneity (non-Galilean). Poincaré was the first
> rejecting Lorentz absolute aether,
>
> In which paper and where exactly do you think that he rejected Lorentz's
> ether concept?
>
> Harald
> Poincaré is difficult to understand at first. One may read many
Poincaré papers for follow his FULL program. Poincaré emphasized that
time was relative, neglected Newtonian absolute motion studied many
interesting stuff as action-reaction principle bodies contraction, etc.
and remarked delay of EM and gravity interactions. From all this
follows that Poincaré aether cannot be absolute with respect to our
measurements.
> I am mainly inspired on arXiv:physics/0408077 v4 6 Jul 2005. See here
references and quotes
> That Poincaré abandoned the absolute aether frame measured by true
Lorentz time was discussed by own Lorentz in 1914 in his "The two
papers by Henri Poincar´e on mathematical physics.
Others authors expressing similar thoughts [*]
Well, I read that paper by Lorentz (I can send you the PDF), and I can
state with confidence: no such thing!
> At variance with Lorentz' perspective, Poincaré had no privileged
reference frame but a completely relativistic point of view, by which
also dynamical effects are no more absolute ones, but relative to the
reference frame: that is, dynamics is relative to the kinematics of the
reference frames.
That happens to be the shared POV of Newton, Lorentz, Poincare and
Einstein! It doesn't say anything about their POV's of the underlying cause
(indeed, this point is often misunderstood, starting with Newton's theory).
> Remember that in a letter to Lorentz dated 17 June 1916, Einstein
wrote:
" I agree with you that the general relativity theory admits
of an ether hypothesis as does the special relativity
theory. But this new ether theory would not violate the
principle of relativity."
And that In 1920 at a lecture in Leiden, Einstein explained why a
revised notion of the ether was required in physics. He repeated
Poincaré's claims of 1900, presented at the Paris physics congress
and used a "relativistic aether".
I don't claim nor agree that Einstein's thinking should be projected on
that of Poincare.
And I likely read most, if not all, of the below [*] articles by other
authors. I have found no well founded support for your claim, even if they
stated it first.
Another flaw that I spotted in your article: the E=mc^2 derivation is
generally considered to be non-circular, as explained in articles that
comment on the one by Ives. I agree with them that he was mistaken on that
point.
BTW, I found your addition on Einstein and Hilbert very interesting, and I
look forward to see criticism on that. For me, it represents real new
information.
Best regards,
Harald
> [*] Jules-Henri Poincaré e la nascita della relatività speciale, and
delivered at the LXXIX Congresso Nazionale Società Italiana di Fisica,
Udine 27 Settembre - 2 Ottobre 1993 on 27 September 1993; then, in a
conference entitled Jules-Henri Poincaré and the Rise of Special
Relativity, delivered at the Congrès International Henri Poincaré,
Nancy 14-18 Mai 1994, on 18 May 1994; in a conference entitled Henri
Poincaré and the Rise of Special Relativity, delivered at the
International Seminar Devoted to the 140th Birthday
of Henri Poincaré, High Energy Physics and Field Theory XVII Seminar,
Protvino
(Moscow) June 27 - July 1, 1994, on 27 June 1994 (see a Russian
interviewsummary
published on Yckoriteav 4 (181) (14 July 1994), p. 2; in a conference
entitled La fisica del '900: Henri Poincaré e la relatività,
delivered at the
Seminari di Storia delle Scienze, Almo Collegio Borromeo, Pavia 1995,
on 30
March 1995. Partial results of this historiographical inquiry were
discussed in:
Henri Poincaré and the rise of special relativity , in Quanta
Relativity
Gravitation: Proceedings of the XVIII (1995) Workshop 'Problems on High
Energy
Physics and Field Theory, Protvino (Mosca),1996, pp. 3-31; a review of
the book
Relatività Speciale by A. A. Tyapkin, in Le Scienze n. 307 (March
1994), p. 92; a
review of the book Scritti di Fisica-Matematica by J.-H. Poincaré,
edited by U.
Sanzo, in Le Scienze n. 312 (August 1994), pp. 88-89; Note
Storico-Critiche sul
Mutamento e il "Realismo": Henri Poincaré, la Relatività Speciale e
le Teorie
Fisiche, in Ancora sul Realismo. Aspetti di una Controversia della
Fisica
Contemporanea, ed. by G. Giuliani, Goliardica Pavese, Pavia 1995, pp.
241-249;
Note sul tempo e sul moto attraverso la storia della fisica e le
critiche filosofiche,
in Atti del XIII Congresso Nazionale di Storia della Fisica, ed. by A.
Rossi, Conti,
Lecce 1995, pp. 9-43.
Juan R.
Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)
Bill Hobba
>
> "Bill Hobba" <rub...@junk.com> wrote in message
> news:x9djf.7404$ea6....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>>> Abraham Pais was full of BS. Classical Lorentz Transforms have already
>>> hinted at these postulates of Einstein's. That is without these
>>> postulates, there cannot be Lorentz Tranforms.
>>
>> Since LET has exactly the same transformations but not the postulates of
>> SR you are trivially incorrect. Learn the basics then repost. However I
>> doubt you will since you have been given that advice for some time now
>> and ignored it.
>
> Calm down, dude.
I am calm.
> Since the classical Lorentz Transforms created the Twins Paradox mess, it
> cannot be possibly correct.
Just another example of your ignorance. The so called twin paradox is not a
paradox in SR or LET - in fact it has been experimentally confirmed.
> LET is in the same dump as SR. After all, LET and SR share the same
> mathematics thus the same fate.
On this you are correct.
Bill
>
>
Harry
<surrealis...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1133288755....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
SNIP
> Poincare did not submit for publication to a physics journal
the THEORY of relativity. That's the point!
According to Poincare, a good theory of relativity for which he had asked
some years earlier was finally provided (with some flaws that he corrected)
by Lorentz in 1904. He didn't realise that at that time Lorentz had not yet
fully understood his own local time, so that such a publication could be
regarded by himself as a usurpation. Instead he simply pointed out that
Lorentz's theory was conform to the PoR and in his later publications he
consistently referred to Lorentz when discussing relativity, without credit
to himself or Einstein.
It's great material for a movie :))
Harald
Harry
"PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message SNIP
> Your naivete about how these physical laws arose is astounding.
SNIP
> Yes, but SR deviates from LET in one important aspect. It makes
> statements about the manifest covariance of the kinematics, but also
> about the manifest covariance of the *dynamics* -- that is, the nature
> of the physical laws that govern the interactions. All of them. About
> this, LET is silent. It is particularly SR's voice in this matter that
> makes it more successful than LET.
Now that's really astounding. ;-)
Harald
surrealis...@hotmail.com
Yes, as I recall Poincare did say that LET is consistent with the
principle of covariance of Maxwell's equations, but that is a very
different thing from the strong meaning to the PoR, which says that,
All inertial frames of reference are completely equivalent for all
physical purposes, and in every physical respect, both in measurement
and in theoretical construction, for the formulation of the laws of
electrodynamics (early 20th century version). The justification a
priori of covariance of the equations of electrodynamics is justified
if one assumes that electrodynamics is a generalization of Newtonian
mechanics, for mechanics had built-in covariance principle revealed in
it, called the Galilean transformation.
Covariance of equations of electrodynamics under Lorentz transformation
is the weakest form of the PoR in electrodynamics. That form would have
never satisfied Einstein though, because Einstein was out to formulate
a minimalist ontological foundation to physics.
You have to try to appreciate the huge paradigm shift that occurred
between LET and SR. First, a theory of electrodynamics at that time was
not "just another subject in physics." It was the foundation to physics
for that day. In LET one had to deal with the Mechanical Program and
what that meant: It meant an ontology of point mass particle, forces
acting at a distance (failing even in LET), and a separate kind of
matter called ether.
Einstein wanted to replace the ontology of the etherists with this:
point mass particle and fields. Relativity was intended to be a field
theory from inception. This EM field was not reducible to ether states.
In fact, the E and B fields were treated as completely irreducible to
anything else, and determined by (the Hertz form of ) the Maxwell
equations.
Perhaps the 1905 version of SR would have been less confusing to people
if Einstein had titled it: A new foundation to electrodynamics. Or, A
minimalist foundation to electrodynamics. Or, A field foundation to
electrodynamics.
So, from Einstein's point of view, Poincare's notion of "relativity"
(embodied in covariance) was not nearly relative enough to bother with.
Strunk and White say in their style manual (The Elements of Style) that
a paragraph should have no unnecessary words even as a machine should
have no unnecessary parts. Einstein added in like manner to that, that
a physical theory should have no unnecessary parts either (parsimony).
To him, ether became an unnecessary part of the foundation to physics
for his day, and he removed it from the ontology of the basis of
physics. The Mechanical Program failed to provide a satisfactory basis
for modern physics.
Gerald L. O'Barr
O'Barr wrote:
>> . . . you attached your post to the
>> wrong person. Why did you attach your post to PD,
>> the wrong person? Is it your reader's fault?
>> Your reader does not allow you to post to the
>> correct person? . . .
Stephen wrote:
>No, the problem is on your end. I replied to you,
>and the headers show that.
O'Barr comments:
I guess we have to blame Google!
O'Barr wrote:
>> You want to know which is the more physical?
>> That seems to be a silly question. Who cares what
>> is the more physical? Is your left hand more
>> physical than your right hand? Things are either
>> physical or they are not.
O'Barr comments:
> No, it is not a silly question.
O'Barr comments:
Be it however you want. So far, I do not see any
reason to insist that it should be one way or the
other.
O'Barr wrote:
>> What is the physical explanation for why
>> particles collide and bounce off of each other?
>> Well, if we assume that there are repulsive force
>> fields around particles, and if these force fields
>> are stronger than the dynamic motions of these
>> particles towards each other, they appear to
>> bounce not for any physical reason (not due to any
>> physical contact), but because their fields end up
>> redirecting them away from each other. Is this
>> the answer you wanted?
Stephen wrote:
>I want to know the physical reason for why things
>bounce off of each other.
O'Barr comments:
Well, you can, if you wish, assume a few things,
like: mass has inertia, and thus momentum with its
motions, and matter has a compression function, such
that it resists a deformation, and when one particle
collides with another, there is a deformation that
takes place, where the kinetic energy of the motion
is absorbed into the deformation, and once this
action reduces the relative motion to zero, restoring
forces causes the bodies to separate, and the
separation ends up approximating the original
relative motions, but in the opposite direction.
Now these general comments are for the standard
physics that we see everyday. On the at level, the
physics is much different. But you have not yet said
why you are asking these questions. Until you
explain the reason you are asking such questions, it
is not reasonable for you to expect to get the
answers you were looking for.
O'Barr wrote:
>> I am not really sure of the point you are
>> trying to make. Solid matter is solid matter, and
>> therefore two solid-matter particles can not
>> occupy the same space.
Stephen wrote:
>Says who? Do you have experimental verification
>of that?
O'Barr comments:
Have you ever played football? You know, this is
like playing hide and go seek. How about a little
more detail on what it is you really want to know!
Stephen wrote:
>Every instance you have ever observed
>of physical objects bouncing off of each other
>was due to repulsive force fields. You seem
>to not have a physical explanation for these
>force fields, and instead just rely on the
>blatant assumption that solid matter cannot
>occupy the same space.
O'Barr comments:
I personally accept some of the things you are
saying! Is this all you wanted to say?
O'Barr wrote:
>> So when two solid-matter particles
>> come towards each other, each seeking to occupy
>> the same space, they must push each other away.
>> This makes as much common sense as can be made.
>> So I must not understand your question.
Stephen wrote:
>You have not explained the physical reason why
>two solid objects cannot occupy the same space,
>nor the physical reason why or how they push
>each other. Can you describe in detail how
>the particles affect each other when they collide?
O'Barr comments:
Depending on what you mean by explain, I cannot
even explain inertia! If you use the dictionary
meaning to words, and use standard high school
descriptions, we can do what you ask. Solid means
something, by definition, which prevents anything
else from occupying its position. And so yes, on one
level, everything above can be explained. But if you
are seeking for things down below these definition
levels, then we are all in trouble. My at theory
enters into some of these areas, and so I love to
talk about such things. But it is silly to go there
unless you are more clear that that is where you are
trying to take us. Please be more direct.
O'Barr wrote:
>> For two particles to attract each other, or
>>affect each other in any way, when not in physical
>>contact, is strange, and cannot be physically
>>explained.
Stephen wrote:
>You cannot even explain how the affect each other
>when they are in physical contact. Just claiming
>that it is "common sense" is not an explanation.
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@yahoo.com> comments:
Please note that there are different levels of
explaining. In basic physics, one can very clearly
assume that things are different between situations
that are local, from situations that are non-local.
Effects can occur - be transmitted - between objects
that are local, but effects are not assumable between
objects that are non-local. These are standard
assumptions. You can call them logical, or sensible,
or anything you want. If you want to argue any of
this, fine. But you should be more direct in how you
are asking your questions.
Stephen wrote:
>So, once again, what is the physical explanation
>for why gas molecules, or any particles, bounce off
>of each other?
O'Barr comments:
Very good question, if we knew on what level you
want an answer. On the at level, there are no space
reaching forces, and no compression action, or
restoring forces. And thus, there are no bounces!
Bounces are reserved for only those conditions where
there are the appearances of space repulsive forces.
Which is exactly as I first stated above, and which
you clearly repeated.
On the at level, all actions are limited to
unidirectional mass excursions, and this results in
spalls that have, very closely, the same mass as the
mass that started the excursion. There are at times,
a result with the same general shape as the original
particle. You can end up with a duplication of both
shape and mass on the at level.
But I am sure you were not asking for this deep of
a level of a response!
Thanks for reading.
Bill Hobba
Bill Hobba ha escrito:
> Juan R. wrote:
> Anyone is openly invited to comment, critize, correct the research done.
>
> Try this for starters. Your link states:
> Special relativity was mainly an achievement of Lorentz and Poincaré.
> Their
> views were complemented by Einstein, Planck, Minkowski, and some other
> authors.
>
> Untrue. For example see page 168 of Pias - Subtle is the Lord:
> 'It is evident that as late as 1909 Poicare did not know that the
> contraction of rods is a consequence of the two Einstein Postulates.
> Poincare therefore did not understand one of the most basic traits of
> Special Relativity.'
Juan R
Precisely Pais is often presented as a model of earlier biography that
is not very accurate in many crucial points. Pais' work is critized in
both my paper and references i cited.
Then you can present specific evidence showing that Poincare did understand
relativity and refuting the evidence given in that reference that he did
not.
> The rest of your rubbish if full of similar misconceptions and selective
> quotes deliberately designed to present your spin rather than a balanced
> analysis of the evidence.
> .
Juan R
No comment except that your 'analisys' is very superfitial!
The only superficiality here is your refusal to give a balanced analysis.
Pias OTH is a genuine scholar who backs his views up with an extensive
bibliography and bases his claims on fact - not sweeping statements
unsupported by anything - statements like - 'Pais work is critized in both
my paper and references i cited.'. A considerable amount of evidence exists
that Poincare did not understand relativity - Pias devotes page 169-173
examining it. Your detailed refutation of that evidence is eagerly awaited.
For example how do you explain what was said about him at the Solvay
conference of 1909: 'Poincare was simply generally unsympathetic (in regard
to relativity theory) and showed little understanding of the situation
despite all his sharp wit'. Or the lecture he gave in 1909 on relativity
where he stated - 'One needs to make still a third hypothesis, much more
difficult to accept. one which is much hinderence to what we are currently
used to. A body in translatory motion suffers a deformation in the
direction which it is displaced'. All this, and other evidence presented by
Pias, leads to one conclusion and one conclusion only - Poincare did not
understand relativity. Failure to address such evidence strongly suggests
who is being superficial and who is not.
Bill
PD
Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
> PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> . . .
>
And once again you miss the point. G has nothing to do with this
conclusion. Newton made a generalization that all forces occur as an
interaction between pairs of things, and the the force that A exerts on
B is identical in magnitude to the force that B exerts on A. This is
his 3rd law, which he presumed applies to *all* forces, but was not
developed with gravity specifically in mind. Thus, if A exerts a
gravitational force on B that is proportional to the mass of B (see
observation 1) then it must also be proportional to the mass of A. The
only way it can be proportional to both masses is if it is proportional
to the product of the masses. You see, there is *no* assumption about
the mathematical form of the force involving G -- it is a conclusion
from already determined laws. It is a pity that you have not
appreciated how this law came to be.
>
>
> PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >3. Proximity yields a greater gravitational pull =>
> >the force is proportional to an inverse power of the
> >distance between the bodies
>
> O'Barr comments:
> And this might really be expected. But again,
> since the origin of the force is not physically
> defined, it can only be a guess. I stand with what I
> originally said.
>
> O'Barr comments:
> The question is not how easy or logical all the
> guessing might have been. The point being made was
> that there were no physical reasons provided by
> Newton why all these things were physically true.
> The math was not derived from any physical theory
> that was producing these force, it was only the
> application of math that matched what was observed.
Ah, so you are unhappy with a physical law that describes *how* nature
works unless it is coupled with an underlying mechanism that describes
why it is that way and no other way. And since you are happy with the
microscopic explanation of the ideal gas law (even though the ideal gas
law was not developed with the microscopic explanation at hand), then
I'm assuming that you think that all physical laws should involve the
banging of little particles against each other.
And yet, when someone asked you about the assumptions that are
specifically required about the microscopic explanation of the gas law,
and in particular about the nature of the collisions of the little
particles, you easily dismissed it as being irrelevant whether they
collided by virtue of actual contact or by virtue of an interstitial
field between them.
Somehow, though, I get the impression that you would not find the field
form of the explanation behind Newtonian gravitation satisfactory. That
is, interaction via fields of the collisions of little particles in a
gas is ok, but the interaction via fields of two bodies gravitationally
attracting is not ok. Why is that, Gerald?
>
> PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >And you apparently don't know of the *assumptions*
> >that go into the kinetic theory of gases, nor where
> >those assumptions can be taken to be valid and not
> >valid. See "triple point" or "van der Waals" in
> >Google. What is the physical basis for the validity
> >of those assumptions?
>
> O'Barr comments:
> If you do not know the differences between just a
> math theory from a theory that is based upon a
> physical base, as exhibited in Newton's law of
> gravity and in the kinetic theory of gases, then
> there is no use to go on. It would not do any good
> to study all the theories in the world.
And perhaps you see my point that fundamentally there is little
difference between the two. You did not ask, for example, what is the
nature of the interaction between the little particles in a gas? How
strong is the interaction and what property of the particles does it
depend on? Why do the particles in a gas only interact when they are
very close to each other? (And that is a crucial assumption in the
kinetic theory of gases.) The answers to these questions involve the
same kind of thinking that Newton put into the law of gravity, and as
it turns out, the answers have similar forms. And yet you do not ask,
but *why* does the interaction of the little particles in the gas have
that form? What is the physical mechanism that makes the math of that
gas-particle interaction have that form? You see, you are fundamentally
no closer to a *physical* explanation of the ideal gas law than you are
to a *physical* explanation of gravity. Your line in the sand, the
place where you say "Good enough for me!", is arbitrary and capricious.
The fundamental problem is that *all* physical theories are like this.
They peel back another layer of "how" but there is *always* a follow-up
question of "why that 'how' and not another 'how'?". This is true for
any physical theory you can cite. It is not special to special
relativity, nor is it different for LET or the kinetic theory of gases.
>
> O'Barr wrote:
> > For Special Relativity (SR), the math is not from
> > any physical assumptions.
>
> PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >This is also complete hokum. The physical
> >assumption is that
> >1. The Maxwell theory of electromagnetism is a
> >correct law of physics.
> >2. Like all other physical laws, changing to another
> >inertial frame of reference has no bearing on that
> >law.
> >
> >If you're looking for a mechanism for *why* the
> >speed of light is constant, then look at fact (1),
> >where that information is contained.
>
> O'Barr comments:
> So if I read you correctly, how many assumptions
> are there in SR? Why don't you list all of them, and
> then we can compare them with LET.
I did. The two above. Einstein stated them a little differently, but
the set I gave is equivalent.
While you're at the business of describing the assumptions of LET, I'd
like to know *why* the ether drag affects lengths and clocks by the
amount given in the Lorentz transforms. What physical properties of the
ether demand that this drag have this form?
> PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Yes, but SR deviates from LET in one important
> >aspect. It makes statements about the manifest
> >covariance of the kinematics, but also about the
> >manifest covariance of the *dynamics* -- that is,
> >the nature of the physical laws that govern the
> >interactions. All of them. About this, LET is
> >silent. It is particularly SR's voice in this
> >matter that makes it more successful than LET.
>
> O'Barr comments:
> And here is where your prejudices show so clearly.
> The ***voice*** of SR is whatever you want it to say.
> You want it to say many things! You do not seem to
> understand that the ***voice*** of LET can be the
> exact same as SR. And it is only your own
> unwillingness to let the ***voice*** be the same that
> is a problem.
> LET, the extended LET, is just as able to say what
> SR is able to say, if you would only think about it!
> LET results in the exact same reality, and the
> reality that results from LET is thus able to do the
> same things that SR can do. You cannot escape this!
Sure I can. Others have tried to formulate a quantum field theory that
invokes Lorentz contraction but does not demand the manifest 4D
covariance of the dynamics that SR demands. Those results have, to
date, failed. If you have succeeded in demonstrating that Lorentz
transforms without manifest 4D covariance yields a consistent quantum
field theory that successfully predicts anything, then by all means
publish it. If you are under the illusion that everything that SR does
pops automatically in LET as well, then you are under the mistaken
impression that the Lorentz transform is the underlying physical
principle of SR. That could not be further from the truth.
PD
Koobee Wublee
"Helmut Wabnig" <EmailAddress@> wrote in message
news:afrqo1d7bsnvaf1m8...@4ax.com...
>
> There is no real Twin Paradox, there is only a"so-called Twin paradox"
> Mathematically it is fully solvable and without remaining
> contradictions.
Show me the math from both twins' point of views where they have to start at
and end at the same point with no relative speed between them. Lorentz
Transforms are very simple that no matter how you fudge it, you cannot
escape this paradox.
Experiment did show a time dilation of the one traveling, but is it due to
the traveling one traveling faster relative to the absolute reference frame?
Only the existence of the Aether, it shows where the traveling speed with
respect to theis absolute reference matters.
This means Lorentz Transforms despite its elegance in symmetry even myself
was fully indulged in a few months ago cannot be correct.
Timo Nieminen
> Show me the math from both twins' point of views where they have to start at
> and end at the same point with no relative speed between them. Lorentz
> Transforms are very simple that no matter how you fudge it, you cannot
> escape this paradox.
The simplest approach is to do all the maths in the rest frame of the
stay-at-home twin. In that frame, stay-at-home-twin's proper time =
coordinate time. Moving-twin's proper time < coordinate time in that
frame. 'Nuff said!
Frame A moving wrt frame B. Frame A clock a claims that frame B clocks
read slower than it. Frame B clock b claims that frame A clocks read
slower than it. Paradox or not? What do a and b compare with? Not each
other. They compare against "instantaneously co-located clocks"; ie
against a succession of different clocks in A or B. Thus symmetry. Grok
that, and no paradox. 'Nuff said!
--
Timo
Koobee Wublee
"Timo Nieminen" <ti...@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.50.0512011453060.28983-100000@localhost...
Anybody can BS his way out of anything without thorough math backing him up.
To be absolute conclusive, one has to show how one twin observes the time
elapsed of the other's and vice versa. In doing so, both observations have
to agree.
Bill Hobba
>
> "Helmut Wabnig" <EmailAddress@> wrote in message
> news:afrqo1d7bsnvaf1m8...@4ax.com...
>>
>> There is no real Twin Paradox, there is only a"so-called Twin paradox"
>> Mathematically it is fully solvable and without remaining
>> contradictions.
>
> Show me the math from both twins' point of views where they have to start
> at and end at the same point with no relative speed between them. Lorentz
> Transforms are very simple that no matter how you fudge it, you cannot
> escape this paradox.
There is no paradox - the accelerating twin is not in an inertial frame so
SR can not directly be applied to it and hence the situation is not
symmetrical. One must use SR from the frame of the stay at home twin (you
can do it from the perspective of the accelerating twin but the analysis is
harder and one needs to develop the physics of accelerated FOR's before
doing it - not terribly difficult but not trivial either). Simple - but for
some reason you do not get it despite being explained to you countless
times.
Bill
Koobee Wublee
> The only superficiality here is your refusal to give a balanced analysis.
> Pias OTH is a genuine scholar who backs his views up with an extensive
> bibliography and bases his claims on fact - not sweeping statements
> unsupported by anything - statements like - 'Pais work is critized in both
> my paper and references i cited.'.
Pais was basing his ridiculous conclusion on guessing how one may fail to
understand or interpret the Lorentz Transforms. His conclusion is very
subjective and without concrete basis. His meticulous perusing of
Poincare's exact phrase is like some one who is out to get Poincare.
> [...]
> 'Poincare was simply generally unsympathetic (in regard to relativity
> theory) and showed little understanding of the situation despite all his
> sharp wit'.
What did Pais mean by unsympatheic? Was Poincare trying to point out that
the Lorentz Transforms do not indicate the presence of the Aether where his
colleagues and especially Lorentz did?
> Or the lecture he gave in 1909 on relativity where he stated - 'One needs
> to make still a third hypothesis, much more difficult to accept. one which
> is much hinderence to what we are currently used to. A body in
> translatory motion suffers a deformation in the direction which it is
> displaced'.
This is in the math of Lorentz Transform. This is the only way to resolve
the null result of MMX. This was FitzGerold's and later on Lorentz's
discovery.
> All this, and other evidence presented by Pias, leads to one conclusion
> and one conclusion only - Poincare did not understand relativity. Failure
> to address such evidence strongly suggests who is being superficial and
> who is not.
These are no evidence that Poincare did not understand relativity. Pais is
full of BS. You ought to burn that book if you cannot return it. Pais in
his grave is still poisoning your mind.
Timo Nieminen
So do the maths! Wot, you haven't done it yourself yet? OK, here's a
start:
For the sudden change in velocity case, there are 3 inertial frames: the
stay-at-home frame (A), the outbound frame (B) and the inbound frame (C).
For simplicity, let us choose Euclidean frames for A,B,C with parallel xyz
axes, and also choose time coordinates such that tA=tB=tC=0 at
(xA,yA,zA)=(xB,yB,zB)=(xC,yC,zC)=(0,0,0), with motion all along the
x-axis. Writing 4-coordinates as (t,x) we have (0,0)A = (0,0)B =(0,0)C.
The moving twin travels at v from (0,0)A to (t,vt)A back to (2t,0)A. Time
elapsed for the stay-at-home twin is 2t, by definition of proper time.
Turn-around in A is at (t,vt)A, which is what in B and C?
Return in A is at (2t,0)A, which is what is B and C?
Elapsed time for the travelling-twin is turn-around_B - 0 + return_time_C
- turn_around_C. Which for v > 0 is less than 2t, as measured in A.
--
Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
E-prints: http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/Nieminen,_Timo_A..html
Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html
Koobee Wublee
>
> There is no paradox - the accelerating twin is not in an inertial frame so
> SR can not directly be applied to it and hence the situation is not
> symmetrical. One must use SR from the frame of the stay at home twin (you
> can do it from the perspective of the accelerating twin but the analysis
> is harder and one needs to develop the physics of accelerated FOR's before
> doing it - not terribly difficult but not trivial either). Simple - but
> for some reason you do not get it despite being explained to you countless
> times.
Your comment is very handwaving. Not only referencing to Lorentz Transforms
without anything to back up what you are saying, you have failed to
understand the significance of the situation where I allow the traveling
twin to coast for a while after achieving the maximum speed before
decelerating for home.
Yeah, handwaving has been done in front of my face countless times. What a
joke! As I said, show me that math from both twins' point of views. The
gamma factor (1 / sqrt(1 - B^2)) is just there sticking right in front of
both twins' faces where only BS can resolve this paradox. Only a thorough
mathematical derivation would resolve it. Give it up. Lorentz Transforms
cannot resolve Twins' Paradox.
Androcles
There is an assumption in this "law", though:
"In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity
2AB/(t'A-tA) = c,
to be a universal constant--the velocity of light in empty space." --
Einstein.
See the word "assume"? Or as you as sightless as Blind Poe?
[quote]
we establish by definition that the "time" required by a turtle to travel
from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A.
[end quote]
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Einstein can prove nothing can go faster than a turtle.
Oops!... Did I say 'a turtle'? Sorry...'light'.
Androcles can prove your brain cannot go faster than a turtle's.
I had hoped that we could fight ignorance with a proactive rather
than a reactive approach, but this is clearly the improper forum for
that. A quick survey of the length of threads initiated by or drifting
to nonsense compared to the length of threads based on sound thinking
reveals the true interest in the proposal.
While it would be a useful project to contribute to the FAQ, the
intent was to educate in the context of discussion, a virtual
"classroom" if you will. There's no point in contributing to a
reference that none of the "students" will read or attempt to learn
from. The intention was to focus on *exactly* what is wrong in
someone's thinking (which varies from person to person), set it
straight, and then make progress from there.
I had high hopes -- really -- that perhaps one misguided soul would
read something sensible and say, "Oh... Really?...Oh. I see I was
confused. OK, I get it now. Now what about...?" My head knew better,
my heart does not.
[sitting in the duck blind, waiting with a shotgun for a Phuckwit Duck to
appear]
BOOM! BOOM! BOOM!
Shoving Phuckwit Duck's words right back where they came from.
Hopefully he'll be demoralised. I'm not.
>>
>> PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >3. Proximity yields a greater gravitational pull =>
>> >the force is proportional to an inverse power of the
>> >distance between the bodies
>>
>> O'Barr comments:
>> And this might really be expected. But again,
>> since the origin of the force is not physically
>> defined, it can only be a guess. I stand with what I
>> originally said.
>>
>> O'Barr comments:
>> The question is not how easy or logical all the
>> guessing might have been. The point being made was
>> that there were no physical reasons provided by
>> Newton why all these things were physically true.
>> The math was not derived from any physical theory
>> that was producing these force, it was only the
>> application of math that matched what was observed.
>
> Ah, so you are unhappy with a physical law that describes *how* nature
> works unless it is coupled with an underlying mechanism that describes
> why it is that way and no other way.
Einstein's assumptions are NOT physical laws, they are stooopid assumptions
and nothing more.
> And since you are happy with the
> microscopic explanation of the ideal gas law (even though the ideal gas
> law was not developed with the microscopic explanation at hand), then
> I'm assuming that you think that all physical laws should involve the
> banging of little particles against each other.
You like to make assumptions too, huh? No wonder you are demoralized.
>
> And yet, when someone asked you about the assumptions that are
> specifically required about the microscopic explanation of the gas law,
> and in particular about the nature of the collisions of the little
> particles, you easily dismissed it as being irrelevant whether they
> collided by virtue of actual contact or by virtue of an interstitial
> field between them.
You love discussing other people assumptions, don't you?
Phuckwit Duck's assumptions as truth, of course.
> Somehow, though, I get the impression that you would not find the field
> form of the explanation behind Newtonian gravitation satisfactory. That
> is, interaction via fields of the collisions of little particles in a
> gas is ok, but the interaction via fields of two bodies gravitationally
> attracting is not ok. Why is that, Gerald?
He isn't reasonable, is he, Phuckwit Duck?
>
>>
>> PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >And you apparently don't know of the *assumptions*
>> >that go into the kinetic theory of gases, nor where
>> >those assumptions can be taken to be valid and not
>> >valid. See "triple point" or "van der Waals" in
>> >Google. What is the physical basis for the validity
>> >of those assumptions?
>>
>> O'Barr comments:
>> If you do not know the differences between just a
>> math theory from a theory that is based upon a
>> physical base, as exhibited in Newton's law of
>> gravity and in the kinetic theory of gases, then
>> there is no use to go on. It would not do any good
>> to study all the theories in the world.
>
> And perhaps you see my point that fundamentally there is little
> difference between the two.
Your point was :
>> I have to admit that I am demoralized at the moment.
>>
>> I had hoped that we could fight ignorance with a proactive rather
>> than a reactive approach, but this is clearly the improper forum for
>> that. A quick survey of the length of threads initiated by or
> drifting
>> to nonsense compared to the length of threads based on sound thinking
>> reveals the true interest in the proposal.
>>
>> While it would be a useful project to contribute to the FAQ, the
>> intent was to educate in the context of discussion, a virtual
>> "classroom" if you will. There's no point in contributing to a
>> reference that none of the "students" will read or attempt to learn
>> from. The intention was to focus on *exactly* what is wrong in
>> someone's thinking (which varies from person to person), set it
>> straight, and then make progress from there.
>>
>> I had high hopes -- really -- that perhaps one misguided soul would
>> read something sensible and say, "Oh... Really?...Oh. I see I was
>> confused. OK, I get it now. Now what about...?" My head knew better,
>> my heart does not.
>>
>> [sitting in the duck blind, waiting with a shotgun for a duck to
>> appear]
>> PD
I fail to see your point. Your head knows nothing.
> You did not ask, for example, what is the
> nature of the interaction between the little particles in a gas?
What is the nature of the interaction between little particles in a gas,
Phuckwit Duck?
How
> strong is the interaction and what property of the particles does it
> depend on?
How strong is the interaction and what property of the particles does it
depend on, Phuckwit Duck?
> Why do the particles in a gas only interact when they are
> very close to each other?
Why do the particles in a gas only interact when they are
very close to each other, Phuckwit Duck?
(And that is a crucial assumption in the
> kinetic theory of gases.) The answers to these questions involve the
> same kind of thinking that Newton put into the law of gravity, and as
> it turns out, the answers have similar forms. And yet you do not ask,
> but *why* does the interaction of the little particles in the gas have
> that form?
*Why* does the interaction of the little particles in the gas have
that form, Phuckwit Duck?
> What is the physical mechanism that makes the math of that
> gas-particle interaction have that form?
What is the physical mechanism that makes the math of that
gas-particle interaction have that form, Phuckwit Duck?
What is the physical mechanism that makes the math of that time of
light going from Earth to Cassini at Saturn equal the time for it
to go from Cassini at Saturn to Earth have that form, Phuckwit Duck?
> You see, you are fundamentally
> no closer to a *physical* explanation of the ideal gas law than you are
> to a *physical* explanation of gravity.
You see (you don't, of course), you are fundamentally no closer to an
explanation of Einstein's stooopid assmptions than you ever were.
> Your line in the sand, the
> place where you say "Good enough for me!", is arbitrary and capricious.
That fits you to a tee, Phuckwit Duck. Your assumptions are arbitrary and
capricious.
>
> The fundamental problem is that *all* physical theories are like this.
The fundamental problem is that *Einstein's* physical theories are the
work of incompetence and stupidity, arbitrary and capricious.
> They peel back another layer of "how" but there is *always* a follow-up
> question of "why that 'how' and not another 'how'?". This is true for
> any physical theory you can cite. It is not special to special
> relativity, nor is it different for LET or the kinetic theory of gases.
>
>>
>> O'Barr wrote:
>> > For Special Relativity (SR), the math is not from
>> > any physical assumptions.
>>
>> PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >This is also complete hokum. The physical
>> >assumption is that
>> >1. The Maxwell theory of electromagnetism is a
>> >correct law of physics.
>> >2. Like all other physical laws, changing to another
>> >inertial frame of reference has no bearing on that
>> >law.
>> >
>> >If you're looking for a mechanism for *why* the
>> >speed of light is constant, then look at fact (1),
>> >where that information is contained.
>>
>> O'Barr comments:
>> So if I read you correctly, how many assumptions
>> are there in SR? Why don't you list all of them, and
>> then we can compare them with LET.
>
> I did. The two above. Einstein stated them a little differently, but
> the set I gave is equivalent.
Einstein made assumptions. he said.
"In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity
2AB/(t'A-tA) = c,
to be a universal constant--the velocity of light in empty space." --
Einstein.
In agreement with experience we calculate without assumption
x = AB
-x = BA,
x + (-x) = 0.
Hence c = 0 in all of Einstein's computations.
He was a phuckwit like you, Phuckwit Duck.
>
> While you're at the business of describing the assumptions of LET, I'd
> like to know *why* the ether drag affects lengths and clocks by the
> amount given in the Lorentz transforms. What physical properties of the
> ether demand that this drag have this form?
LET is as stooopid as the cuckoo transforms, Phuckwit Duck.
The one thing Einstein got right was
"But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k,
when measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v"
The value of c in the cuckoo transforms is zero, Phuckwit Duck.
>
>> PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >Yes, but SR deviates from LET in one important
>> >aspect. It makes statements about the manifest
>> >covariance of the kinematics, but also about the
>> >manifest covariance of the *dynamics* -- that is,
>> >the nature of the physical laws that govern the
>> >interactions. All of them. About this, LET is
>> >silent. It is particularly SR's voice in this
>> >matter that makes it more successful than LET.
>>
>> O'Barr comments:
>> And here is where your prejudices show so clearly.
>> The ***voice*** of SR is whatever you want it to say.
>> You want it to say many things! You do not seem to
>> understand that the ***voice*** of LET can be the
>> exact same as SR. And it is only your own
>> unwillingness to let the ***voice*** be the same that
>> is a problem.
>> LET, the extended LET, is just as able to say what
>> SR is able to say, if you would only think about it!
>> LET results in the exact same reality, and the
>> reality that results from LET is thus able to do the
>> same things that SR can do. You cannot escape this!
>
> Sure I can.
Of course you can. Anyone can run away.
Uncle Al ran away, Beilawski ran away, McCullough ran away,
Baez backstabs and runs away, Roberts backstabs and runs away
you'll ignore your own words.
"Androcles, in your case, I will get over my disenchantment.
But I want this to be a fruitful exchange between the two of us, so
let's agree on some ground rules. We'll go things one little step
at a time. When we get to a point of conflict, we'll identify what the
error is on either side, and the party in error MUST acknowledge
the error and remove the erroneous statement from further discussion."
You are a lying cunt, Phuckwit Duck. A troll, a moron, an idiot,
an imbecile and a COWARD.
Androcles.
Bill Hobba
>
> "Bill Hobba" <rub...@junk.com> wrote in message
> news:cUvjf.8128$ea6....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>> There is no paradox - the accelerating twin is not in an inertial frame
>> so SR can not directly be applied to it and hence the situation is not
>> symmetrical. One must use SR from the frame of the stay at home twin
>> (you can do it from the perspective of the accelerating twin but the
>> analysis is harder and one needs to develop the physics of accelerated
>> FOR's before doing it - not terribly difficult but not trivial either).
>> Simple - but for some reason you do not get it despite being explained to
>> you countless times.
>
> Your comment is very handwaving.
No handwaving - the POR applies to inertial frames only.
Bill
Gerald L. O'Barr
<deletes>
O'Barr wrote: . . .
>> When using the appropriate constant (G), one can
>> certainly assume that the resulting force might be
>> proportional to the mass of the object causing the
>> attraction, and the mass of the object responding
>> to the attraction. But again and again, there are
>> no physical reasons or causes given to establish
>> any of this. I have to stand with what I
>> originally said!
PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>And once again you miss the point.
O'Barr comments:
And what point did I miss? And how many points
did you miss? There was no physical explanations
offered by Newton or anyone else as to how this force
of gravity was physically causes or created or
established.
PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
G has nothing to do with this conclusion.
O'Barr comments:
And what a waste of time to argue over this. G
has nothing to do with what conclusion? It has
everything to do with making the math work.
PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Newton made a generalization that all forces occur
>as an interaction between pairs of things, and the
>the force that A exerts on B is identical in
>magnitude to the force that B exerts on A. This is
>his 3rd law, which he presumed applies to *all*
>forces, but was not developed with gravity
>specifically in mind. Thus, if A exerts a
>gravitational force on B that is proportional to the
>mass of B (see observation 1) then it must also be
>proportional to the mass of A. The only way it can
>be proportional to both masses is if it is
>proportional to the product of the masses. You see,
>there is *no* assumption about the mathematical form
>of the force involving G -- it is a conclusion from
>already determined laws. It is a pity that you have
>not appreciated how this law came to be.
O'Barr comments:
But don't you see, not one step above actually
include any causes. No physical explanations what so
ever. These are all just math relationships, and no
matter how correct they are, how beautiful they are,
how much you might understand them all, they offer no
explanations of the cause of this force, and they
thus cannot tell anyone why it has the nature that it
has. You are a waste of time.
<deletes>
O'Barr wrote:
>> The question is not how easy or logical all the
>> guessing might have been. The point being made
>> was that there were no physical reasons provided
>> by Newton why all these things were physically
>> true. The math was not derived from any physical
>> theory that was producing these force, it was only
>> the application of math that matched what was
>> observed.
PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Ah, so you are unhappy with a physical law that
>describes *how* nature works unless it is coupled
>with an underlying mechanism that describes
>why it is that way and no other way.
O'Barr comments:
I have never met a reasonable person who did not
want to know such things.
Your use of the words 'a physical law' sure seems
funny. Is there a reason why you used these words
when you could have just said 'an explanation?'
PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>And since you are happy with the microscopic
>explanation of the ideal gas law (even though the
>ideal gas law was not developed with the microscopic
>explanation at hand), then I'm assuming that you
>think that all physical laws should involve the
>banging of little particles against each other.
O'Barr comments:
I am very happy with the ideal gas law. Most
reasonable people are. But I am also happy in my
studies of electricity, thermal dynamics, earth
science, in fact I am happy in all my studies, except
when I go into studies where no physical explanations
are made. And do I need to tell you what studies
these are? And you are sick if you do not understand
that these studies that have no physical underlying
explanations are weak theories.
The very fact that you take note of my comments
shows that something is funny! Why would anyone
waste time on such a subject unless they feel
threatened by it! Why are you so threatened that you
have to even note that I have said such simple and
reasonable things?
PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>And yet, when someone asked you about the
>assumptions that are specifically required about the
>microscopic explanation of the gas law, and in
>particular about the nature of the collisions of the
>little particles, you easily dismissed it as being
>irrelevant whether they collided by virtue of actual
>contact or by virtue of an interstitial field
>between them.
O'Barr comments:
Maybe it is because I understand the theory. And
the details are not important in the theory, as long
as kinetic energy is preserved. You are tying to
make problems where none exists! And the real
question is again, why are you doing all this? There
is no cause for you to be this way. Why are you
making all these points that have no scientific
merit? Are you just dumb?
PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Somehow, though, I get the impression that you would
>not find the field form of the explanation behind
>Newtonian gravitation satisfactory. That is,
>interaction via fields of the collisions of little
>particles in a gas is ok, but the interaction via
>fields of two bodies gravitationally
>attracting is not ok. Why is that, Gerald?
O'Barr comments:
I am happy with any interactions of little
particles as long as those particles do not consist
of imaginary properties, negative mass, jumps in
directions and energies etc. I can tell when you are
being stupid, and ignorant, and silly. Just because
you can take something that is silly, and make it
mimic something else, it is still silly. And you
know it, just as I know it. You are a mess!
The at theory does not do one thing that is not
normal, reasonable, and realistic. And yet it is
able to accomplish all the things necessary.
Now I am only going to address one or two more
points. Your long post is just too much for me to
take. You make no effort to be reasonable.
You stated about me:
> . . . you are fundamentally no closer to a
>*physical* explanation of the ideal gas law than you
>are to a *physical* explanation of gravity. Your
>line in the sand, the place where you say "Good
>enough for me!", is arbitrary and capricious.
O'Barr comments:
I am sorry, but it has nothing at all to do with
me. It does not matter what I like or do not like.
The power of a physical theory is impossible to
ignore. You yourself mentioned that long before the
physical kinetic theory of gases existed, they
mathematically knew how temperature and pressure were
related, and how volume and pressure were related,
and how amount of gas and volume and pressure were
related. But any fool knows that when you take the
physical approach, you tie all these points together!
This is scientifically significant! It makes the
physical approach superior. And you are insane not
to mention this. You are no scientist!
The physical approach might have many areas where
more might need to be known, but this has nothing to
do with what it can do as far as it is now known.
And you will not be allowed to make fun of me for
believing and accepting it, for what it can now do.
It makes you one silly person, and as unscientific as
you can be.
And these exact things are also associated with
LET and SR. The physical approach of LET provides to
us a supportive correlations of concepts, a
definition for all the math that is used, the proper
math limits, the proper explanations so that there
are no jumps in times, or back in times, or breaks in
symmetry. And it removes all these apparent
paradoxes, all these imagined paradoxes. It allows
everyone to understand, not just those who lie about
their understanding. The very fact that you and
other SR experts are unwilling to even admit that
there are differences between just a math theory and
a physical theory proves to me that you are
dishonest. You will not be scientific about any of
this. You even lie about PV = nRT to support your
evil theories.
PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>The fundamental problem is that *all* physical
>theories are like this. They peel back another
>layer of "how" but there is *always* a follow-up
>question of "why that 'how' and not another 'how'?".
>This is true for any physical theory you can cite.
>It is not special to special relativity, nor is it
>different for LET or the kinetic theory of gases.
O'Barr comments:
And you are scum! The very act of peeling back
any layer, no matter how many might be below it, is
called progress! How dare you say that we should not
want progress because progress brings additional
questions! That is why progress is so important, to
get to more questions that need to be addressed! As
I said, you are no scientist!
Until I see more honesty in your responses, there
is no reason for me to answer more. You have no
desire except to confuse and to twist the facts.
There really are theories that are only math
theories, such as SR and GR, and there are other
theories that are stronger theories, such as PV = nRT
and LET, that are physical theories, and provide a
more clear understanding of the math and the limits
that must be applied to that math.
Gerald.
PD
Androcles wrote:
>
> Of course you can. Anyone can run away.
> Uncle Al ran away, Beilawski ran away, McCullough ran away,
> Baez backstabs and runs away, Roberts backstabs and runs away
> you'll ignore your own words.
>
> "Androcles, in your case, I will get over my disenchantment.
> But I want this to be a fruitful exchange between the two of us, so
> let's agree on some ground rules. We'll go things one little step
> at a time. When we get to a point of conflict, we'll identify what the
> error is on either side, and the party in error MUST acknowledge
> the error and remove the erroneous statement from further discussion."
>
> You are a lying cunt, Phuckwit Duck. A troll, a moron, an idiot,
> an imbecile and a COWARD.
>
And you'll recall Androcles, that at a certain point in that very
discussion, you maintained that 0.5 s = 0.5 Hz, and refused to
acknowledge the error and refused to remove the erroneous statement
from further discussion. Shake your stinkbait in front of someone who
notices you.
PD
Bill Hobba
>
> "Bill Hobba" <rub...@junk.com> wrote in message
> news:lBrjf.7951$ea6....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
>> The only superficiality here is your refusal to give a balanced analysis.
>> Pias OTH is a genuine scholar who backs his views up with an extensive
>> bibliography and bases his claims on fact - not sweeping statements
>> unsupported by anything - statements like - 'Pais work is critized in
>> both my paper and references i cited.'.
>
> Pais was basing his ridiculous conclusion on guessing how one may fail to
> understand or interpret the Lorentz Transforms.
He was basing his conclusion on statements Poincare made and statements
others heard Poimcare make.
> His conclusion is very subjective and without concrete basis.
No subjectivity required to know that SR does not require a third postulate.
If you believe so then you do not undererstand it.
> His meticulous perusing of Poincare's exact phrase is like some one who is
> out to get Poincare.
No one is out to get Poincare. He was a great scientist and polymath -
probably one of the greatest that ever lived - he simply did not understand
SR - at least up to 1909. Scholars have speculated why that is but no one
really knows. My guess is he simply was not interested enough to get the
full details.
>
>> [...]
>> 'Poincare was simply generally unsympathetic (in regard to relativity
>> theory) and showed little understanding of the situation despite all his
>> sharp wit'.
>
> What did Pais mean by unsympatheic? Was Poincare trying to point out that
> the Lorentz Transforms do not indicate the presence of the Aether where
> his colleagues and especially Lorentz did?
>
>> Or the lecture he gave in 1909 on relativity where he stated - 'One needs
>> to make still a third hypothesis, much more difficult to accept. one
>> which is much hinderence to what we are currently used to. A body in
>> translatory motion suffers a deformation in the direction which it is
>> displaced'.
>
> This is in the math of Lorentz Transform. This is the only way to resolve
> the null result of MMX. This was FitzGerold's and later on Lorentz's
> discovery.
>
>> All this, and other evidence presented by Pias, leads to one conclusion
>> and one conclusion only - Poincare did not understand relativity.
>> Failure to address such evidence strongly suggests who is being
>> superficial and who is not.
>
> These are no evidence that Poincare did not understand relativity. Pais
> is full of BS. You ought to burn that book if you cannot return it. Pais
> in his grave is still poisoning your mind.
The person around here full of BS is you as a perusal of Dirks fumbles will
quickly show:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html
Bill
Androcles
>
> Androcles wrote:
>>
>> Of course you can. Anyone can run away.
>> Uncle Al ran away, Beilawski ran away, McCullough ran away,
>> Baez backstabs and runs away, Roberts backstabs and runs away
>> you'll ignore your own words.
>>
>> "Androcles, in your case, I will get over my disenchantment.
>> But I want this to be a fruitful exchange between the two of us, so
>> let's agree on some ground rules. We'll go things one little step
>> at a time. When we get to a point of conflict, we'll identify what the
>> error is on either side, and the party in error MUST acknowledge
>> the error and remove the erroneous statement from further discussion."
>>
>> You are a lying cunt, Phuckwit Duck. A troll, a moron, an idiot,
>> an imbecile and a COWARD.
>>
>
> And you'll recall Androcles, that at a certain point in that very
> discussion, you maintained that 0.5 s = 0.5 Hz,
I do not recall that, cite the post.
I do recall this:
From: "Androcles" <d...@dummy.net>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
References: <BE054FDB.8DA%pdr...@yahoo.com>
<XNSDd.29680$C8.1...@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>
<1106757592.0...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>
<piSJd.12479$MR3....@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>
<1106771061....@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
<zGTJd.12841$MR3....@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>
<1106779180....@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Androcles and Draper resume Einstein 1905
Lines: 174
Organization: dummy
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2149
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2149
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
Message-ID: <nvYJd.37872$2b6....@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 02:39:15 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.34.68.254
X-Trace: fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk 1106793555 82.34.68.254 (Thu, 27 Jan 2005
02:39:15 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 02:39:15 GMT
"PD" <pdra...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1106779180....@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Androcles wrote:
>> "PD" <pdra...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1106771061....@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> > Androcles wrote:
>> >> "PD" <pdra...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:1106757592.0...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> >> > Can you see the error here?
>> >>
>> >> Yes, Einstein fucked up.
>> >>
>> >> > Hint: According to Einstein, 2.0 Hz = 2.0 Hz.
>> >> Liar.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > Androcles, the reason for pointing this out is that, after
> coming
>> > to
>> >> > the conclusion that there is no point in trying to teach you
>> > someone
>> >> > else's theory, I thought it would be best to see if you can
> defend
>> >> > your
>> >> > own. After all, you're spending money to host a website riddled
>> > with
>> >> > simple, correctable errors.
>> >>
>> >> PD
>> >>
>> >> Why, if you think I've made an error, don't you point it out
> instead
>> > of
>> >> dropping hints?
>> >> Go on, embarrass me, I can take it.
>> >>
>> >> Here it is.
>> >> http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/EDoppler.htm
>> >>
>> >> I'll defend it. Do your worst (or best, whatever)
>> >> Show my error and I'll withdraw the page.
>> >
>> > OK. It's rather simple, really.
>> >
>> > Tau as you calculated it is the period of the light's oscillation.
> The
>> > units of tau, the period, are seconds/cycle.
>> >
>> > You correctly calculated the transformed period to be 0.5 seconds
> per
>> > cycle.
>> > The period of an oscillation is the reciprocal of the frequency,
> which
>> > you can guess if you recall the units of frequency are Hz = cycles
> per
>> > second.
>> > Thus a period (a cycle, a tick, whatever) of 0.5 seconds means that
>> > there will be 2 ticks per second, not one tick per 2 seconds.
>>
>>
>> < sputter, my beer went right up my nose. > LOL!
>>
>> You'll have to do better than that, Draper.
>> 2 ticks per second is 2 Hz.
>> 1 tick every 2 seconds is 0.5 Hz.
>
> That's right. And Hz is not a unit for tau.
Yes'm Massa. Sho' thing, Massa. Dem tau is no unit for Hz, massa.
Now, massa, I's a good student, massa, so if'n y'all will show me
where I sed it woz, massa, I'll be correcting mysel', massa.
> Hz is cycles per second.
Sho' thing, massa, I'z reading y'all load and clear, massa.
Dem Hz is cycles per second, massa.
> The units for tau is seconds per cycle.
Now we gots us a problem dere, massa. Dat Einstein guy, he done say
dem tau was time, massa. Look in de book, massa.
Here be de book, massa.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
He never done say dem tau was no Hz, massa. He done say
dat 'nu' was da Hz, massa. Is y'all having trouble w' da greek, massa?
If'n so, go see ma cuzin Willie, he done taught me all dat greek shit
long time ago, massa. I'z sho' he'd be only too happy teach a smart guy
like yo, massa.
Tau is not, and never can be,
> 0.5 Hz.
Dat's right, massa. Sho' nuff. Einstein done say dem tau is time, massa.
Said more simply, 0.5 seconds per cycle is not, and never will
> be 0.5 Hz.
Dat's right, massa. Sho' nuff. Dem Hz aint never gonna be 1/ Hz.
>
> Take the page down.
Sho' thing, massa. Jest as soon as y'all kin find summat wrong, massa,
coz up till now all you've done is made a complete fucking idiot of
yourself.
>
>> And you teach? LOL!!!
>
> Usually the teachable. You're the first exception to that rule.
I'm not teachable by you mate. I had a real education. Why, I even
know the difference between nu and tau.
Do the noble thing, Draper. Go and earn an honest living stacking
shelves in a grocery store instead of masquerading as an educator.
Give the kids a chance in life.
>>
>>
>> Androcles.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> > tau = 0.5 seconds/cycle ==> f = 1/tau = 2.0 Hz.
>> >
>> > Whereas, on your site, you clearly say:
>> > t = 0.5 seconds
>> > = 1 tick per 2 seconds
>> >
>> > I take it the page will come down tonight, per your promise.
>> >
>> > Don't believe me? Here's a high school physics link, if you'd like:
>> > http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/Class/waves/u10l2b.html
>> >
>> > Shall we move on to the next page on your site? I think I see an
> error
>> > there, too.
>> >
>> > PD
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> The clock emits 1 Hz (in its own frame of reference)
>> >> Let's say it emits a flash of light once a second.
>> >> Because moving clocks (according to Einstein) run slow,
>> >> the observer sees 1 flash of light every 2 seconds, by his own
> clock.
>> >> So, emission rate, 1 Hz.
>> >> Observed rate, 0.5 Hz.
>> >>
>> >> SO FAR, nowhere is Einstein claiming 2.0 Hz.
>> >> Do carry on.
>> >>
>> >> Androcles
>> >
>
and refused to
> acknowledge the error
But I never once claimed 0.5 s = 0.5 Hz, Phuckwit Duck. There was no error
to acknowledge, you've fucked up.
and refused to remove the erroneous statement
> from further discussion. Shake your stinkbait in front of someone who
> notices you.
>
You are a cunt, Phuckwit Duck. Cite where I said what you LIED I said.
Androcles.
PD
Androcles wrote:
>
> But I never once claimed 0.5 s = 0.5 Hz, Phuckwit Duck. There was no error
> to acknowledge, you've fucked up.
>
>
> and refused to remove the erroneous statement
> > from further discussion. Shake your stinkbait in front of someone who
> > notices you.
> >
>
> You are a cunt, Phuckwit Duck. Cite where I said what you LIED I said.
>
Sure. It's recorded for posterity:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/TimeIsFreq2.html
which of course followed an earlier post, echoing what you once said on
your ill-fated website, also recorded for posterity:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/TimeIsFreq.html
I don't lie, Androcles. You do. Now go away.
PD
Harry
Harry ha escrito:
>Ok! i do not mean that Lorentz explicitely said "Poincaré aether is
relative"! I mean as authors of above preprint that Lorentz clearly
emphasized that his absolute time and his local time difference vanish
in Poincaré work who introduced four-dimensional points (t, r) as
fully equivalent.
Many people, and also some of the reviewers that you referred to, simply
overlook the subtle difference between comments about phenomena and comments
about their assumed causes.
Lorentz himself taught SRT, which is about the phenomological equivalence of
all inertial frames.
>It is possible that i was wrong here. I will devote a specific work -in
a near future- to attempt to clarify this question on relationships
between Lorentz, Poincaré, and Einstein-Mach aethers.
That will be interesting; you will find that Poincare attempted to abandon
the ether and suggested that this no doubt would happen (probabaly thus
influencing young Einstein), but that he never claimed to have done that;
instead he kept using it in a manner that was consistent with Lorentz.
> Another flaw that I spotted in your article: the E=mc^2 derivation is
> generally considered to be non-circular, as explained in articles that
> comment on the one by Ives. I agree with them that he was mistaken on that
> point.
>I was not based explicitely on Ives criticism. In fact, if i remember
correctly i cited that Ives already did comments on this not that ves
was perfect.
Also Nobel winners Planck and Starck did similar claims. AS above i
left this stopped by now until a new research -specific in this point-
provides us more data for the debate.
Starck I don't know; Planck's criticism was much less severe than that of
Ives, if I remember well.
Best regards,
Harald
> BTW, I found your addition on Einstein and Hilbert very interesting, and I
> look forward to see criticism on that. For me, it represents real new
> information.
>
> Best regards,
> Harald
Harry
<surrealis...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1133366822.7...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Hmm... Lorentz could not develop 1904 relativity theory by basing himself
only on Maxwell's equations. Certainly your input is incomplete.
-> Quiz:
1. The principle of relativity, according to which the laws of physical
phenomena should be the same, whether for an observer fixed, or for an
observer carried along in a uniform movement of translation; so that we have
not and could not have any means of discerning whether or not we are carried
along in such a motion.
2. The same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames
of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good.
Question: which one is the PoR according to Einstein 1905, and which one is
the PoR according to Poincare 1904?
Looking at what you write below, you remind me of my though when reading
Lorentz's 1904 paper that he should have titled it something like A new
theory of electromagnetic phenomena and moving systems.
Harald
Harry
SRT is a principle theory and therefore doesn't discuss any ether concepts;
apart of that, if one postulates an absolute reference frame one obtains the
LT (that was in fact the way it happened!). Next, if one understands the
LT's symmetry, no twin paradox occurs. I can send you some peer reviewed
papers (PDF) that explain those things with much elaboration.
Harald
Harry
"Bill Hobba" <rub...@junk.com> wrote in message
news:lBrjf.7951$ea6....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> For example how do you explain what was said about him at the Solvay
> conference of 1909: 'Poincare was simply generally unsympathetic (in
regard
> to relativity theory) and showed little understanding of the situation
> despite all his sharp wit'. Or the lecture he gave in 1909 on relativity
> where he stated - 'One needs to make still a third hypothesis, much more
> difficult to accept. one which is much hinderence to what we are currently
> used to. A body in translatory motion suffers a deformation in the
> direction which it is displaced'. All this, and other evidence presented
by
> Pias, leads to one conclusion and one conclusion only - Poincare did not
> understand relativity. Failure to address such evidence strongly suggests
> who is being superficial and who is not.
>
> Bill
Very easy: Poincare agreed more with Lorentz than with Einstein. As you may
know, people often show little understanding for ideas with which they
disagree -- but apparently both Pais and you overlooked this simple fact.
Similarly, do you also claim that Lorentz never understood relativity? Then
how do you explain that he taught SRT, and even wrote an explaining book on
GRT?
Best regards,
Harald
surrealis...@hotmail.com
And you have a very good point -- but it is all based on a simple fault
of Einstien's presentatoin. I see that you never seem to quote form
Einstein's essays in his book Ideas and Opinions. Why is that, I
wonder?
What Einstein gave as the PoR in 1905 is not the complete verison he
operated under. Why he presented an incomplete version of his PoR, I
can only chalk up to simple human error. It's quite clear in his 1905
renoucement of ether and in his subsequent essays what he really meant
for the PoR:
H. A. Lorentz even discovered the "Lorentz transformation,"
later called after him, though without recognizing its group
character. To him Maxwell's equations in empty space held
only for a particular coordinate system distinguished from
all other coordinate systems by its state of rest. This was
a truly paradoxical situation because the theory seemed to
restrict the inertial system more strongly than did classical
mechanics. This circumstance, which from the empirical point
of view appeared completely unmotivated, was bounded to lead
to the theory of special relativity.
---- From: H. A. Lorentz, Creator and Personality
(Ideas and Opinions, p. 75).
And
"RELATIVITY AND THE PROBLEM OF SPACE" (Ideas and Opinions, p.369):
The ether-theory brought with it the question: how does
the ether behave from the mechanical point of view with
respect to ponderable bodies? Does it take part in the
motions of the bodies, or do its parts remain at rest
relatively to each other? Many ingenious experiments were
undertaken to decide this question. The following important
facts should be mentioned in this connection: the "aberration
of the fixed stars in consequence of the annual motion of
the earth, and the Doppler effect," i.e., the influence
of the relative motion of the fixed stars on the frequency
of the light reaching us from them, for known frequencies
of emission. The results of all these facts and experiments,
except for one, the Michelson-Morley experiment, were
explained by H. A. Lorentz on the assumption that the ether
does not take part in the motions of ponderable bodies, and
that the parts of the ether have no relative motions at all
with respect to each other. Thus the ether appeared, as it
were, as the embodiment of a space absolutely at rest.
But the investigation of Lorentz accomplished still more.
It explained all the electromagnetic and optical processes
within ponderable bodies known at that time, on the
assumption that the influence of ponderable matter on the
electric field---and conversely---is due solely
Ok, so the ether is the embodiment of a space of absolute rest. Lorentz
admitted that much. This is why what Poincare and Lorentz did in
electrodynamics was NOT relativity. Relativity is the antithesis of
absolutiveity of physical space. That's the point. Einstein employed no
notion of an absolute rest space to invent SR. And that was the whole
point of Einstein inventing SR in the first place --- to deconstruct
the ether.
And from "The Problem of Space, Ether, and thge Field in Physics"
(Ideas and Opinions, p.281-2):
The mechanical properties of the ether were at
first a mystery. Then came H. A. Lorentz's great
discovery. All the phenomena of electromagnetism
then known could be explained on the basis of two
assumptions: that the ether is firmly fixed in space
---that is to say, unable to move at all, and that electricity
is firmly lodged in the mobile elementary particles.
Today his discovery may be expressed as follows:
physical space and the ether are only different terms
for the same thing; fields are physical states of space.
For if no particular state of motion can be ascribed to
the ether, there does not seem to be any ground for
introducing it as an entity of a special sort alongside
of space. But the physicists were still far removed
from such a way of thinking; space was still, for them,
a rigid, homogeneous something, incapable of
changing or assuming various states. Only the
genius of Riemann, solitary and uncomprehended,
had already won its way by the middle of the last
century to a new conception of space, in which space
was deprived of its rigidity, and the possibility of its
partaking in physical events was recognized. This
intellectual achievement commands our admiration
all the more for having preceded Faraday's and Maxwell's
field theory of electricity. Then came the special theory
of relativity with its recognition of the physical
equivalence of all inertial systems. The inseparability
of time and space emerged in connection with
electrodynamics, or the law of the propagation of light.
Hitherto it had been silently assumed that the
four-dimensional continuum of events could be split up
into time and space in an objective manner---i.e., that
an absolute significance attached to the "now" in the
world of events. With the discovery of the relativity of
simultaneity, space and time were merged in a single
continuum in a way similar to that in which the three
dimensions of space had previously been merged into
a single continuum. Physical space was thus extended
to a four-dimensional space which also included the
dimension of time. The four-dimensional space of the
special theory of relativity is just as rigid and absolute
as Newton's space.
I repeat: "Then came the special theory of relativity with its
recognition of the physical equivalence of all inertial systems."
What is meant by the "physical equivalence of all inertial systems"? It
means that for all theoretical purposes no inertial frame shall be
given any properties or significance over any other inertial frame
WHATSOEVER.
Lastly, Einstein (when he was 16) was operating under the PoR in
electrodynamics when he offered the thought experiment (TE) of running
abreast of a light wave. In this TE he required the use of no special
rest frame to perform the TE.
>
> Question: which one is the PoR according to Einstein 1905, and which one is
> the PoR according to Poincare 1904?
>
> Looking at what you write below, you remind me of my though when reading
> Lorentz's 1904 paper that he should have titled it something like A new
> theory of electromagnetic phenomena and moving systems.
Poincare and Lorentz had a theory that had an absolute inertial space
--- the rest space of the ether. It had an ontology that included
ether. SR did not have any inertial space of absoute significance, nor
did it assign any absolute significance to the laws of electrodynamics
in any special frame or assign any absolute significance to space or
time measurement. In other words, in SR, but NOT in LET, are all
inertial frames treated as physically equivalent for all theoretical
purposes -- both in the form of laws and in the ontology (models). It
was SR, not LET, which was concsisntetn with Newtonian mechncis in that
niether SR nor Newtonian mechanics made nay absolute significance to
velocities, though LET certainly did. And it did so by the very fact
that it defined a space of absolute rest.
Gregory L. Hansen
Did you see the half-assed quasi-Newtonian heuristic I gave Paul Draper?
I began with "sudden" accelerations, considered only the uniform motion
legs, and found the discrepency between elapsed time on Earth as
determined on Earth and as determined on the rocket, 2Lv/c^2. I trust
that's simple and familiar enough to you that it needn't be repeated.
Then introduce a heuristic based on reversing the equivalence principle--
an accelerated frame in special relativity is like gravity in general
relativity. Not because the problem is inherently generally relativistic
(after stating the equivalence principle, where do you think
gravitational effects over small regions are derived from?), but because
everyone seems to be more familiar with gravity in general relativity
than with accelerated frames in special relativity.
That includes "blueshifting" of clocks "above" the accelerated observer.
The amount is proportional to the acceleration a, with no effect at a=0.
It's proportional to the distance L, with no effect at L=0 and twice the
effect at 2L. Linearity is reasonable since the Lorentz transforms
themselves are linear transforms, and a rigorous accounting of an
accelerated frame is done, not surprisingly, by taking the second
transformed time derivative of the transformed position, d^2(x')/dt'^2.
The difference in elapsed times between the rocket clock and Earth clock
will be proportional to the time under acceleration. And use factors of
c to get units of time, since c is everywhere in relativistic mechanics.
It's just a scaling constant, it doesn't contain its own physics.
difference = Lat/c^2
Going from velocity v to -v means a change of 2v, or 2v=at.
difference = 2Lv/c^2
That is exactly the discrepency.
That analysis has its limitations, the most important being the sudden
acceleration. There's technically a 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) operating all
during the acceleration, with a changing v, but "sudden" takes that
influence to zero. You can't ignore the acceleration at the turnaround,
but the product a*t is constant-- accelerate harder and you will do so
for less time. In the "sudden" limit we can just throw in that
blueshifting term and not have to integrate over smooth curves. The
starting and stopping accelerations at Earth can be ignored because, if
they're sudden, L=0 throughout, so no blueshifting effect.
Also note that it's coordinate time, not what the observer would actually
see. But relativity problems always assume the "intelligent" observer,
and are rarely about what is actually seen.
If that's not quite satisfying, you'll have to go beyond Usenet to find
the problem worked rigorously from the Lorentz transforms. But I like
this method because it's simple and, I think, makes the physics much more
obvious.
--
"Will we be suturing the anus?"
Dirk Van de moortel
"Gerald L. O'Barr" <glo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1133418877.9...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
> You are a waste of time.
[snip...]
> Until I see more honesty in your responses, there
> is no reason for me to answer more. You have no
> desire except to confuse and to twist the facts.
This must be one of the most obnoxious replies I have ever
seen on this group. This is worse than Androcles.
Congratulations, Foobar, with your first entry:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Scum.html
Dirk Vdm
Gerald L. O'Barr
> . . . .
<deletes by O'Barr>
O'Barr comments to Dirk:
What fun you are having!
I am so glad that you have a way to respond
when you get beatened. Otherwise, you would
become even more sick.
Too bad you have not ran my q-basic program!
Sorry about your loss!
Gerald.
Harry
<surrealis...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1133447310.3...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Good smoke screen tactic, but no use: I don't have that book but I know that
it was published some years later and what matters here is Poincare's push
for the "strong" PoR, as you put it. I cited them both to fresh up your
memory.
> What Einstein gave as the PoR in 1905 is not the complete verison he
> operated under. Why he presented an incomplete version of his PoR, I
> can only chalk up to simple human error. It's quite clear in his 1905
> renoucement of ether and in his subsequent essays what he really meant
> for the PoR:
>
> H. A. Lorentz even discovered the "Lorentz transformation,"
> later called after him, though without recognizing its group
> character. To him Maxwell's equations in empty space held
> only for a particular coordinate system distinguished from
> all other coordinate systems by its state of rest. This was
> a truly paradoxical situation because the theory seemed to
> restrict the inertial system more strongly than did classical
> mechanics. This circumstance, which from the empirical point
> of view appeared completely unmotivated, was bounded to lead
> to the theory of special relativity.
> ---- From: H. A. Lorentz, Creator and Personality
> (Ideas and Opinions, p. 75).
Historical reconstruction, just as this thread: the only thing that matters
for history is the references. Still, I like to read it for a look into the
older Einstein's mind, it's very interesting.
And what do you think about Newton? Do you also claim that he did not
achieve classical mechanics? According to you, who invented it then?
Interestingly, it is obvious that Poincare was at least partly "guilty" of
young Einstein's rejection of absolute rest, as Poincare pushed readers to
try that approach. But in the end Poincare didn't go there himself!
(It seems that you never cite from Poincare, while I cite from all
scientists of that time. Why is that, do you think?)
Thanks for the citation of "absolute space" according to Einstein.
> I repeat: "Then came the special theory of relativity with its
> recognition of the physical equivalence of all inertial systems."
>
> What is meant by the "physical equivalence of all inertial systems"? It
> means that for all theoretical purposes no inertial frame shall be
> given any properties or significance over any other inertial frame
> WHATSOEVER.
As far as experimental physics was concerned, everyone agreed on that.
> Lastly, Einstein (when he was 16) was operating under the PoR in
> electrodynamics when he offered the thought experiment (TE) of running
> abreast of a light wave. In this TE he required the use of no special
> rest frame to perform the TE.
Perhaps he then simply overlooked that problem?
> > Question: which one is the PoR according to Einstein 1905, and which one
is
> > the PoR according to Poincare 1904?
> >
> > Looking at what you write below, you remind me of my thought when
reading
> > Lorentz's 1904 paper that he should have titled it something like A new
> > theory of electromagnetic phenomena and moving systems.
>
> Poincare and Lorentz had a theory that had an absolute inertial space
> --- the rest space of the ether. It had an ontology that included
> ether.
Sure, and at the same time the theory didn't seem to need it, as Poincare
had requested. In the end, no reference to the ether needed to be made, as
required by the PoR.
> SR did not have any inertial space of absoute significance, nor
> did it assign any absolute significance to the laws of electrodynamics
> in any special frame or assign any absolute significance to space or
> time measurement. In other words, in SR, but NOT in LET, are all
> inertial frames treated as physically equivalent for all theoretical
> purposes -- both in the form of laws and in the ontology (models). It
> was SR, not LET, which was concsisntetn with Newtonian mechncis in that
> niether SR nor Newtonian mechanics made nay absolute significance to
> velocities, though LET certainly did. And it did so by the very fact
> that it defined a space of absolute rest.
That distinction is kooked up: Lorentz and Einstein defended SRT together
and it was considered to be their theory, based on principles and not on any
ether model.
Harald
Androcles
Let a clock emit a frequency of 1 Hz be moving relative to
an observer with velocity 0.866c
Comment:
Such a clock is supposed to tick at a lower rate as a result of it s
velocity.
The velocity chosen is such that gamma = 2.
Therefore the clock ticks 1 second for every 2 seconds of the "stationary"
reference clock.
Einstein's FUMBLE:
t-vx/c^2
t' = _______________
sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
ref (Electrodynamics, section 3)
Calculation:
= t * sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
= 1 * 0.5
= 0.5 seconds
= 1 tick per 2 seconds
Comment:
One second measured by the "moving" clock has duration two seconds
measured by the "stationary" clock. The "moving" clock is (supposedly)
running slow.
You lie, moortel lies.
0.5 seconds (measured by the "moving" clock)
is 0.5 Hz (measured by the "stationary" clock)
You are as stupid as they come, a totally ignorant phuckwit.
I will not go away, I will hound you for the cunt you are.
Androcles.
YBM
> = t * sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> = 1 * 0.5
> = 0.5 seconds
> = 1 tick per 2 seconds
Oops ! You did it again :
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/TimeIsFreq.html
glbrad01
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:jcHjf.61842$eQ1.3...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
Looking at your fumbles site I see that you have never made a mistake in
your life. Not a one. Nor have you ever in your life had the slightest bit
of imagination, vision, or questioned any theory with a different deduction
from the given deduction once a deduction has hit the big time. Einstein
himself once told Heisenberg not to hold him to anything he said before he
knew better. Hawking has publicly admitted to some big mistakes he made in
his earlier times. Von Neumann and Lord Kelvin made singular mistakes so
great they are continually part of our humorous literature of [greats of
various fields'] truly immortal fumbles. Such are big time, titanic,
[professional] fumbles.
This is an open forum for the worst amateurs as well as gifted amateurs.
It is an open forum for the worst professionals as well as gifted
professionals. It is an open forum for trial and error, trial and error,
trial and error. It is a forum for describing some "really weird universes"
and string theory, for just one example, predicts countless possibilities of
"really weird universes." Our own universe, according to some of the most
thoughtful greats, is subject in many ways to also being "really weird." A
quote by physicist Marc Davis at one of the first conferences on string
theory has been echoed countless times since by the best and most thoughtful
professionals, "We know next to nothing about the Universe." Hawking stated
that the least supposed knowledgeable, the most ignorant among humankind,
could have the one right picture of the way things really are. That that is
how really little we really know.
So per all these notables, you've wasted so much -- so very valuable --
space and time over the years. At least we amateurs are in great company in
our fumbles. But you've made the most "immortal fumble" of them all. No
imagination -- only too obvious. No vision -- only too obvious. No trials --
only too obvious. No errors -- only too obvious. No "fumbles," immortal or
otherwise. Thus a waste. Pure waste. You have peers in it but no superior in
it who-so-ever. As I said, always "the most 'immortal fumble' of them all."
"Fight enough dragons you become a dragon: Stare into the Abyss, the Abyss
will stare back into you." Or something very much like that.
GLB
Marlowe (sarcastically): "Oh Norris, you made a mistake, Miss Rutledge
didn't want to see me." Norris (cool return): "I make many mistakes." -- The
Big Sleep.
PD
You have a point, but I'd like to make an important (at least IMO)
counterpoint. This is a forum not only about interesting guesses, trial
and error, spot on and way off. It is a forum about physics. Which
means, in part, it is also about how physics should properly be done.
This does NOT mean that it's about physics dogma or even conventional
wisdom. But what it DOES mean is taking note of proper care in ordering
thoughts, doing background research, and developing both qualitative
and quantitative accounting of experimental facts already known and yet
to be checked. This involves a tad more work than trial and error,
trial and error, trial and error, but it should be done anyway. I think
you'll find much of the criticism levied in this group by those who
practice physics points toward the failure to take the proper care.
And to those amateurs that think that doing the work to take proper
care is a bad idea, for one reason or another, I'll be happy to point
out why that's wrong.
PD
Androcles
ref (Electrodynamics, section 3)
Calculation:
= t * sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
= 1 * 0.5
= 0.5 seconds
= 1 tick per 2 seconds
Comment:
One second measured by the "moving" clock has duration two seconds
measured by the "stationary" clock. The "moving" clock is (supposedly)
running slow.
You lie, moortel lies.
0.5 seconds (measured by the "moving" clock)
is 0.5 Hz (measured by the "stationary" clock)
You are as stupid as they come, a totally ignorant phuckwit.
I will not go away, I will hound you for the lying amateur you are.
Androcles.
ste...@nomail.com
> In <dmjbjl$v49$1...@news.msu.edu>
> O'Barr wrote:
>>> . . . you attached your post to the
>>> wrong person. Why did you attach your post to PD,
>>> the wrong person? Is it your reader's fault?
>>> Your reader does not allow you to post to the
>>> correct person? . . .
> Stephen wrote:
>>No, the problem is on your end. I replied to you,
>>and the headers show that.
> O'Barr comments:
> I guess we have to blame Google!
I do not have to blame anyone. I do not use google.
The thread appears perfectly intact from my perspective.
> O'Barr wrote:
>>> You want to know which is the more physical?
>>> That seems to be a silly question. Who cares what
>>> is the more physical? Is your left hand more
>>> physical than your right hand? Things are either
>>> physical or they are not.
> O'Barr comments:
>> No, it is not a silly question.
> O'Barr comments:
> Be it however you want. So far, I do not see any
> reason to insist that it should be one way or the
> other.
You are the one insisting there is a difference between
a physical explanation and a mathematical explanation,
but when it comes down to it, you cannot seem to actually
explain what that difference is. You think that Boyles
law is physical, because it can be explained if we assume
particles bounce off of each other, but you have not
explained why particles bouncing off of each other is
phsyical.
<snip>
> Stephen wrote:
>>I want to know the physical reason for why things
>>bounce off of each other.
> O'Barr comments:
> Well, you can, if you wish, assume a few things,
> like: mass has inertia, and thus momentum with its
> motions, and matter has a compression function, such
> that it resists a deformation, and when one particle
> collides with another, there is a deformation that
> takes place, where the kinetic energy of the motion
> is absorbed into the deformation, and once this
> action reduces the relative motion to zero, restoring
> forces causes the bodies to separate, and the
> separation ends up approximating the original
> relative motions, but in the opposite direction.
Restoring forces? What causes these restoring forces?
Can you explain those physically?
> Now these general comments are for the standard
> physics that we see everyday. On the at level, the
> physics is much different. But you have not yet said
> why you are asking these questions. Until you
> explain the reason you are asking such questions, it
> is not reasonable for you to expect to get the
> answers you were looking for.
I have told you why I am asking these questions.
<snip>
> Stephen wrote:
>>Every instance you have ever observed
>>of physical objects bouncing off of each other
>>was due to repulsive force fields. You seem
>>to not have a physical explanation for these
>>force fields, and instead just rely on the
>>blatant assumption that solid matter cannot
>>occupy the same space.
> O'Barr comments:
> I personally accept some of the things you are
> saying! Is this all you wanted to say?
I want you to explain the difference between a
mathematical theory and a physical theory. So
far your distinction seems quite arbitrary.
> O'Barr wrote:
>>> So when two solid-matter particles
>>> come towards each other, each seeking to occupy
>>> the same space, they must push each other away.
>>> This makes as much common sense as can be made.
>>> So I must not understand your question.
> Stephen wrote:
>>You have not explained the physical reason why
>>two solid objects cannot occupy the same space,
>>nor the physical reason why or how they push
>>each other. Can you describe in detail how
>>the particles affect each other when they collide?
> O'Barr comments:
> Depending on what you mean by explain, I cannot
> even explain inertia!
Now you have said something that is correct. You
should remember that when you accuse other people
of not explaining their theories
> If you use the dictionary
> meaning to words, and use standard high school
> descriptions, we can do what you ask. Solid means
> something, by definition, which prevents anything
> else from occupying its position. And so yes, on one
> level, everything above can be explained. But if you
> are seeking for things down below these definition
> levels, then we are all in trouble.
You are the one who criticizes other theories for
these "troubles". All theories require assumptions. It seems
rather hypocritical of you to expect other theories to explain
things below their level of definition when you admit
that your theory cannot.
<snip>
> O'Barr wrote:
>>> For two particles to attract each other, or
>>>affect each other in any way, when not in physical
>>>contact, is strange, and cannot be physically
>>>explained.
> Stephen wrote:
>>You cannot even explain how the affect each other
>>when they are in physical contact. Just claiming
>>that it is "common sense" is not an explanation.
> Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@yahoo.com> comments:
> Please note that there are different levels of
> explaining.
I am quite aware of this. You are the one who
seems to have trouble with it, expecting other theories
to explain their assumptions whereas your theory
is free to just assume whatever with no explanation.
> In basic physics, one can very clearly
> assume that things are different between situations
> that are local, from situations that are non-local.
> Effects can occur - be transmitted - between objects
> that are local, but effects are not assumable between
> objects that are non-local. These are standard
> assumptions.
But they are just assumptions.
> You can call them logical, or sensible,
> or anything you want. If you want to argue any of
> this, fine. But you should be more direct in how you
> are asking your questions.
If you are willing to admit that these are just
assumptions, then I have made my point. But the
fact that you are so quick with insults suggests
that you really do not think these are just assumptions.
> Stephen wrote:
>>So, once again, what is the physical explanation
>>for why gas molecules, or any particles, bounce off
>>of each other?
> O'Barr comments:
> Very good question, if we knew on what level you
> want an answer. On the at level, there are no space
> reaching forces, and no compression action, or
> restoring forces. And thus, there are no bounces!
> Bounces are reserved for only those conditions where
> there are the appearances of space repulsive forces.
> Which is exactly as I first stated above, and which
> you clearly repeated.
> On the at level, all actions are limited to
> unidirectional mass excursions, and this results in
> spalls that have, very closely, the same mass as the
> mass that started the excursion. There are at times,
> a result with the same general shape as the original
> particle. You can end up with a duplication of both
> shape and mass on the at level.
> But I am sure you were not asking for this deep of
> a level of a response!
You have not really explained anything. You say there
are no bounces, but then you say there are bounces
when there is the appearance of space repulsive forces.
Your particles amass to form spalls, but you have
not explained any of the forces that affect your
particles. What causes them to amass into spalls?
What causes them to sometimes bounce off of each other?
You must realize that you cannot come up with "physical
explanations" for these, as that would require you to
then physically explain those forces, and so on. The
only advantage of your additional "explanation" is
that you find it psychologically comforting.
Stephen
surrealis...@hotmail.com
O'Barr believes that an explantion is "physical" if and ONLY if it is
couched in terms of mechanics: point masses interacting with each
other. That's all he cares about.
>
> > O'Barr wrote:
> >>> So when two solid-matter particles
> >>> come towards each other, each seeking to occupy
> >>> the same space, they must push each other away.
> >>> This makes as much common sense as can be made.
> >>> So I must not understand your question.
>
> > Stephen wrote:
> >>You have not explained the physical reason why
> >>two solid objects cannot occupy the same space,
> >>nor the physical reason why or how they push
> >>each other. Can you describe in detail how
> >>the particles affect each other when they collide?
>
> > O'Barr comments:
> > Depending on what you mean by explain, I cannot
> > even explain inertia!
>
> Now you have said something that is correct. You
> should remember that when you accuse other people
> of not explaining their theories
He won't remember that.
>
> > If you use the dictionary
> > meaning to words, and use standard high school
> > descriptions, we can do what you ask. Solid means
> > something, by definition, which prevents anything
> > else from occupying its position. And so yes, on one
> > level, everything above can be explained. But if you
> > are seeking for things down below these definition
> > levels, then we are all in trouble.
>
> You are the one who criticizes other theories for
> these "troubles". All theories require assumptions. It seems
> rather hypocritical of you to expect other theories to explain
> things below their level of definition when you admit
> that your theory cannot.
O'Barr can't get this simple fact, either.
>
> <snip>
>
> > O'Barr wrote:
> >>> For two particles to attract each other, or
> >>>affect each other in any way, when not in physical
> >>>contact, is strange, and cannot be physically
> >>>explained.
>
> > Stephen wrote:
> >>You cannot even explain how the affect each other
> >>when they are in physical contact. Just claiming
> >>that it is "common sense" is not an explanation.
>
> > Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@yahoo.com> comments:
> > Please note that there are different levels of
> > explaining.
>
> I am quite aware of this. You are the one who
> seems to have trouble with it, expecting other theories
> to explain their assumptions whereas your theory
> is free to just assume whatever with no explanation.
Yeah, that's O'Barr. No theory can possibly "explain" its own
assumptions. What theories do is to "explain" their conclusions *in
terms* of their assumptions. Theories *are* explanations.
It appears that O'Barr, like so many cranks here, considers himself the
*Great Idea Man* of the "Net" (as he calls it). What he wants is for
some poor lackey (who actually knows some physics and math) to come
along and make a theory out of his hodge-podge of so-called "great
ideas." But all O'Barr has to his name is an outdated
nineteenth-century mechanical imperative for which he has not
accomplished the invention of a single theory having a single testable
prediction in it.
Great ideas in physics are worth nothing until they are made into a
theory that works.
Daniel Weston
You talk just like Patrick Reany.
Dirk Van de moortel
"glbrad01" <glbr...@insightbb.com> wrote in message news:_WUjf.588090$x96.56502@attbi_s72...
>
> "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
> in message news:jcHjf.61842$eQ1.3...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
> >
> > "Gerald L. O'Barr" <glo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:1133418877.9...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >> In <1133398558....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
> >> PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> >> You are a waste of time.
> >
> > [snip...]
> >
> >> Until I see more honesty in your responses, there
> >> is no reason for me to answer more. You have no
> >> desire except to confuse and to twist the facts.
> >
> > This must be one of the most obnoxious replies I have ever
> > seen on this group. This is worse than Androcles.
> >
> > Congratulations, Foobar, with your first entry:
> > http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Scum.html
> >
> > Dirk Vdm
> >
> >
>
> Looking at your fumbles site I see that you have never made a mistake in
> your life.
What a silly thing to say.
Are you an idiot or are you just pretending?
I have made more mistakes in my life than the ones you will
find made by others on that list. The reason I don't list the
mistakes I have made, is because I have learned from them.
When someone corrects me, I acknowledge and learn. As you can
find out for yourself, when you have a *careful* look at the
list, the idiots you find there, don't do that.
> Not a one. Nor have you ever in your life had the slightest bit
> of imagination, vision, or questioned any theory with a different deduction
> from the given deduction once a deduction has hit the big time. Einstein
> himself once told Heisenberg not to hold him to anything he said before he
> knew better. Hawking has publicly admitted to some big mistakes he made in
> his earlier times. Von Neumann and Lord Kelvin made singular mistakes so
> great they are continually part of our humorous literature of [greats of
> various fields'] truly immortal fumbles. Such are big time, titanic,
> [professional] fumbles.
Exercise 1:
What are the two essential (-but overlooked by you-) criteria
a mistake must satisfy to appear on the list?
> This is an open forum for the worst amateurs as well as gifted amateurs.
> It is an open forum for the worst professionals as well as gifted
> professionals. It is an open forum for trial and error, trial and error,
> trial and error. It is a forum for describing some "really weird universes"
> and string theory, for just one example, predicts countless possibilities of
> "really weird universes."
Yes, no argument on that. However, this is also an open forum
for idiots and for those who, like me, are interested in how
these idiots behave when confronted with their condition.
> Our own universe, according to some of the most
> thoughtful greats, is subject in many ways to also being "really weird." A
> quote by physicist Marc Davis at one of the first conferences on string
> theory has been echoed countless times since by the best and most thoughtful
> professionals, "We know next to nothing about the Universe." Hawking stated
> that the least supposed knowledgeable, the most ignorant among humankind,
> could have the one right picture of the way things really are. That that is
> how really little we really know.
>
>
> So per all these notables, you've wasted so much -- so very valuable --
> space and time over the years. At least we amateurs are in great company in
> our fumbles.
No, you are not in great company. Apparently you belong to the
category of fumblers who don't learn from their mistakes. The
only company you're in, is the company of idiots. Idiots making
mistakes are vastly more numerous than the geniuses you have
in mind.
> But you've made the most "immortal fumble" of them all. No
> imagination -- only too obvious. No vision -- only too obvious. No trials --
> only too obvious. No errors -- only too obvious.
Yes, unlike the idiots, I try to learn before I try to teach,
so I spend my time with study.
I continue to study Mathematics and Physics and Village Idiot
Psychology.
> No "fumbles," immortal or
> otherwise. Thus a waste. Pure waste. You have peers in it but no superior in
> it who-so-ever. As I said, always "the most 'immortal fumble' of them all."
>
>
> "Fight enough dragons you become a dragon: Stare into the Abyss, the Abyss
> will stare back into you." Or something very much like that.
>
>
> GLB
>
>
> Marlowe (sarcastically): "Oh Norris, you made a mistake, Miss Rutledge
> didn't want to see me." Norris (cool return): "I make many mistakes." -- The
> Big Sleep.
So do I, but I don't try to impose my mistakes on others.
Exercise 2:
Tell me what you learned from
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/CircuitSpeed.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/BradQuote.html
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"Androcles" <Andr...@MyPlace.yep> wrote in message news:QsXjf.122149$Es4....@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
and Google lies:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/TimeIsFreq2.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/TimeIsFreq.html
actually - the entire world lies - right, John Parker?
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"Daniel Weston" <dani...@webtv.net> wrote in message news:14738-439...@storefull-3132.bay.webtv.net...
> stephen: Please take your Kantian Idealism and dump it in the river.
> You talk just like Patrick Reany.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Weston, take your blank lines and dump them in the river.
You write just like a webtv subscriber.
Dirk Vdm.
Bill Hobba
Bill Hobba ha escrito:
> "Juan R." <juanrgo...@canonicalscience.com> wrote in message
> Precisely Pais is often presented as a model of earlier biography that
> is not very accurate in many crucial points. Pais' work is critized in
> both my paper and references i cited.
>
> Then you can present specific evidence showing that Poincare did
> understand
> relativity and refuting the evidence given in that reference that he did
> not.
Juan R
This post is not about discussion.
From the mouth of babes.
> The only superficiality here is your refusal to give a balanced analysis.
> Pias OTH is a genuine scholar who backs his views up with an extensive
> bibliography and bases his claims on fact - not sweeping statements
> unsupported by anything - statements like - 'Pais work is critized in both
> my paper and references i cited.'. A considerable amount of evidence
> exists
> that Poincare did not understand relativity - Pias devotes page 169-173
> examining it. Your detailed refutation of that evidence is eagerly
> awaited.
> For example how do you explain what was said about him at the Solvay
> conference of 1909: 'Poincare was simply generally unsympathetic (in
> regard
> to relativity theory) and showed little understanding of the situation
> despite all his sharp wit'. Or the lecture he gave in 1909 on relativity
> where he stated - 'One needs to make still a third hypothesis, much more
> difficult to accept. one which is much hinderence to what we are currently
> used to. A body in translatory motion suffers a deformation in the
> direction which it is displaced'. All this, and other evidence presented
> by
> Pias, leads to one conclusion and one conclusion only - Poincare did not
> understand relativity. Failure to address such evidence strongly suggests
> who is being superficial and who is not.
>
> Bill
Juan R
As said Pais study is not perfect, he did several errors in his
evaluation of Poincaré or Hilbert. Anyone who study a minimum of
history know that Pais work is not the last word on the topic. I cited
many modern works pointing to Poincare as the father of relativity. I
do not repeat is already published in literature.
But what you did not do is refute the evidence Poicare did not understand
relativity. Your inability to do this and simply make generalizations like
'Pais study is not perfect' is telling.
Juan R
If the base of your understanding of Poincare remain in partial quoting to
the famous conference of 1909 I only can say
Obviously you did not even bother to read what I wrote - I gave 2 examples -
one from the Solvay conference and one from a lecture he gave. I also
referenced pages from Pias where other evidence is provided. Both your
scholarship and comprehension ability leave much to be desired
Juan R
Please feel free to read my article and publish a "comment on"
I did and posted my comments - your non response is there for all to see.
Bill
Gerald L. O'Barr
<deletes by O'Barr>
Stephen <step...@nomail.com> wrote: . . .
>You are the one insisting there is a difference
>between a physical explanation and a mathematical
>explanation, . . .
O'Barr comments:
Absolutely correct! Every thinking person knows
that there is a difference between having just a math
theory, from a theory based upon physical
assumptions!
Stephen <step...@nomail.com> wrote:
>but when it comes down to it, you cannot seem to
>actually explain what that difference is.
O'Barr comments:
That is totally untrue. All you were doing was
showing that in all theories, assumptions eventually
have to be made. There is nothing wrong with this,
unless we pretend that we have the TOE. You are
being difficult! The power or weakness of any
theory is not that it has to have assumptions. What
makes one theory superior to another is the level
upon which those assumptions have to be made. The
theories with the deepest based assumptions win.
Your effort to show that the kinetic theory of gases
is eventually based upon assumptions is like the acts
of a crazy person. Who cares if you have found
assumptions! The question that must eventually be
asked, is not that there are assumptions, but the
level and reasonableness of these assumptions. As
anyone can see, you are a waste of time.
Stephen <step...@nomail.com> wrote:
>You think that Boyles law is physical, because it
>can be explained if we assume particles bounce off
>of each other, but you have not explained why
>particles bouncing off of each other is phsyical.
O'Barr comments:
Everyone knows that particles, particles that
bounce off of each other, or particles that move, or
particles that roll, that consist of simple inertia
mass, and conserve kinetic energy, etc, are usable in
a physical theory. Why are you trying to pervert the
simple meaning of normal words? Are you having
trouble with your English?
<snip>
Stephen wrote:
>>>I want to know the physical reason for why things
>>>bounce off of each other.
O'Barr wrote:
>> Well, you can, if you wish, assume a few things,
>> like: mass has inertia, and thus momentum with
>>its motions, and matter has a compression function,
>>such that it resists a deformation, and when one
>>particle collides with another, there is a
>>deformation that takes place, where the kinetic
>>energy of the motion is absorbed into the
>>deformation, and once this action reduces the
>>relative motion to zero, restoring forces causes
>>the bodies to separate, and the separation ends up
>>approximating the original relative motions, but in
>>the opposite direction.
Stephen <step...@nomail.com> wrote:
>Restoring forces? What causes these restoring
>forces? Can you explain those physically?
O'Barr comments:
Well, certainly! The at theory has repulsive
forces as well as attractive forces, all based upon
the at field (the ether field) in which the
dispersion gradients, and the responses to these
gradients, can include different directions. But I
do not think that is your question. You are not too
clear on what your exact problem might be. In terms
of everyday physics, the physics you are familiar
with, these restoring forces are just assumed to
exist.
O'Barr wrote:
>> Now these general comments are for the standard
>> physics that we see everyday. On the at level,
>> the physics is much different. But you have not
>> yet said why you are asking these questions.
>> Until you explain the reason you are asking such
>> questions, it is not reasonable for you to expect
>> to get the answers you were looking for.
Stephen <step...@nomail.com> wrote:
> I have told you why I am asking these questions.
O'Barr comments:
Well, I guess I must have snipped it off
somewhere, because I have not yet seen whether you
have just a terminology problem, or if you have a
problem with what is done in normal physics, or if
you are asking way out things like in my at theory.
So what is it that is bothering you?
<snip>
Stephen wrote:
>I want you to explain the difference between a
>mathematical theory and a physical theory. So
>far your distinction seems quite arbitrary.
O'Barr comments:
I do not know of anyone who cannot do this, so why
are you asking me? I have given you several answers,
so why ask again? I have even given you two
examples, Newton's law of gravity, being just a math
theory, and PV = nRT, being a physical theory. So it
is not like I haven't responded to you. Why don't
you tell me what your real problem is?
<delete>
O'Barr wrote:
>> Depending on what you mean by explain, I cannot
>> even explain inertia!
Stephen <step...@nomail.com> wrote:
>Now you have said something that is correct. You
>should remember that when you accuse other people
>of not explaining their theories
O'Barr comments:
You never said that you were dissatisfied with
such things. I have never said that I knew the cause
of inertia. Where did you get such ideas? And who
didn't explain their theories? We do have a duty, as
scientists, to be able to compare explanations, and
those who have none, or their explanations are weak,
must give in to those who have stronger more
understandable and more reasonable explanations. Is
there something here you are having problems with?
O'Barr wrote:
>> If you use the dictionary
>> meaning to words, and use standard high school
>> descriptions, we can do what you ask. Solid means
>> something, by definition, which prevents anything
>> else from occupying its position. And so yes, on
>> one level, everything above can be explained. But
>> if you are seeking for things down below these
>> definition levels, then we are all in trouble.
Stephen <step...@nomail.com> wrote:
>You are the one who criticizes other theories for
>these "troubles". All theories require assumptions.
>It seems rather hypocritical of you to expect other
>theories to explain things below their level of
>definition when you admit that your theory cannot.
O'Barr comments:
Let me say it again, the problem is not that any
theory ends up with assumptions. But as scientists,
we all have a duty to recognize the level to which
these assumptions have to be made, and the base upon
which the assumptions rest.
SR is based upon simple math assumptions,
assumptions that have no basis in logic. They are
used only because they work. To just assume that c
is a math constant has no logic at all. And the
assumption that all reference frames, even when they
have motions between them, must be of the same form,
has no logic. The entire base of SR is thus only
math assumptions.
But in LET, one does not have to make such
illogical assumptions. One can assume that light has
one fixed velocity, and the real velocity will be
different in all frames that move relative to it.
This is logical and believable and reasonable and is
seen in every other relationship that is known. And
in LET, the form of the expressions to be used in all
frames are dependent upon their velocities. So
again, all this is reasonable and standard and
expected and logical and understandable. Now because
of what occurs, the measured speed of light in the
other frames end up being a measured constant, and in
the expressions used in other frames, the frame
velocity drops out of all these measurement
functions. So we end up with the exact same math as
in SR, but now we have physical reasons why this math
is the way it is. We know what is occurring to cause
all this to happen. It is not just an accident, or
just a guess.
With LET, the base remains fixed and solid in
every way. Therefore, in LET, it ends up with all of
its assumptions being deeper assumptions than those
in SR, with natural limits, and definitions, which
makes LET vastly superior. We have often seen this
physical approach being superior in other areas, and
in this area, it is likewise found to be superior.
<snip>
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Please note that there are different levels of
> explaining.
Stephen <step...@nomail.com> wrote:
>I am quite aware of this. You are the one who
>seems to have trouble with it, expecting other
>theories to explain their assumptions whereas your
>theory is free to just assume whatever with no
>explanation.
O'Barr comments:
Well, here we go again! As scientists, we are
aware that all theories require assumptions. But we
must and we will compare the level of these
assumptions. Not all assumptions are equal! Some
assumptions are deeper and more reasonable, more
realistic, more viable, more logical, more
understandable than others. We know that when a
theory has a physical base, and from this physical
base, their theory is able to be developed, that
these have often been our strongest theories.
We also know that when a theory is just a math
theory, that this theory is weak, with no physical
limits to it, with no restrictions, or guides or
definitions. We are left to judge for ourselves what
the boundaries might be. And for all these reasons,
we do not like just a math theory, but all respected
men of science look for physical explanations for the
equations they are using, to physically explain these
equations.
O'Barr wrote:
>> In basic physics, one can very clearly
>> assume that things are different between
>> situations that are local, from situations that
>> are non-local. Effects can occur - be transmitted
>> - between objects that are local, but effects are
>> not assumable between objects that are non-local.
>> These are standard assumptions.
Stephen <step...@nomail.com> wrote:
> But they are just assumptions.
O'Barr comments:
But this is getting old. Must I repeat this a
million times? They might all be assumptions! But
not all assumptions are equal! Some assumptions are
on a deeper level than other assumptions. The deeper
level assumptions win, every time!!!! Some
assumptions, as in the above paragraph, are standard
assumptions! This means something! There are many
assumptions in physics that are important
assumptions, like experiments repeat, that things
follow fixed rules and laws. Such assumptions are
not to compare with other assumptions that might
require negative mass, or imaginary mass, or
constantly variable mass with no reason. Some
assumptions are silly and impossible, and are used
only because they give something useful. So we all
know that some assumptions are better than other
assumptions. And when you live in a cause and effect
reality, realistic assumptions have always been
favored for very good reasons. Stop being so
prejudiced. It will not look good if you cannot come
up to speed on this!
<delete>
Stephen <step...@nomail.com> wrote:
> . . . You say there are no bounces, but then you
>say there are bounces when there is the appearance
>of space repulsive forces. Your particles amass to
>form spalls, but you have not explained any of the
>forces that affect your particles. What causes them
>to amass into spalls? What causes them to sometimes
>bounce off of each other? You must realize that you
>cannot come up with "physical explanations" for
>these, as that would require you to then physically
>explain those forces, and so on. The only advantage
>of your additional "explanation" is that you find it
>psychologically comforting.
O'Barr comments:
Why should I answer this? Of course I find my
theory to be 'comforting,' what ever that might mean!
But no matter how much I might like my theory, my
computer has no feelings at all. And for you not to
know what my theory is all about is mind-boggling!
It is a very simple theory, and a theory that can be
supported by simple computer programs.
There are no bounces in my at theory down on the
lowest level. Only until you are able to make force
fields, and particles that can respond to these force
fields, do you get the forces that are required for
either repulsive or attractive actions. And with
these forces, of course you can then get what might
be able to be called a bounce. Now I really
shouldn't have to say anything about my theory. It
is the simplest possible theory. Any person who
looks at it should know what is being done, and how
it happens. You should not have made such silly
comments about my theory.
But thanks for reading anyway.
Bill Hobba
"Harry" <harald.v...@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:438ed426$1...@epflnews.epfl.ch...
>
> "Bill Hobba" <rub...@junk.com> wrote in message
> news:lBrjf.7951$ea6....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> SNIP
>
>> For example how do you explain what was said about him at the Solvay
>> conference of 1909: 'Poincare was simply generally unsympathetic (in
> regard
>> to relativity theory) and showed little understanding of the situation
>> despite all his sharp wit'. Or the lecture he gave in 1909 on relativity
>> where he stated - 'One needs to make still a third hypothesis, much more
>> difficult to accept. one which is much hinderence to what we are
>> currently
>> used to. A body in translatory motion suffers a deformation in the
>> direction which it is displaced'. All this, and other evidence presented
> by
>> Pias, leads to one conclusion and one conclusion only - Poincare did not
>> understand relativity. Failure to address such evidence strongly
>> suggests
>> who is being superficial and who is not.
>>
>> Bill
>
> Very easy: Poincare agreed more with Lorentz than with Einstein. As you
> may
> know, people often show little understanding for ideas with which they
> disagree -- but apparently both Pais and you overlooked this simple fact.
That is not the issue under discussion - it is if Einstein invented
relativity. The evidence is he did because of the two he supposedly stole
the ideas of for Poincare the evidence is he did not even understand
relativity - not that he agreed with LET (which, from what he said, he
probably did). In the case of Lorentz he freely admitted Einstein's
approach was better and gave him full credit for it. It is a matter of some
concern to scholars that Poincare did not understand it - no one has really
been able to give a good explanation of why that was. Scholars would rather
not have to face the issue because it is inconceivable that a person of
Poincare's intellect would not have understood it if he read Einstein's
papers. But the evidence is that up to 1909 he did not; which is why
genuine scholars are so concerned about it. My guess for what it is worth
is that due to the controversy surrounding it in the early years he did not
devote the time necessary to come to grips with it. But that is just a
guess.
> Similarly, do you also claim that Lorentz never understood relativity?
He most certianly did.
> Then how do you explain that he taught SRT, and even wrote an explaining
> book on
> GRT?
>
Easy - he understood it, recognised it was better than LET, and gave Eintein
full credit for it.
Bill
>
> Best regards,
> Harald
>
>
shuba
GLB wrote:
> Looking at your fumbles site I see that you have never made a mistake in
> your life. Not a one.
I see just the opposite. O'Blowharrd should have been added
long, long ago. But it's not my site, and whatever Dirk wants to
put there is his business. A lot of people have expressed
interest and even delight after reading his site, so perhaps
you're misguided in labeling it as a waste of time. Now, of
course, it may well be a waste of time for *you* to read it, but
there's a simple answer to that.
At ease, General.
---Tim Shuba---
Bob Cain
Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
> SR is based upon simple math assumptions,
> assumptions that have no basis in logic. They are
> used only because they work. To just assume that c
> is a math constant has no logic at all. And the
> assumption that all reference frames, even when they
> have motions between them, must be of the same form,
> has no logic. The entire base of SR is thus only
> math assumptions.
That's wrong. It is based on the purely physical propositions that any
apparatus that can measure light speed will only and ever measure one
value in the vacuum and that the result of any physical experiment is
the same in any frame of reference that is inertial. There's no math
there at all but since math is an excellent way to express physical law,
these propositions can be expressed with math and can be taken, without
too much difficulty and together with other known physical laws, to all
of the conclusions that comprise the STR. None of those conclusions has
ever been found in error when tested by experiment when experimental
error itself is taken into account.
The daffy lot that is obsessed with hostility to SR and its inventor
must either show that those propositions are false in some way or,
rigorously, that the math that follows is false in some way. They never
do that, they just rant and rave idiotically and seek attention through
irritation and personal attack (except on others in their lot even if
the other's "reasoning" is wildly divergent from theirs, in which case
they agree on everything but the "details.")
Bob
--
"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."
A. Einstein
Gerald L. O'Barr
O'Barr wrote:
>> SR is based upon simple math assumptions,
>> assumptions that have no basis in logic. They are
>> used only because they work. To just assume that
>> c is a math constant has no logic at all. And the
>> assumption that all reference frames, even when
>> they have motions between them, must be of the
>> same form, has no logic. The entire base of SR is
>> thus only math assumptions. . . .
Bob Cain <arc...@arcanemethods.com> wrote:
>That's wrong. It is based on the purely physical
>propositions that any apparatus that can measure
>light speed will only and ever measure one value in
>the vacuum and that the result of any physical
>experiment is the same in any frame of reference
>that is inertial.
O'Barr comments:
But don't you see, you are only saying that it is
physical. You do not give any physical reasons why c
is always c. You just say it is always c. If you
just say it is always c, then you have no physical
reason to explain such an impossible result.
And you do not give any physical reason why the
math forms have to be the same, you again just say
they are the same. Thus, there are no physical
reasons given for any of these SR positions at all!
Surely you have to see this, and to understand this.
SR is only math: It does not have a physical base.
LET has a physical base, but not SR.
Bob Cain <arc...@arcanemethods.com> wrote:
> There's no math there at all ...
O'Barr comments:
I do not know what you mean when you say there is
no math there! That is all that there is there! You
have your math constant, c, and you have the math
restriction that the form for your math must be the
same in all frames.
Bob Cain <arc...@arcanemethods.com> wrote:
> . . . but since math is an excellent way to
> express physical law . . .
O'Barr comments:
Oh! I see. Because the math is used to express
physical law, then that makes your theory a physical
theory? And I guess if you used your math to decide
on some cooking procedure, then your math would be
cooking math? Well, to have a theory that is based
upon physical principles require just a little bit
more than the way you use the math. No matter how
you use your math, the principles upon which it is
based cannot change!
Bob Cain <arc...@arcanemethods.com> wrote:
> . . . these propositions can be expressed with
> math and can be taken, without too much difficulty
> and together with other known physical laws, to all
> of the conclusions that comprise the STR. None of
> those conclusions has ever been found in error when
> tested by experiment when experimental error itself
> is taken into account.
O'Barr comments:
No matter how perfect the math might be, this has
nothing to do with the base upon which the theory
sits. It is a math base, pure and simple. You
assume no physical base at all, to justify one single
position. Only LET presents to us a physical base,
and only after the physical base is presented and
understood, is the math actually derived.
Bob Cain <arc...@arcanemethods.com> wrote:
>The daffy lot that is obsessed with hostility to SR
>and its inventor must either show that those
>propositions are false in some way or, rigorously,
>that the math that follows is false in some way.
O'Barr comments:
You are not correct! I accept SR math. I have to
accept SR math because it is the same math that is
used in LET! SR is the correct math for our reality,
and LET is the correct physics that goes with the
correct math. They are really the same theory, once
they are properly understood.
Bob Cain <arc...@arcanemethods.com> wrote:
>They never do that, they just rant and rave
>idiotically and seek attention through irritation
>and personal attack (except on others in their lot
>even if the other's "reasoning" is wildly divergent
>from theirs, in which case they agree on everything
>but the "details.")
O'Barr comments:
It is clear what the real problem is. SR is just
a math theory. Being just a math theory, then it
stands helpless in trying to say exactly what
physically happens. SR cannot really say if clocks
really physically slow down or not. SR cannot really
say anything about what really physically happens.
Such words as 'really' are not possible in the
vocabulary of SR. Math theories are just that way.
All that SR can tell us is what will be measured. It
cannot tell us what things actually did in order to
be measured the way they are measured.
But in a physical theory such as LET, then in this
theory, examples of what might be actually happening
can be presented. And every act can be shown to be
reasonable and doable and expected, exactly as they
are seen. LET is not weak like SR. In fact, in
every way, LET is superior to SR. And you will have
to change the way you are saying things, if you are
going to remain scientific.
Your quote of Einstein:
>"Things should be described as simply as possible,
>but no simpler." A. Einstein
O'Barr comments:
We must all recognize the power of simplicity!
However, your quote above just cannot be correct. No
one can ever describe or do anything that is simpler
than possible. Your statement is not necessary to be
said, because no one will ever do anything that is
simpler than it is possible to do.
We must correctly describe reality, no matter how
simple or how complex it might be. The fact that we
are correct is what is important, not any assumptions
as to how simple our description might be.
SR is extremely simple. But it is also not doing
very much. It only tells us what will be measured.
It does not tell us what physically happens so that
we will measure what is measured. SR therefore
leaves us in ignorance as to what might actually be
happening! Only LET does all that is necessary and
desirable! Only LET is scientifically acceptable.
Thanks for reading.
Bill Hobba
Bill Hobba ha escrito:
> probably did). In the case of Lorentz he freely admitted Einstein's
> approach was better and gave him full credit for it. It is a matter of
> some
> concern to scholars that Poincare did not understand it - no one has
> really
> been able to give a good explanation of why that was. Scholars would
> rather
> not have to face the issue because it is inconceivable that a person of
> Poincare's intellect would not have understood it if he read Einstein's
> papers. But the evidence is that up to 1909 he did not; which is why
> genuine scholars are so concerned about it. My guess for what it is worth
> is that due to the controversy surrounding it in the early years he did
> not
> devote the time necessary to come to grips with it. But that is just a
> guess.
> Easy - he understood it, recognised it was better than LET, and gave
> Eintein
> full credit for it.
>
> Bill
Juan R
Comments as this are do that I cannot waste my time repliyng you. If
you really think that Einstein understood relativity and Poincare did
not, then submit a paper on it.
I have given the details - you simply refuse to acknowledge it.
Juan R
Einstein did not understood relativity.
Oh - please detail exactly what he did not understand about it. I strongly
suspect you however have no idea what relativity is about.
Juan R
In fact, Poincaré understood many crucial points of relativity Einstein did
not during 1905: for
example the four dimensional view,
Correct - it was discovered years later by one of Einsteins teachers -
Minkowski - not Poincare.
Juan R
That time was relative,
That is rather dubious since he discovered it.
Juan R
that two postulates of SR are not sufficient
Since they are sufficient it is now patently obvious, if it was not already,
you have no idea what you are talking about. Learn the basics then repost.
Rest of rubbish snipped.
Bill
Bill Hobba
> Bill Hobba ha escrito:
>
>> But what you did not do is refute the evidence Poicare did not understand
>> relativity. Your inability to do this and simply make generalizations
>> like
>> 'Pais study is not perfect' is telling.
>>
>> Juan R
>> If the base of your understanding of Poincare remain in partial quoting
>> to
>> the famous conference of 1909 I only can say
>>
>> Obviously you did not even bother to read what I wrote - I gave 2
>> examples -
>> one from the Solvay conference and one from a lecture he gave. I also
>> referenced pages from Pias where other evidence is provided. Both your
>> scholarship and comprehension ability leave much to be desired
>>
>> Juan R
>> Please feel free to read my article and publish a "comment on"
>>
>> I did and posted my comments - your non response is there for all to see.
>>
>> Bill
>
>
> I discussed this topic in many sites and with many people (including in
> spr). Now i simply submit this NEWS post saying that last version of
> web document has been updated.
>
> I am not launching this post for dicussing again was already discussed
> in the past.
>
> Pais' work is not perfect, his failures and lack of understanding of
> Poincare works is well-known for historians. Criticism on why Pais
> monograph is already available on literature, you simply ignore this.
> *Again i remark that criticism of Pias monograph is done in my paper in
> references cited in it*
>
> You appear unable to read since continue writting "Pias".
>
> When i said
>> Please feel free to read my article and publish a "comment on"
>
> the history of relativity?". That is:
>
> 1) read my article if you want.
>
> 2) writte a public "comment on"
>
> 3) Submit it
>
> I do not mean write two or three flagrantly wrong comments here in an
> open forum waiting i waste my time replying you when replies are
> already in specialized literature.
>
> Of course, i am open to reply comments i received by my research work,
> but that does not mean that i reply ANY comment received, less here in
> this open forum.
>
> I repeat if my work is not good enough for you then write a "comment
> on" and submit it for publication. It will be a pleasure to reply you!
>
>
> Juan R.
>
> Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)
You previously wrote:
'Einstein did not understood relativity. In fact, Poincaré understood many
crucial points of relativity Einstein did not during 1905: for example the
four dimensional view, that time was relative, that two
postulates of SR are not sufficient (only many many years after Einstein
changed his mind and accepted Poincaré views: returned to aether, openly
admited that in his 1905 paper used aditional principles
did not cited in the paper, etc.). whereas Einstein thought that the PoR has
EM origin'
It is well known that SR requires only the two postulates formulated by
Einstein. In fact in modern times it is well known it really only requires
one - the second postulate simply fixes a constant that naturally occurs in
the theory. Einstein stated in On The electrodynamics of Moving Bodies -
'the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of
reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good. We will raise this
conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the ``Principle of
Relativity'') to the status of a postulate'. It is obvious he recognized
from the outset the POR applied to EM and mechanical phenomena.
You are very confused and do not even understand the basics. Post back when
you do.
Bill
Bill Hobba
Forgot to mention that there are some hidden assumptions in SR such as
rulers and clocks have no memory - but that rods undergo contraction due to
transnational motion (which is what Poincare maintained is required) is not
one of them.
Bill
>
> Bill
>
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"Bill Hobba" <rub...@junk.com> wrote in message
news:r6okf.10277$ea6....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "Bill Hobba" <rub...@junk.com> wrote in message
> news:T0okf.10254$ea6....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
...
>>> I repeat if my work is not good enough for you then
>>> write a "comment on" and submit it for publication.
>>> It will be a pleasure to reply you!
>>
>> You previously wrote:
>> 'Einstein did not understood relativity. In fact, Poincari
>> understood many crucial points of relativity Einstein
>> did not during 1905: for example the four dimensional
>> view, that time was relative, that two postulates of SR
>> are not sufficient (only many many years after Einstein
>> changed his mind and accepted Poincari views:
>> returned to aether, openly admited that in his 1905
>> paper used aditional principles did not cited in the
>> paper, etc.). whereas Einstein thought that the PoR has EM
>> origin'
>>
>> It is well known that SR requires only the two
>> postulates formulated by Einstein. In fact in modern
>> times it is well known it really only requires one -
>> the second postulate simply fixes a constant that
>> naturally occurs in the theory. Einstein stated in
>> On The electrodynamics of Moving Bodies - 'the
>> same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be
>> valid for all frames of reference for which the
>> equations of mechanics hold good. We will raise
>> this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter
>> be called the ``Principle of Relativity'') to the
>> status of a postulate'. It is obvious he recognized
>> from the outset the POR applied to EM and
>> mechanical phenomena.
>>
>> You are very confused and do not even
>> understand the basics. Post back when you do.
>
> Forgot to mention that there are some hidden
> assumptions in SR such as rulers and clocks have
> no memory - but that rods undergo contraction due
> to transnational
"translational"
> motion (which is what Poincare maintained is
> required) is not one of them.
David A. Smith
Bill Hobba
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:n...@nospam.com> wrote in
message news:Mipkf.10848$dv.3262@fed1read02...
Of course. :)
Thanks
Bill
Bill Hobba
> Bill Hobba ha escrito:
Had a couple of minutes to spare so I thought I would add a few more
comments.
>
>> But what you did not do is refute the evidence Poicare did not understand
>> relativity. Your inability to do this and simply make generalizations
>> like
>> 'Pais study is not perfect' is telling.
>>
>> Juan R
>> If the base of your understanding of Poincare remain in partial quoting
>> to
>> the famous conference of 1909 I only can say
>>
>> Obviously you did not even bother to read what I wrote - I gave 2
>> examples -
>> one from the Solvay conference and one from a lecture he gave. I also
>> referenced pages from Pias where other evidence is provided. Both your
>> scholarship and comprehension ability leave much to be desired
>>
>> Juan R
>> Please feel free to read my article and publish a "comment on"
>>
>> I did and posted my comments - your non response is there for all to see.
>>
>> Bill
>
> I explain you the last time.
>
> I discussed this topic in many sites and with many people (including in
> spr). Now i simply submit this NEWS post saying that last version of
> web document has been updated.
>
> I am not launching this post for dicussing again was already discussed
> in the past.
You may have discussed them but your facts are still wrong.
>
> Pais' work is not perfect, his failures and lack of understanding of
> Poincare works is well-known for historians.
>
I never claimed he was. I however claim his references that show that
Poincare believed Einstein's two axioms of SR need to be augmented with a
contraction hypothesis are correct and showed he, at the time he made those
statements, did not understand SR.
> Criticism on why Pais
> monograph is already available on literature, you simply ignore this.
>
I did not ignore it. I simply want your detailed refutation of the facts
detailed by Pias - not vague references that Pias has problems. I want
specifics - not vague generalities.
> *Again i remark that criticism of Pias monograph is done in my paper in
> references cited in it*
>
> You appear unable to read since continue writting "Pias".
>
> When i said
>> Please feel free to read my article and publish a "comment on"
>
> I mean wrote a minimally consistent rebutal paper on my paper "What is
> the history of relativity?". That is:
>
> 1) read my article if you want.
>
> 2) writte a public "comment on"
>
> 3) Submit it
I have posted comments on sci.physics.relativity to which you replied.
Wanting to put them in another forum is an obvious and very transparent
diversionary tactic to avoid discussing the facts.
>
> I do not mean write two or three flagrantly wrong comments here in an
> open forum waiting i waste my time replying you when replies are
> already in specialized literature.
>
You have already said enough to indicate you know nothing of relativity.
>
> Of course, i am open to reply comments i received by my research work,
> but that does not mean that i reply ANY comment received, less here in
> this open forum.
>
Then why not give the specifics showing that Poincare did understand
relativity. So far all you have done is post rubbish that indicates you do
not understand relativity - rubbish like - 'Einstein did not understood
relativity', 'that two postulates of SR are not sufficient (only many many
years after Einstein changed his mind and accepted Poincaré views: returned
to aether, openly admited that in his 1905 paper used aditional principles
did not cited in the paper, etc.)' and 'Einstein thought that the PoR has EM
origin, Poincaré formulated the true PoR for all physical phenomena, etc.'.
To anyone with even a cursory understanding of relativity such statements a
laughable. Here are three presentations of SR:
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=3838AC00.87B78404%40lucent.com
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=3838A838.81CE8090%40lucent.com
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=3838AA2A.829F46AD%40lucent.com
Point out to me what assumptions they make other than the POR and the usual
assumptions made in physics such a continuity, single valueness, and rather
subtle ones like clocks have no memory etc.
>
> I repeat if my work is not good enough for you then write a "comment
> on" and submit it for publication. It will be a pleasure to reply you!
>
Your harping on this simply confirms your inability rationally discuss the
issues.
Bill
Bill Hobba
Woops - those are Tom's posts about the aether - here are the expositions of
SR:
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0110076,
and ancient, but I still think excellent post by Tom Roberts
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&selm=54jfst%24glp%40ssbunews.ih.lucent.com
and chapter 10 of
http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/
Sorry
Bill
Schoenfeld
[From that post of Roberts you referenced]
=============
THE MAPPING POSTULATE
When two observers observe the same physical space-time, they assign
individual coordinate systems to THE SAME points of space-time. There
is
a relation between the assignments they (separately) make, which is
called a coordinate transformation, usually expressed as a consistent
set of mathematical formulas relating the coordinates of one observer
to the coordinates of the other. The coordinate transformation from one
system to the other MUST be one-to-one and onto the other, BECAUSE THEY
ARE DESCRIBING THE SAME PHYSICAL SPACE-TIME; the transformation must
be invertible (see Relativity Postulate, below).
[Mathematicians worry about a lot of conditions for this, and
for the other Postulates; this is a Physicist's derivation,
and
will assume that physical systems satisfy the mathematical
conditions necessary (continuity, etc.).]
============
This postulate contradicts the principle of general covariance. There
is no natural pointwise identification between coordinate patches (in
the theory Einstein proposed).
glbrad01
"Schoenfeld" <schoe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1133671960.6...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
It is impossible for two observers widely spaced in the Universe (widely
spaced in position and probably equally widely spaced in velocity of
individual reference frames, inertial or otherwise) to individually assign
coordinate systems "to the same space-time." Both position and velocity must
be closely -- narrowly -- matched, distance-wise for all observers involved,
for it to work as stated.
In 1905 the general layout of the Universe was assumed to be as [static]
in general positions and velocities (distances) as cities are on the surface
of the Earth. Thus all probable "inertial reference frames," and still
standing observers in them, were assumed to be statically just about one and
the same inertial reference frame and observer in a [static Universe]. Only
the coordinate system would vary, as it does on the static surface of the
Earth. Some fewer now realize that those space and time universes observed
at long distance now are not, and can never be, our space and time universe.
GLB
Schoenfeld
#1: The Mapping postulate should be replaced with a weaker statement
allowing the existence of at least 1 set of coordinates with bijections
(1-1 mappings) between them. The group postulate ensures that such a
set is closed with respect to the transformations. If there are n such
sets, then none of these sets intersect (again due to group postulate)
which would imply that each set is an independent universe. The set of
all the sets would be the multiverse.
#2: He makes a point early on about not requiring a upper speed limit
postulate (accelerating through lightspeed to be precise) but then
dismisses a large bunch of transformations at the end of the article as
"not consistent with experiment". Had he considered a lightspeed
postulate from the beginning, those unworldly transformations could've
been dismissed directly by the postulates.
[...]
Bill Hobba
"Schoenfeld" <schoe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1133671960.6...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Bill Hobba wrote:
Schoenfeld
[From that post of Roberts you referenced]
=============
THE MAPPING POSTULATE
When two observers observe the same physical space-time, they assign
individual coordinate systems to THE SAME points of space-time. There
is
a relation between the assignments they (separately) make, which is
called a coordinate transformation, usually expressed as a consistent
set of mathematical formulas relating the coordinates of one observer
to the coordinates of the other. The coordinate transformation from one
system to the other MUST be one-to-one and onto the other, BECAUSE THEY
ARE DESCRIBING THE SAME PHYSICAL SPACE-TIME; the transformation must
be invertible (see Relativity Postulate, below).
[Mathematicians worry about a lot of conditions for this, and
for the other Postulates; this is a Physicist's derivation,
and
will assume that physical systems satisfy the mathematical
conditions necessary (continuity, etc.).]
This postulate contradicts the principle of general covariance. There
is no natural pointwise identification between coordinate patches (in
the theory Einstein proposed).
Incorrect. Even in GR points in one coordinate system are unique points in
another and conversely.
Bill
Schoenfeld
That is simply false. Suppose two bodies A and B are mapping each other
according to the Tom's "mapping postulate". Suppose body B is
approaching the event horizon. From B's frame, at the instant it passes
through the event horizon, B can no longer map A and the universe A is
contained in (even from the past light cone). From A's frame, B is
never observed to pass the event horizon so A cannot describe B's
experience inside the event horizon. Obviously there are a bunch events
which happen exclusively in B's frame and not in A's, and vice-versa -
obviously your statement is wrong.
Please read what I said properly.
Bill Hobba
Schoenfeld
That is simply false.
Pick up any textbook. Sham Outline series - Vector Analysis came quickly to
hand for me. See Chapter 8 - Tensor Analysis. See equations 1 where the
assumptions about the coordinate transformations are detailed: 'the
functions involved are single valued, continuous and have continuous
derivatives.' And if you do not know the implications of those assumptions
(eg the inverse exists and is the same) learn some basic calculus then
repost.
Rest of irrelevancies, misconceptions and distortions snipped.
Bill
Bill Hobba
Schoenfeld
That is simply false. Suppose two bodies A and B are mapping each other
according to the Tom's "mapping postulate". Suppose body B is
approaching the event horizon. From B's frame, at the instant it passes
through the event horizon, B can no longer map A and the universe A is
contained in (even from the past light cone). From A's frame, B is
never observed to pass the event horizon so A cannot describe B's
experience inside the event horizon. Obviously there are a bunch events
which happen exclusively in B's frame and not in A's, and vice-versa -
obviously your statement is wrong.
BTW nothing happens when one crosses the event horizon - one simply can not
get out of it just like one can not escape the earth without exceeding
escape velocity - here the speed of light is the escape velocity. The
'singularity' at the event horizon is a failure of Schwarzschild coordinates
that is corrected in Kruskal coordinates.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kruskal-Szekeres_coordinates
Note the transformations are still 1-1 and continuous - and even
differentiable - at least in defined regions which is all that is claimed.
What we have here is a failure of your understanding of basic
math -something I think you should correct before posting again.
Bill
Bob Cain
Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
> But don't you see, you are only saying that it is
> physical. You do not give any physical reasons why c
> is always c. You just say it is always c. If you
> just say it is always c, then you have no physical
> reason to explain such an impossible result.
It was a proposition of physical law and, while it is eminently
falsifiable, it has not been falsified when experimental error is
accounted for. There is no need whatsoever for there to be a further
reason it is constant. That's just how this universe works. It's a
bedrock property.
> And you do not give any physical reason why the
> math forms have to be the same, you again just say
> they are the same.
No. I said that the physical laws are the same. When they are
expressed mathematically then the form consequently remains the same.
The behavioral laws existed long before the mathematics was invented
that is congruent with them.
> Thus, there are no physical
> reasons given for any of these SR positions at all!
What comprises physical a reason? Is there any physical "reason" that
doesn't require another one in your world view? Are there any bedrock
physical properties of the universe that are just the way things are?
> Surely you have to see this, and to understand this.
> SR is only math: It does not have a physical base.
> LET has a physical base, but not SR.
Surely, now that I have explained it, you have to see how wrong this is.
Bob
--
Harry
What evidence? Or do you really base your opinion that Poincare did not
understand relativity on the opinion that Poincare did not understand
relativity?
> In the case of Lorentz he freely admitted Einstein's
> approach was better and gave him full credit for it.
Sure, Lorentz fully credited Einstein's top-down approach from principles.
That turned Lorentz's theory into a principle theory.
> It is a matter of some
> concern to scholars that Poincare did not understand it - no one has
really
> been able to give a good explanation of why that was. Scholars would
rather
> not have to face the issue because it is inconceivable that a person of
> Poincare's intellect would not have understood it if he read Einstein's
> papers. But the evidence is that up to 1909 he did not; which is why
> genuine scholars are so concerned about it.
Bill, Bill, are you now insinuating that only those scholars who don't
understand why Poincare showed no understanding for Einstein are "genuine"?
> My guess for what it is worth
> is that due to the controversy surrounding it in the early years he did
not
> devote the time necessary to come to grips with it. But that is just a
> guess.
Good try, but do you also have an idea about what exactly he did not "come
to grips with"?
> > Similarly, do you also claim that Lorentz never understood relativity?
>
> He most certianly did.
>
> > Then how do you explain that he taught SRT, and even wrote an explaining
> > book on GRT?
> >
>
> Easy - he understood it, recognised it was better than LET, and gave
Eintein
> full credit for it.
Partly correct: as far as documented, Lorentz never accepted Einstein's
ether ideas; and there was no reason for it.
Harald
Harry
SNIP
> Juan R wrote:
> In fact, Poincaré understood many crucial points of relativity Einstein
did
> not during 1905: for example the four dimensional view,
>
> Correct - it was discovered years later by one of Einsteins teachers -
> Minkowski - not Poincare.
Quiz: who published the following (here I translate it to English, with
**=italics):
"
In order to go further, one should search for the *invariants of the Lorentz
group*. We know that the substitutions of this group [...] are the linear
substitutions that don't alter the quadratic form
x^2 + y^2 + z^2 - t^2.
"
a. Einstein
b. Minkowski
c. Poincare
And in which year?
a. 1905
b. 1906
c. 1908
SNIP
> Rest of rubbish snipped.
>
> Bill
Harald
ste...@nomail.com
> In <dmrjs...@enews3.newsguy.com>
> Bob Cain <arc...@arcanemethods.com> wrote:
> Bob Cain <arc...@arcanemethods.com> wrote:
>>That's wrong. It is based on the purely physical
>>propositions that any apparatus that can measure
>>light speed will only and ever measure one value in
>>the vacuum and that the result of any physical
>>experiment is the same in any frame of reference
>>that is inertial.
> O'Barr comments:
> But don't you see, you are only saying that it is
> physical. You do not give any physical reasons why c
> is always c. You just say it is always c. If you
> just say it is always c, then you have no physical
> reason to explain such an impossible result.
And you do not provide any physical reason for why
your ether behaves the way it does.
Stephen
Gerald L. O'Barr
Bob Cain <arc...@arcanemethods.com> wrote:
>>> . . . (SR) is based on the purely physical
>>>propositions that any apparatus that can measure
>>>light speed will only and ever measure one value
>>>in the vacuum and that the result of any physical
>>>experiment is the same in any frame of reference
>>>that is inertial.
O'Barr wrote:
>> But don't you see, you are only saying that it is
>> physical. You do not give any physical reasons
>> why c is always c. You just say it is always c.
>> If you just say it is always c, then you have no
>> physical reason to explain such an impossible
>> result.
Stephen <step...@nomail.com> wrote:
>And you do not provide any physical reason for why
>your ether behaves the way it does.
O'Barr comments:
And I also have not given any physical reason why
I got up this morning, or why I am responding to you,
or why a thousand other things that I can think of
might have reasons to be physical! So what?
What you appear to want to hide, is what I did say
about the ether! How come you did not mention any of
the things that were said?
LET assumes that there is a physical ether, and
this ether allows us to form a frame (a grid) of
physical rulers, and physical clocks can be
positioned with known rates and syncs. And it is in
this ether in which light has a constant velocity c,
controlled (governed) by this physical ether in which
it is moving. And physically, this motion for all
photons, no matter what other frames might exist, all
move at c in this one and only frame.
All of the above is normal, simple, 3-D physics
that is assumed to be correct in all physical
theories, with no human difficulties of understanding
it or any of the kinematics within it. No one says
that we have to understand any thing more of the
ether than this, in order to understand the theory.
We should all want to know more, that is for sure.
But with what is given, one can put together the full
theory that is equal to SR.
If light has this absolute constant velocity of c
in this ether, then a light clock's rate will
physically be reduced with its velocity in the ether.
And the diameter of an equal potential surface of a
sphere will change with its velocity. If we assume
that all clocks and all rulers obey these same
relationships, then SR exists in its full and
complete glory.
And thus, SR math becomes physically explainable,
that changes in rates of clocks are real and
absolute, and changes in lengths are real and
absolute. All of the funny things we see are found
to occur only in the measurements made. Since to
measure things now consists of rulers who lengths can
change, and in clocks whose rates and syncs can
change, then what is measured is often a mix of both
real changes and only apparent changes due to changes
in the tools being used. The combined effects are
what SR math gives to us, not the absolute changes,
not the real changes, only the measured changes, and
the measured changes are not always the correct
absolute changes.
And so we now can see why SR is such a funny
science! It is a weak science, and has no power to
tell anyone as to what is actually happening. It is
so weak that it must be replaced with a stronger,
more complete theory, like LET!
Gerald L. O'Barr
O'Barr wrote:
>> But don't you see, you are only saying that it is
>> physical. You do not give any physical reasons
>> why c is always c. You just say it is always c.
>> If you just say it is always c, then you have no
>> physical reason to explain such an impossible
>> result.
Bob Cain <arc...@arcanemethods.com> wrote:
> It was a proposition of physical law and, while it
> is eminently falsifiable, it has not been falsified
> when experimental error is accounted for. There is
> no need whatsoever for there to be a further reason
> it is constant. That's just how this universe
> works. It's a bedrock property.
O'Barr comments:
We were not discussing how perfect any of these SR
propositions might be, or whether or not they are
falsifiable. They might be an exact statement of the
way things act. But the origin of these statements
have to be honestly addressed. The statements used
in SR have no physical base what-so-ever. They are
merely just made up statements. They are just
guesses or statements made based upon the way they
seemed to be, not based upon any assumed causes what-
so-ever.
We care to know more than just to know the correct
predictions, we want to also know why and how. In
other words, we want to know the physical causes for
all these things. SR not only does not provide to us
any of the physical causes, SR cannot even tell us
exactly what physically happens. SR is a weak
theory, and it must be seen to be weak. That is why
there are so many kooks! SR cannot give any of the
answers being sought! SR is a shame to all!
O'Barr wrote:
>> And you do not give any physical reason why the
>> math forms have to be the same, you again just say
>> they are the same.
Bob Cain <arc...@arcanemethods.com> wrote:
>No. I said that the physical laws are the same.
>When they are expressed mathematically then the form
>consequently remains the same. The behavioral laws
>existed long before the mathematics was invented
>that is congruent with them.
O'Barr comments:
And you are either a liar or you are being dumb!
We are not talking about whether a law is or is not
congruent with reality! We are talking about the
origin of a theory! The math of a theory might be
just a guess, just math, with no reasons given at all
as to why it is correct. Such a theory, no matter
how correct it might be, has no power to explain why
it is correct. It cannot justify itself! But a
theory that has a physical base, and the math that is
developed from this physical base is established to
be correct, then this math is able to be explained.
Thus, the base upon which the math exists is
important. The math that can be explained is
superior to a math that has no explanations! And
you cannot continue to lie about the true origin of
SR math! SR is only a math theory, and has no
physical explanations behind its math!
O'Barr wrote:
>> Thus, there are no physical reasons
>> given for any of these SR positions at all!
Bob Cain <arc...@arcanemethods.com> wrote:
>What comprises physical a reason? Is there any
>physical "reason" that doesn't require another one
>in your world view? Are there any bedrock physical
>properties of the universe that are just the way
>things are?
O'Barr comments:
You seem to be demanding that there is no progress
until we have the TOE! You seem to be saying that if
you do not get clear to the end of things, then any
step made to get closer is worthless! But no one can
be this dumb! Any step that can be taken must be
taken, and SR is so stupid that you will not let such
steps be taken? You are insane!
O'Barr wrote:
>> Surely you have to see this, and to understand
>> this. SR is only math: It does not have a
>> physical base. LET has a physical base, but not
>> SR.
Bob Cain <arc...@arcanemethods.com> wrote:
> Surely, now that I have explained it, you have to
> see how wrong this is.
O'Barr comments:
As can easily be seen, you have still not given
one physical explanation as to why c is a math
constant. Not one explanation! And an explanation
to such an insane fact is required by all thinking
people! For c to be a constant when there are
relative motions between frames is not normal. It is
not expected! It is abnormal, and it demands an
answer. And SR cannot give us an answer! SR is
therefore a weak theory, and is a shame to any
thinking person!
And as can easily be seen, you have still not
given one physical explanation as to why the math
forms must be the same in all frames! Not one single
reason. And thus again SR is a weak theory, a theory
that cannot justify its own math, and cannot provide
any physical reason for anything that is seen. It
cannot even tell us exactly what physically happens!
It is a total failure as to what most people demand
in a theory!
Bob Cain <arc...@arcanemethods.com> wrote:
>"Things should be described as simply as possible,
>but no simpler." A. Einstein
O'Barr comments:
It is not how simple anything might be, but how
correct and complete it might be! And SR fails on
all these important accounts! SR is a weak theory!
Only LET provides to us the physical base to the
math!
PD
Gerald L. O'Barr wrote:
> It is not how simple anything might be, but how
> correct and complete it might be! And SR fails on
> all these important accounts! SR is a weak theory!
> Only LET provides to us the physical base to the
> math!
>
>
On the contrary, LET provides no physical reason for *why* dragging
through the ether shortens rulers and slows clocks. There is absolutely
no accounting for why gamma should be the amount that rulers get
shortened or clocks get slowed. Thus LET fails to provide a sensible
explanation either qualitatively or quantitatively.
The amount of the ether's effect on rulers and clocks is given by the
Lorentz transformation, with the statement that "it just IS" that much.
In this manner, LET offers no more information than SR does.
PD
Bill Hobba
Quiz
Who pointed out the geometric implications of x^2 + y^2 + z^2 - t^2 being an
invariant and established it as a 4 dimensional geometry?
a. Einstein
b. Minkowski
c. Poincare
For added credit give a dissertation on the difference between a groups
invariants and a geometry with specific reference to Klein's Erlangen
program and why it failed wrt Rieminaian Geometry. Then detail the type of
geometry Minkowski space is. Then explain, if Ponicare understood it was a
geometry, why he beloved one needed the extra axiom of rods shortening due
to their translatory motion when tartar texts derive such from that
assumption alone - eg
http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March01/Carroll3/Carroll1.html
Then bring it all together into a cohesive whole demonstrating that Poincare
fully understood relativity.
Bill
Bill Hobba
Harry ha escrito:
Juan R.
I think that you would not waste your time with people as Hobba. There
exists guys that cannot read others write. They have an fixed idea in
their minds and closed the option to learn any novel stuff.
There exist guys who wish to revise well known historical facts yet can not
actually back it up. In doing so they demonstrate an appalling lack of
knowledge of the basics of the subject such as claiming that Einstein did
not understand relativity, that extra axioms other than the POR and the
speed of light postulate are required for SR, and that Einstein thought the
POR was EM in origin. When challenged about such views by asking them to
point out, for example, the extra axioms used in standard treatments of SR
simply ignore it. Then they claim of those that take them to task 'have an
fixed idea in their minds and closed the option to learn any novel stuff.'.
Such people are generally called cranks.
Rest of crank rubbish snipped.
Bill
Bill Hobba
Statements he made that an extra axiom was required than the two Einstein
used.
>
>> In the case of Lorentz he freely admitted Einstein's
>> approach was better and gave him full credit for it.
>
> Sure, Lorentz fully credited Einstein's top-down approach from principles.
> That turned Lorentz's theory into a principle theory.
Harry this has been discussed time and time again on sci.physics.relativity.
LET is not the same as SR - it is based on different principles. SR is not
'a top-down approach from principles' using the principles of LET.
>
>> It is a matter of some
>> concern to scholars that Poincare did not understand it - no one has
> really
>> been able to give a good explanation of why that was. Scholars would
> rather
>> not have to face the issue because it is inconceivable that a person of
>> Poincare's intellect would not have understood it if he read Einstein's
>> papers. But the evidence is that up to 1909 he did not; which is why
>> genuine scholars are so concerned about it.
>
> Bill, Bill, are you now insinuating that only those scholars who don't
> understand why Poincare showed no understanding for Einstein are
> "genuine"?
I am insinuating that the historical record is clear. Statements Poincare
made showed he did not understand relativity. Indeed I go further - not
only did he not understand it he was opposed to it. I gave the pages in
Pias that detailed that evidence. Refutation of such requires more than
vague statements such as scholars have problems with Pias.
>
>> My guess for what it is worth
>> is that due to the controversy surrounding it in the early years he did
> not
>> devote the time necessary to come to grips with it. But that is just a
>> guess.
>
> Good try, but do you also have an idea about what exactly he did not "come
> to grips with"?
He did not come to grips with the fact the axioms of SR are all that is
necessary.
Bill
Bill Hobba
Harry ha escrito:
I think that you would not waste your time with people as Hobba. There
exists guys that cannot read others write. They have an fixed idea in
their minds and closed the option to learn any novel stuff.
I clearly wrote that Poincaré had anticipated the 4D view and Einstein
newer did in the /annus mirabilis/. I cited that as an example of many
basic properties of SR that Einstein did not know, and Poincaré did
(this is reason of 100 years debate on priority Poincaré/Einstein).
This is reason that each time more people cite Poincaré like the true
father of SR or at least cited him like so important as Einstein in the
full development.
To claim that Einstein was the only father of relativity is a complete
mistake, since mainly all or all was anticipated by Lorentz and
specially by Poincaré.
But the reply of Hobba -unable to read- was
> > Correct - it was discovered years later by one of Einsteins teachers -
> > Minkowski - not Poincare.
Again completely wrong!
>From Jean Mawhin:
"But it is unquestionable that Poincaré anticipated the so-called
Minkowski space-time."
In fact, Lorentz already said this in his writtings.
Since Hobba cited Minkowski, perhaps i would cite again words of
Minkowski who called "lazy" to Einstein and thought that was impossible
that Einstein had formulated the theory of relativity.
I also find interesting that genious Poincaré was able to understand
that two 'Einstein' postulates of 1905 were not sufficient for defining
SR in an unabiguous form (this also appears in mathematical literature
even if physicists continue to claim that two or even one postulate is
sufficient for build the axiomatic structure which is, of course, NOT
rigorous).
I find interesting that the own Einstein recognized years after that
the two 1905 postulates alone was not suficient and, in fact, himself
recognized in posterior writtings that in his 1905 paper he had used
additional postulates without citing them. Poincaré (the genious) know
that two Einstein postulates was not sufficient because Poincaré was
an expert on the topic (in fact, i believe that was the father of
relativity).
That is, Einstein needed to copy the work of Poincaré and 5-7 years of
delay before begining to understand that Poincaré was saying in
1905-6. For example, it was not until latter 20s that Einstein
understood Poincaré motivations for aether and then Einstein returned
to aether.
Poincaré always was piooner, Einstein always copied Poincaré previous
work.
It is hard for physicists, but is that published literature by Lorentz,
Poincaré, and Einstein (NOT posterior distorted interpretations as
those of Pais, Miller, etc.) SAYS us.
Bill Hobba
"Juan R." <juanrgo...@canonicalscience.com> wrote in message
news:1133792011....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Harry ha escrito:
Had a few minutes to spare so I thought I would a few extra comments.
Juan R
I clearly wrote that Poincaré had anticipated the 4D view and Einstein
newer did in the /annus mirabilis/. I cited that as an example of many
basic properties of SR that Einstein did not know, and Poincaré did
(this is reason of 100 years debate on priority Poincaré/Einstein).
This is reason that each time more people cite Poincaré like the true
father of SR or at least cited him like so important as Einstein in the
full development.
No one I am aware of, including me, ever claimed Ponicare did not contribute
to SR. But that he never understood it as late as 1909 is a fact. Thus one
can not claim 'Special relativity was mainly an achievement of Lorentz and
Poincare'. For a correct historical account see for exmaple:
http://online.physics.uiuc.edu/courses/phys419/Fall05/lectures/Lecture09/L09r.html
As the link says about Poincare: 'However, there was still an underlying
assumption (left over from the first impression made by Maxwell's equations,
and perhaps from our Aristotelian instincts) that one reference frame was
"right", however hidden it might be.'
The key point not accepted by Poincare as late as 1909 is that the
postulates of SR are not incompatible. It is fundamental to SR that not
only are they compatible but that SR follows directly from them.
Juan R
To claim that Einstein was the only father of relativity is a complete
mistake, since mainly all or all was anticipated by Lorentz and
specially by Poincaré.
I never claimed that.
> But the reply of Hobba -unable to read- was
> > Correct - it was discovered years later by one of Einsteins teachers -
> > Minkowski - not Poincare.
Juan R
Again completely wrong!
Poicare recognized the importance of the invariants of what is now called
the Lorentz group. He also showed things like mass increase before
Einstein. However such is not a detailed account of SR geometry - it was
Minkowski that did that.
Juan R
From Jean Mawhin:"But it is unquestionable that Poincaré anticipated the
so-called Minkowski space-time."
Anticpating something is not discovering it.
Juan R
Since Hobba cited Minkowski, perhaps i would cite again words of
Minkowski who called "lazy" to Einstein and thought that was impossible
that Einstein had formulated the theory of relativity.
Minkowski called Einstein lazy - sure. He also called him a smart fellow.
But he never stated it was impossible Einstein formulated relativity - if he
did it would be something quite widely reported like during his university
days he called him a lazy dog. If you believe otherwise then you should be
able to cite a reference. Or is it in the same category as your insistance
SR requires more than the two assumptions detailed by Einstein? BTW it
does - but they are not of the sort anyone would care to doubt and are fully
detailed in texts.
Juan R
I also find interesting that genious Poincaré was able to understand
that two 'Einstein' postulates of 1905 were not sufficient for defining
SR in an unabiguous form (this also appears in mathematical literature
even if physicists continue to claim that two or even one postulate is
sufficient for build the axiomatic structure which is, of course, NOT
rigorous).
Reference please. I have posted the following 3 links that develop SR from
Einstein's 2 axioms (in fact they go further and develop it from the POR
alone).
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0110076
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&selm=54jfst%24glp%40ssbunews.ih.lucent.com
and chapter 10 of
http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/
I have asked you in each of the three approaches to detail the exact hidden
assumption(s) that are being made. Your lack of a response is very telling.
Juan R
I find interesting that the own Einstein recognized years after that
the two 1905 postulates alone was not suficient and, in fact, himself
recognized in posterior writtings that in his 1905 paper he had used
additional postulates without citing them. Poincaré (the genious) know
that two Einstein postulates was not sufficient because Poincaré was
an expert on the topic (in fact, i believe that was the father of
relativity).
The fact you can not detail those assumptions is very telling.
Juan R
That is, Einstein needed to copy the work of Poincaré and 5-7 years of
delay before begining to understand that Poincaré was saying in
1905-6. For example, it was not until latter 20s that Einstein
understood Poincaré motivations for aether and then Einstein returned
to aether.
Your imagination is working overtime again. For a correct account of the
facts and a discussion of the scientifically inaccurate claims that you are
obviously influenced by see:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/wrong.html#aether
'Albert Einstein, in his essay On the Aether (1924), made some injudicious
comments to the effect that relativity theory could be said to ascribe
physical properties to spacetime itself, and in that sense, to involve a
kind of "aether". He clearly did not mean the kind of "aether" which had
been envisioned by Maxwell and others in the nineteenth century, but his
remarks have been seized upon ever since, by various cranks and other
ill-informed persons, as evidence that "gtr is an aether theory". Here's a
typical claim of this sort: 'the aether is restored in General Relativity
see Einstein's 1924 essay "On the Aether". Einstein recanted on his 1905
rejection of the aether since the mutable curved space-geometry is a
dynamical object (with shift and lapse fields in ADM formulation), hence an
aether.' This claim is misleading, to say the least. What Einstein really
meant was that the aether which had been overthrown by str (and thus was
incompatible with gtr, which incorporates str) involved a a specific
"preferred frame of reference" in the classical field theory, whereas the
field equation of gtr involves no "prior geometry" (such as the euclidean
geometry of "space" which has assumed by Maxwell and his contemporaries),
much less any "preferred frame". Nonetheless, gtr does not quite say there
is "nothing" in "empty space"; in general there will be gravitational waves
running about, and these carry (very tiny) amounts of energy, which
gravitate. So in this sense, a very different kind of "aether" in the very
weak sense of there being "something there" in a vacuum (namely
nonlocalizable gravitational field energy, metric properties of "space" in a
3+1 decomposition, etc.), could be said to enter into gtr. In modern quantum
field theories, of course, there are still more "things which are there" in
a vacuum, but again these do not constitute an "aether" in the nineteenth
century sense in which this word was used as a technical term. Einstein was
criticizing people who claimed, in effect, that the classical notion of the
aether was such nonsense that people like Maxwell should have known better.
He was saying that the problem with the classical aether was not
ontological, merely that it is inconsistent with observation and experiment;
hence the need for str. Many years ago, Andrei Sakharov (yes, that
Sakharov!) proposed to interpret gtr in terms of something like "stresses"
on spacetime as something like a material. This is discussed in Chapter 17
of MTW but here too, ill-informed readers of that theory have badly
misunderstood the meaning of Sakharov's work'.
Juan R
Poincaré always was piooner, Einstein always copied Poincaré previous
work. It is hard for physicists, but is that published literature by
Lorentz,
Poincaré, and Einstein (NOT posterior distorted interpretations as
those of Pais, Miller, etc.) SAYS us.
Your failure to back up your assertions by fact is very revealing.
In fact inaccurate claims like yours are common amongst cranks who post on
sci.physics.relativity and are examined here:
http://www.salon.com/people/feature/2000/07/06/einstein/index.html
'Carlip, John Baez of the University of California at Riverside, Tom Roberts
at Lucent and other physicists who still visit the discussion groups to
answer questions about relativity have had similar experiences. Cranks only
want validation of their theories, and often plainly don't even respond to
objections raised by the physicists they approach. Indeed, after perusing
the various threads in the discussion group, one can only admire the
patience physicists show in the face of the flagrantly insulting jibes and
non sequiturs thrown at them. Van Flandern has been a regular visitor to the
newsgroups, contending for years that the "speed" of gravity must exceed
that of light -- in violation of relativity -- despite several patient,
detailed refutations put to him by Carlip, Baez and Chris Hillman, a
mathematician from the University of Washington.'
Looking at my posts (I am not a physicist - simply a guy with an interest) I
too stand in awe of people like Tom Roberts. When faced with a total
disregard for the facts and an unwillingness to back up assertions I call a
spade a spade - I simply do not have the patience.
Bill
Gerald L. O'Barr
O'Barr wrote:
>> It is not how simple anything might be, but how
>> correct and complete it might be! And SR fails on
>> all these important accounts! SR is a weak
>> theory! Only LET provides to us the physical base
>> to the math!
PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On the contrary, LET provides no physical reason
> for *why* dragging through the ether shortens
> rulers and slows clocks.
O'Barr comments:
The actions of a light clock, in the ether, is as
clear as a bell. Any high school student knows how
to show the equations for a moving light clock.
Surely, you did not really mean to say what you said.
And I have seen you use this word, 'dragging,'
before. And why do you use such a word? What do you
know about ether drag?
To me, you are a trouble maker, saying things
without really thinking. And if we assume that the
forces that hold our physical rulers together are
electromagnetic, and that electromagnetic forces are
achieved by virtual photons that move at an absolute
constant velocity of c in the ether, then the changes
in the effective forces would be just as real as the
changes in the rates of clocks, would they not? Now
whether you can see any of this or not does not
really matter, the physics is clear. Even Lorentz
was able to do the physics that showed what to
expect. Surely you do not doubt his work, do you?
PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>There is absolutely no accounting for why gamma
>should be the amount that rulers get shortened or
>clocks get slowed. Thus LET fails to provide a
>sensible explanation either qualitatively or
>quantitatively.
O'Barr comments:
I am not going to answer such rot. Do a simple
google search and learn how a light clock works!
Gamma is the correct function, automatically obtained
in the ether! Simple Newtonian mechanics requires
it! And the 'diameters' of an original sphere with
an equal potential surface will also reflect this
same function, automatically! The ether approach,
being physical, presents the exact same results that
is only guessed at in SR, and is superior in being
able to tell us exactly what is physically happening
so that what is measured is measured the way it is
measured.
PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>The amount of the ether's effect on rulers and
>clocks is given by the Lorentz transformation, with
>the statement that "it just IS" that much. In this
>manner, LET offers no more information than SR does.
O'Barr comments:
You cannot be even a high school graduate. LET
provides to us the physical reasons why the Lorentz
transforms apply to our reality. There are real
changes that occur to our clocks and to our rulers,
and these real physical changes (along with proper
sync) causes our measurements to become as seen in
these transforms.
I do not care to argue with someone who is so far
behind. LET has an explanation level that is one
level deeper than what SR has, and no one is going to
be able to change such an obvious and clear point as
this!
SR is a sick theory, being unable to answer the
more important questions as to what is really
physically happening. And SR allows all these
fantasies, such as this stupid and impossible 4-D
spacetime continuum, and jumps in times, and back in
times. SR is thus sick! It is a weak theory, and we
are going to laugh at everyone who ends up supporting
a theory that has no physical base!
Pure math is not the best physics, it is in fact
the weakest possible theory, to have nothing but the
math! We are going to laugh at anyone who would dare
think that there really could be anything like a 4-D
spacetime continuum! Such rot will no longer be
tolerated. We must return to some degree of sanity,
and it is going to happen! No one can stop science.
LET is superior to SR, and it has nothing to do with
anyone's feelings or desires. One cannot argue with
the facts!
Ilja Schmelzer
"Bill Hobba" <rub...@junk.com> schrieb
> Untrue. For example see page 168 of Pias - Subtle is the Lord:
> 'It is evident that as late as 1909 Poicare did not know that the
> contraction of rods is a consequence of the two Einstein Postulates.
If true or not doesn't matter - anyway the following conclusion is
nonsensical:
> Poincare therefore did not understand one of the most basic traits of
> Special Relativity.'
If Poincare has not known that one property of the theory follows
from some special set of axioms used by Einstein this does not matter
at all. This is like claiming that somebody who does not know that
2+2=4 may be derived from Peanos axioms is unable to count.
Ilja