About absolute reference frame......
socratus
is absolute.
2. Copernicus proved, that reference frame connected with the Sun
is absolute.
3. Then they began to consider, that reference frame connected with far
stars
is absolute.
4. Now it is consider, that reference frame connected with relict
isotropic radiation
T = 2,7K is absolute.
And if has the scientific idea stopped in this point?
What is farther?
Bill Hobba
"socratus" <isra...@bezeqint.net> wrote in message
news:1144161046.9...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>1 Ptolemee considered, that reference frame connected with the Earth
> is absolute.
> 2. Copernicus proved, that reference frame connected with the Sun
> is absolute.
Then his proof was erronious.
> 3. Then they began to consider, that reference frame connected with far
> stars
> is absolute.
> 4. Now it is consider, that reference frame connected with relict
> isotropic radiation
> T = 2,7K is absolute.
And so is a frame panted white - just like the CBMR 'paints' a frame.
> And if has the scientific idea stopped in this point?
> What is farther?
'Farther' is the amount of work you should do in learning to express
yourself better.
Bill
Henry Haapalainen
"Bill Hobba" <rub...@junk.com> kirjoitti viestissä
news:RWCYf.24021$dy4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
still brains.
Henry Haapalainen
Tom Roberts
> 1 Ptolemee considered, that reference frame connected with the Earth
> is absolute.
> 2. Copernicus proved, that reference frame connected with the Sun
> is absolute.
> 3. Then they began to consider, that reference frame connected with far
> stars is absolute.
> 4. Now it is consider, that reference frame connected with relict
> isotropic radiation T = 2,7K is absolute.
Your use of "proved" is too strong. "assumed" would be much more accurate.
Note also that the word "absolute" has many connotations, many of which
do not really hold here.
In modern physics, all of our fundamental theories obey the Principle of
Relativity, which says that the local laws of physics do not depend on
which locally-inertial frame one references them to. That means there is
no "absolute frame" in modern physics, for suitable meanings of
"absolute". I put it in quotes, because these phrases have such nebulous
and variable meanings that one must be careful in interpreting them.
In particular, the CMBR dipole=0 frame is "absolute" in the sense that
at the location of earth it is a specific locally-inertial frame. But it
is not "absolute" in the sense that the laws of physics are any
different in it than in other locally-inertial frames (this was the
meaning of "absolute" in ~century old aether theories, among others; all
have been soundly refuted by experiments). That frame is no more
"absolute" than is the locally-inertial frame in which the sun is at
rest. Or my little finger.
> And if has the scientific idea stopped in this point?
> What is farther?
I don't know what you are trying to ask. While current theories of
physics have no "absolute frame", there just might be future theories
which do so, but they necessarily must be constructed so it is
exceedingly difficult to detect the "absolute frame", because of the
absence of such detection in current experiments[#]. These possible
future theories are related to quantum gravity....
[#] There are some people around here who claim that some
experiments have detected an "absolute frame", or the
"absolute motion of the earth", or somesuch. They are
wrong, and basically don't understand what experimental
physics is.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
socratus
Thank you for attention and interest.
Socratus.
socratus
> What is farther?
I don't know what you are trying to ask.
I trying to ask / to understand :
It is consider now, that “absolute” temperature of the Universe is
Т=2,7К.
But we all know that our Universe is expanding...... … “Big
Bang”.
So, this temperature Т=2,7К is not constant, and continues to
decrease and,
hence, in the future will decrease down to Т=0К.
Question:
“Will this temperature Т=0К in the future be final, absolute?”
Yes or No?
Koobee Wublee
news:5RHYf.66729$dW3....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
> In modern physics, all of our fundamental theories obey the Principle of
> Relativity, which says that the local laws of physics do not depend on
> which locally-inertial frame one references them to.
What fundamental theories are you referring to? Principle of
Relativity is based on a few equations of Lorentz Transform. This is a
principle by votes among all the judges similar to a beauty pagent.
This being a principle is awfully subjective.
> That means there is
> no "absolute frame" in modern physics, for suitable meanings of
> "absolute". I put it in quotes, because these phrases have such nebulous
> and variable meanings that one must be careful in interpreting them.
Even in Galilean Tranfrom, if there is an absolute frame of reference,
there is no special laws applied that other frames don't get. In
Newtonian physics, this is very much to be the case too. So, I am
still very confused on the significance you place over this absolute
frame of reference and pooh-pooh it.
By the way, please prove Newton's law of gravity would fail in your
concept of absolute reference.
> In particular, the CMBR dipole=0 frame is "absolute" in the sense that
> at the location of earth it is a specific locally-inertial frame. But it
> is not "absolute" in the sense that the laws of physics are any
> different in it than in other locally-inertial frames (this was the
> meaning of "absolute" in ~century old aether theories, among others; all
> have been soundly refuted by experiments). That frame is no more
> "absolute" than is the locally-inertial frame in which the sun is at
> rest. Or my little finger.
The laws of physics should apply to every frame of reference. This
point is as fundamental as all the principles you have presented. Is
the rejection of the Aether making you to hypotherize a uniqueness to
this absolute frame of reference? To some people which you are not
likely to be included, rejection of God would make them doing immoral
things.
>> And if has the scientific idea stopped in this point?
>> What is farther?
>
> I don't know what you are trying to ask. While current theories of
> physics have no "absolute frame", there just might be future theories
> which do so, but they necessarily must be constructed so it is
> exceedingly difficult to detect the "absolute frame", because of the
> absence of such detection in current experiments[#]. These possible
> future theories are related to quantum gravity....
Rejection of the Aether would certainly make you reject absolute frame
of reference all right. Thus, the argument is whether the dipole of
CMBR does indicate the existence of the Aether. At a first glance,
there is no connection. However, if you allow yourself to have
imagination as wild as embracing GR, you might just see something
plausible out there.
> [#] There are some people around here who claim that some
> experiments have detected an "absolute frame", or the
> "absolute motion of the earth", or somesuch. They are
> wrong, and basically don't understand what experimental
> physics is.
I am not downgrading your importance as an experimental physicist.
However, experimental physics is totally directed and can be
manipulated by what the theoretical realm wishes. Interpretation of
data is very subjective.
Tom Roberts
> "Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
> news:5RHYf.66729$dW3....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>>In modern physics, all of our fundamental theories obey the Principle of
>>Relativity, which says that the local laws of physics do not depend on
>>which locally-inertial frame one references them to.
>
> What fundamental theories are you referring to?
The fundamental theories of modern physics: GR and the standard model of
particle physics.
> Principle of
> Relativity is based on a few equations of Lorentz Transform.
You got that backwards.
> This is a
> principle by votes among all the judges similar to a beauty pagent.
Not at all.
> This being a principle is awfully subjective.
Somewhat. Due to English language nuances, not anything related to physics.
>>That means there is
>>no "absolute frame" in modern physics, for suitable meanings of
>>"absolute". I put it in quotes, because these phrases have such nebulous
>>and variable meanings that one must be careful in interpreting them.
>
> Even in Galilean Tranfrom, if there is an absolute frame of reference,
> there is no special laws applied that other frames don't get. In
> Newtonian physics, this is very much to be the case too. So, I am
> still very confused on the significance you place over this absolute
> frame of reference and pooh-pooh it.
"absolute" in the sense that a frame is unique, has no interest. Any
frame has that property.
"absolute" in the sense that the laws of physics are different in one
frame than in any other is not part of modern physics. The ancient
aether theories had it, but they have all been refuted experimentally.
Your example here does not go deep enough.
> By the way, please prove Newton's law of gravity would fail in your
> concept of absolute reference.
I have no "concept of absolute reference". <shrug>
>>In particular, the CMBR dipole=0 frame is "absolute" in the sense that
>>at the location of earth it is a specific locally-inertial frame. But it
>>is not "absolute" in the sense that the laws of physics are any
>>different in it than in other locally-inertial frames (this was the
>>meaning of "absolute" in ~century old aether theories, among others; all
>>have been soundly refuted by experiments). That frame is no more
>>"absolute" than is the locally-inertial frame in which the sun is at
>>rest. Or my little finger.
>
> The laws of physics should apply to every frame of reference. This
> point is as fundamental as all the principles you have presented.
Yes. That is the PoR. As I said.
> the argument is whether the dipole of
> CMBR does indicate the existence of the Aether. At a first glance,
> there is no connection.
Yes. Even after many glances no connection appears. Some people around
here _dream_ of a connection....
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Koobee Wublee
> In modern physics, all of our fundamental theories obey the Principle of
> Relativity, which says that the local laws of physics do not depend on
> which locally-inertial frame one references them to.
Let me ask the question from a different angle. In a local frame of
reference, what would constitute a new law of physics? Would
observations of different values of constants such as G, c, h be
considered as such? Given GR's creation of curvature in space as well
as gravitational time dilation, would the curvature in space constitute
a change in the local law of physics?
> > Principle of
> > Relativity is based on a few equations of Lorentz Transform.
>
> You got that backwards.
So, you are saying Lorentz Transform is based on Special Relativity as
well as Lorentz's personal version of Aether Theory. OK, let's back
up. What do you mean by Principle of Relativity? Do you mean SR as
well as LET? Or just SR? Or just LET? Or neither?
> > This is a
> > principle by votes among all the judges similar to a beauty pagent.
>
> Not at all.
According to one source of definitions of the word principle, we have
"A basic generalization that is ACCEPTED as true and that can be used
as a basis for reasoning or conduct"
It sounds like when you run into something you cannot explain but know
that you are right, you just call it a principle. To accept such a
postulate, you need an almost universal consent among your peers. It
sure sounds like this procedure is very similar to a beauty pagent.
> > Even in Galilean Tranfrom, if there is an absolute frame of reference,
> > there is no special laws applied that other frames don't get. In
> > Newtonian physics, this is very much to be the case too. So, I am
> > still very confused on the significance you place over this absolute
> > frame of reference and pooh-pooh it.
>
> "absolute" in the sense that a frame is unique, has no interest. Any
> frame has that property.
Every point in spacetime has its own curvature according to GR. So,
you don't call that each point being unique. Why?
> "absolute" in the sense that the laws of physics are different in one
> frame than in any other is not part of modern physics.
You keep making the statement that the laws are different. What
constitutes as difference in law? Please give examples.
> > By the way, please prove Newton's law of gravity would fail in your
> > concept of absolute reference.
>
> I have no "concept of absolute reference". <shrug>
So, why do you keep pooh-pooh-ing the concept of absolute frame of
reference if you don't even know what it is? What type of laws of
physics it would violate? etc.
> >>In particular, the CMBR dipole=0 frame is "absolute" in the sense that
> >>at the location of earth it is a specific locally-inertial frame. But it
> >>is not "absolute" in the sense that the laws of physics are any
> >>different in it than in other locally-inertial frames (this was the
> >>meaning of "absolute" in ~century old aether theories, among others; all
> >>have been soundly refuted by experiments). That frame is no more
> >>"absolute" than is the locally-inertial frame in which the sun is at
> >>rest. Or my little finger.
> >
> > The laws of physics should apply to every frame of reference. This
> > point is as fundamental as all the principles you have presented.
>
> Yes. That is the PoR. As I said.
>
> > the argument is whether the dipole of
> > CMBR does indicate the existence of the Aether. At a first glance,
> > there is no connection.
>
> Yes. Even after many glances no connection appears. Some people around
> here _dream_ of a connection....
While some people around here dream of a connection between the dipole
of CMBR and the absolute frame of reference just like Newton did dream
aboout the laws of gravity, you have not demonstrated how silly things
would be if there is really an absolute frame of reference. You are
just criticizing farce. <shrug>
Bilge
>news:mO%Yf.62411$H71....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>
>> In modern physics, all of our fundamental theories obey the Principle of
>> Relativity, which says that the local laws of physics do not depend on
>> which locally-inertial frame one references them to.
>
>Let me ask the question from a different angle. In a local frame of
>reference, what would constitute a new law of physics? Would
>observations of different values of constants such as G, c, h be
>considered as such? Given GR's creation of curvature in space as well
>as gravitational time dilation, would the curvature in space constitute
>a change in the local law of physics?
>
>> > Principle of
>> > Relativity is based on a few equations of Lorentz Transform.
>>
>> You got that backwards.
>
>So, you are saying Lorentz Transform is based on Special Relativity as
>well as Lorentz's personal version of Aether Theory. OK, let's back
>up. What do you mean by Principle of Relativity? Do you mean SR as
>well as LET? Or just SR? Or just LET? Or neither?
If you knew half as much about the ``lagrangian method'' as you
keeps saying you do, you could derive the lorentz transforms yourself
from the principle of relativity from the functional integral,
s = \integral sqrt(g_ab dx^a dx^b)
using different possiilities for the metric g_ab and eliminating the
ones which aren't physical. You'll be left with two: One gives you
newtonian physics and one gives you relativity.
[...]
>>
>> Not at all.
>
>According to one source of definitions of the word principle, we have
>
>"A basic generalization that is ACCEPTED as true and that can be used
>as a basis for reasoning or conduct"
Physicists generally accept as true, the proposition that the laws
of physics don't change if you cross the street, stand on your and
perform the experiment tomorrow. Hence, it is a principle that
physics is observer independent.
>It sounds like when you run into something you cannot explain but know
>that you are right, you just call it a principle.
It is a principle, independent of whether or not you understand the
explanation.
>To accept such a postulate, you need an almost universal consent
>among your peers.
Then, universal conset ought to be sufficient. Even moderately
knowledgeable, but misguided crackpots don't dispute the principle
of relativity. They only try to apply it in a way that isn't
self-consistent to try and maintain some philosophical preconception.
If you think otherwise, explain to me how you imagine the laws of
physics for a universe in which those laws differ in different places
and change unpredictably from instant to instant.
>It sure sounds like this procedure is very similar to a beauty pagent.
Then hedge your bets by getting really big breast implants.
[...]
>> I have no "concept of absolute reference". <shrug>
>
>So, why do you keep pooh-pooh-ing the concept of absolute frame of
>reference if you don't even know what it is? What type of laws of
>physics it would violate? etc.
Define such a frame, i.e., specify mathematically the properties of
such a frame that make it inequivalent to any other frame.
[...]
kenseto
"absolute" in the sense that a frame is unique, has no interest. Any
frame has that property.
"absolute" in the sense that the laws of physics are different in one
frame than in any other is not part of modern physics. The ancient
aether theories had it, but they have all been refuted experimentally.
Your example here does not go deep enough.
Ken:
The absolute frame do have special properties. An observer in the
absolute frame will see all the clocks moving wrt him are running slow
and all the rods moving wrt him are contracted. SR hijacked these
special properties of the absolute frame and assigned them to any SR
observer and then you SR experts turn around and claim that the
absolute frame doesn't exist. This is like claiming you mother is not
your mother.
BTW, that's the reason why SR has a limited domain of applicability. In
real life all observers are in a state of absolute motion and thus an
observer will see some clocks moving wrt him are running slow and same
are running fast. Including this interpretation will give rise to a new
theory of relativity that has an unlimited domain of applicability. IRT
(Improved Relativity Theory) is such a theory. IRT includes SRT as a
subset. However, unlike SRT, the equations of IRT are valid in all
environments, including gravity. A description of IRT is in the
following link (page 4):
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Unification.pdf
Ken Seto
Koobee Wublee
news:slrne3a8c6....@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
> Physicists generally accept as true, the proposition that the laws
> of physics don't change if you cross the street, stand on your and
> perform the experiment tomorrow. Hence, it is a principle that
> physics is observer independent.
I do agree with you that is indeed the case. However, I dislike the
double standards.
When you observe an anomaly such as Mercury's orbit, you claim the laws
of physics must be the same over there as well. Since the laws of
physics as you know of does not explain Mercury's orbital anomaly, you
modify your laws of physics until your laws of physics explains
Mercury's orbital anomaly.
When you claim a special frame of reference that exhibits an anomaly to
an observation unable to reconcile the laws of physics as you know of.
You call that a violation of the law of physics. To be fair, you have
to modify your laws of physics as you know of to accomodate for the
anomaly of your observation.
Thus, when you encouter an anomaly in observation, you modify the laws
of physics as you know of and continue to claim the laws of physics is
the same everywhere. This would render one of Einstein's postulate for
Special Relativity as a farce. Einstein's farce does not end here. We
have the Principle of Equivalence as well.
> Then, universal conset ought to be sufficient. Even moderately
> knowledgeable, but misguided crackpots don't dispute the principle
> of relativity. They only try to apply it in a way that isn't
> self-consistent to try and maintain some philosophical preconception.
You are applying a double standard to yourself and the ones you call
crackpots (including me) which include Seto, O'Barr, and others who
also based their interpretations on the very mathematics of Lorentz
Transform. All you guys get the same result because all you guys apply
your interpretations using the mathematics of Lorentz Transform. If
you call Seto and O'Barr crackpots, you are actually calling yourself
crackpots. I don't subscribe to Lorentz Transform. Thus, I have more
right to call you a crackpot than you call myself, Seto, and O'Barr
crackpots.
Relativity is not a principle. It is a mathematical model that is
supposed to be able to explain your observations. The question is if
the model is correct.
> >So, why do you keep pooh-pooh-ing the concept of absolute frame of
> >reference if you don't even know what it is? What type of laws of
> >physics it would violate? etc.
>
> Define such a frame, i.e., specify mathematically the properties of
> such a frame that make it inequivalent to any other frame.
Let's leave this fine topic for another time. The world is not ready
for it yet.
kenseto
the mentality of an indoctrinated SR expert.
Mike
socratus wrote:
> 1 Ptolemee considered, that reference frame connected with the Earth
> is absolute.
Wrong
> 2. Copernicus proved, that reference frame connected with the Sun
> is absolute.
Even more wrong
> 3. Then they began to consider, that reference frame connected with far
> stars
> is absolute.
Even worse
> 4. Now it is consider, that reference frame connected with relict
> isotropic radiation
> T = 2,7K is absolute.
> And if has the scientific idea stopped in this point?
> What is farther?
It depends how far your misconception will get you. Generally, since
misconceptions are ideas, they are unbounded infinity wrt
misconception.
Try journalism or hockey
Mike
Randy Poe
Koobee Wublee wrote:
> "Bilge" <dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
> news:slrne3a8c6....@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
>
> > Physicists generally accept as true, the proposition that the laws
> > of physics don't change if you cross the street, stand on your and
> > perform the experiment tomorrow. Hence, it is a principle that
> > physics is observer independent.
>
> I do agree with you that is indeed the case. However, I dislike the
> double standards.
What double standards?
> When you observe an anomaly such as Mercury's orbit, you claim the laws
> of physics must be the same over there as well. Since the laws of
> physics as you know of does not explain Mercury's orbital anomaly, you
> modify your laws of physics until your laws of physics explains
> Mercury's orbital anomaly.
Newtonian physics does not explain Mercury's orbital
precession. GR does.
But you seem to imply GR was created to explain Mercury's
orbit. Not true. GR came out of certain postulates about
acceleration and invariance of the laws of physics; it
was then found to explain Mercury's orbit.
Since then, it has been found to explain the precession
of other celestial objects.
Do you think something was modified in GR to accomplish
this?
> When you claim a special frame of reference that exhibits an anomaly to
> an observation unable to reconcile the laws of physics as you know of.
What is this special frame of reference?
> You call that a violation of the law of physics. To be fair, you have
> to modify your laws of physics as you know of to accomodate for the
> anomaly of your observation.
Can you talk more specifically? What laws of physics are
you claiming were found to be incorrect in what reference
frame and how were they modified? When did these
nefarious events occur?
- Randy
Mike
Tom Roberts wrote:
> Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > "Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
> > news:5RHYf.66729$dW3....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
> >>In modern physics, all of our fundamental theories obey the Principle of
> >>Relativity, which says that the local laws of physics do not depend on
> >>which locally-inertial frame one references them to.
> >
> > What fundamental theories are you referring to?
>
> The fundamental theories of modern physics: GR and the standard model of
> particle physics.
GR is NOT a fundamental theory of physics. It has been falsified even
recently by a factor of some million billion times. But the first
falsification GR was made
by Allaiss back in the fifties. The effect is well documented now and
not predicted by GR. All possible sources of experimental erros have
been ruled out.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0408/0408023.pdf
Drink a cold glass of water and forget the "fundamental" story.
>
>
> > Principle of
> > Relativity is based on a few equations of Lorentz Transform.
>
> You got that backwards.
>
>
> > This is a
> > principle by votes among all the judges similar to a beauty pagent.
>
> Not at all.
>
>
> > This being a principle is awfully subjective.
>
> Somewhat. Due to English language nuances, not anything related to physics.
>
>
> >>That means there is
> >>no "absolute frame" in modern physics, for suitable meanings of
> >>"absolute". I put it in quotes, because these phrases have such nebulous
> >>and variable meanings that one must be careful in interpreting them.
> >
> > Even in Galilean Tranfrom, if there is an absolute frame of reference,
> > there is no special laws applied that other frames don't get. In
> > Newtonian physics, this is very much to be the case too. So, I am
> > still very confused on the significance you place over this absolute
> > frame of reference and pooh-pooh it.
>
> "absolute" in the sense that a frame is unique, has no interest. Any
> frame has that property.
>
> "absolute" in the sense that the laws of physics are different in one
> frame than in any other is not part of modern physics. The ancient
> aether theories had it, but they have all been refuted experimentally.
> Your example here does not go deep enough.
Then you are one of "those" who believe that when the bucket of water
stops rotating and the water surface is curved it is caused by the rest
of the universe rotating the other way.
Mike
Mike
Roberts always confuses axioms, propositions formally accepted without
demonstration, proof, or evidence with principles, rules or
generalizations. Einstein did the same. Of course, Einstein lacked any
understanding of formal logic but Roberts has no excuses to call it
PoR. It is simply the axiom or postulate of relativity.
Mike
Bilge
>news:slrne3a8c6....@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
>
>> Physicists generally accept as true, the proposition that the laws
>> of physics don't change if you cross the street, stand on your and
>> perform the experiment tomorrow. Hence, it is a principle that
>> physics is observer independent.
>
>I do agree with you that is indeed the case. However, I dislike the
>double standards.
Tom Roberts
> "Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
> news:mO%Yf.62411$H71....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>> In modern physics, all of our fundamental theories obey the Principle of
>> Relativity, which says that the local laws of physics do not depend on
>> which locally-inertial frame one references them to.
>
> Let me ask the question from a different angle. In a local frame of
> reference, what would constitute a new law of physics?
Dependence of physical constants on frame. Or something like this:
F = m a - m w x (w x r) - 2 m w x v
(F, v, and a are 3-vectors; w is the pseudo-3-vector rotation;
m is the mass of the object)
Here w is a frame-dependent violation. Now this example is obviously
rotating frames in Newtonian mechanics, but the point is that the
appearance of any vector describing the _frame_ is not allowed.
This example _is_ relevant, because in SR relative
motion of frames is just a different type of rotation,
but there is no corresponding "centrifugal" or "Coriolis
force", _which_is_the_point_.
> Would
> observations of different values of constants such as G, c, h be
> considered as such?
Yes, if they were _frame_dependent_ variations.
> Given GR's creation of curvature in space as well
> as gravitational time dilation, would the curvature in space constitute
> a change in the local law of physics?
That depends on how "curvature of space" appears in the theory. In GR,
of course, it does not appear at all -- what appears in GR is the
curvature _tensor_ for spaceTIME, and because it is a tensor it is
clearly independent of frame (and coordinates in general).
>>> Principle of
>>> Relativity is based on a few equations of Lorentz Transform.
>> You got that backwards.
>
> So, you are saying Lorentz Transform is based on Special Relativity as
> well as Lorentz's personal version of Aether Theory.
Not at all -- you need to improve the accuracy of your reading. What I
said is that you "got that backwards", meaning that the Lorentz
transform actually is "based on" the PoR. The PoR _definitely_ came
first, both logically and historically. <shrug>
> What do you mean by Principle of Relativity?
Einstein's statemet of his first postulate in his 1905 paper. <shrug>
> Do you mean SR as
> well as LET? Or just SR? Or just LET? Or neither?
The PoR is a broad principle independent of them. But it does not apply
to LET (because LET has a unique ether frame and the laws of physics
contain a vector describing the moving frame's motion relative to it).
>> "absolute" in the sense that a frame is unique, has no interest. Any
>> frame has that property.
>
> Every point in spacetime has its own curvature according to GR. So,
> you don't call that each point being unique.
You are confused. Yes indeed, every point in the spacetime manifold has
its own curvature _tensor_ -- that's an essential part of what we mean
by "manifold" and "tensor field on the manifold". Yes indeed, every
point in the manifold is unique -- that's an essential part of what we
mean by "point". <shrug>
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Tom Roberts
> The absolute frame do have special properties. An observer in the
> absolute frame will see all the clocks moving wrt him are running slow
> and all the rods moving wrt him are contracted.
In SR this is not "special", this applies to each and every inertial
frame. <shrug>
> [... further nonsense omitted -- you must _understand_ SR
> before attempting to criticize it.]
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Tom Roberts
> When you observe an anomaly such as Mercury's orbit, you claim the
> laws
> of physics must be the same over there as well. Since the laws of
> physics as you know of does not explain Mercury's orbital anomaly, you
> modify your laws of physics until your laws of physics explains
> Mercury's orbital anomaly.
While that could be true in principle, historically that is not what
happened at all. Einstein started on the journey to GR because of
inconsistencies he found in the _theory_, not because of anomalies like
this.
> When you claim a special frame of reference that exhibits an anomaly
> to
> an observation unable to reconcile the laws of physics as you know of.
> You call that a violation of the law of physics. To be fair, you have
> to modify your laws of physics as you know of to accomodate for the
> anomaly of your observation.
This does not apply, as there is no "special frame of reference" in GR.
> Thus, when you encouter an anomaly in observation, you modify the laws
> of physics as you know of and continue to claim the laws of physics is
> the same everywhere.
Except no such "modification" is required for the anomaly you describe.
Indeed, the only "anomalies" in GR are of recent origin (~20 years) and
it's not yet clear if they are a) new physics that conforms to GR, b)
new physics that refute GR, or c) old physics that has been
misidentified as "anomalies".
For example, if dark matter turns out to be "WIMPs" (or
similar) then it is (a), if it turns out there is no dark
matter then it is (b), and if it turns out to be invisible
planets or dark stars then it is (c). Similar remarks
apply to the other anomalies: dark energy and the anomalous
acceleration of the Pioneer spacecraft.
> This would render one of Einstein's postulate for
> Special Relativity as a farce.
Not true. The relationship between SR and GR is such that the postulates
of SR still apply, _locally_. And this is OK because all the support for
SR comes from local experiments. Indeed, non-local measurements
repeatedly disagree with SR.
> Relativity is not a principle. It is a mathematical model that is
> supposed to be able to explain your observations.
Yes. And it succeeds extremely well [see the FAQ for literally hundreds
of references].
> The question is if
> the model is correct.
If by "correct" you mean "agrees with experiments", then the answer for
GR is "yes". We normally say "valid" rather than "correct" to avoid
confusions such as yours.
If you mean something else, then you are not discussing physics.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
kenseto
> > absolute frame will see all the clocks moving wrt him are running slow
>> and all the rods moving wrt him are contracted.
Roberts:
>In SR this is not "special", this applies to each and every inertial
>frame. <shrug>
KS:
So what? These are special properties hijacked from the absolute rest
frame and assigned to each and every inertial frame. That's what make
SR incomplete. SR is valid only in cases where the state of absolute
motion of the observed object is higher than that of the observer.
Acceleration will increase the state of absolute motion of an object
and that's why SR is valid in accelerator designs. <shrug>
Ken Seto
surrealis...@hotmail.com
Koobee Wublee wrote:
> "Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
> news:5RHYf.66729$dW3....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>
> > In modern physics, all of our fundamental theories obey the Principle of
> > Relativity, which says that the local laws of physics do not depend on
> > which locally-inertial frame one references them to.
>
> What fundamental theories are you referring to? Principle of
> Relativity is based on a few equations of Lorentz Transform.
It is reprehensible that introductory physics books do not teach that
the principle of relativity was first set down by Galileo in his book
_Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems_.
Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems - from The Second Day
pp. 186--188 (tranlsated by Stillman Drake)
**** begin quote ***
[SALV.] Shut yourself up with some friend in the main cabin below
decks of some large ship, and have with you there some flies,
butterflies, and other small flying animals. Have a large bowl of
water with some fish in it; hang up a bottle that empties drop by drop
into a wide vessel beneath it. With the ship standing still, observe
carefully how the little animals fly with equal speed to all sides of
the cabin. The fish swim indifferently in all directions; the drops
fall into the vessel beneath; and, in throwing something to your
friend, you need throw it no more strongly in one direction than in
another, the distances being equal; jumping with your feet together,
you pass equal spaces in every direction. When you have observed all
these things carefully (though there is no doubt that when the ship is
standing still everything must happen in this way), have the ship
proceed with any speed you like, so long as the motion is uniform and
not fluctuating this way and that. You will discover not the least
change in all the effects named, nor could you tell from any of them
whether the ship was moving or standing still. In jumping, you will
pass on the floor the same spaces as before, nor will you larger jumps
towards the stern than toward the prow even though the ship is moving
quite rapidly, despite that fact that during the time that you are in
the air the floor under you will be going in a direction opposite to
your jump. In throwing something to your companion, you will need no
more force to get it to him whether he is in the direction of the bow
or the stern, with yourself situated opposite. The droplets will fall
as before into the vessel beneath without dropping toward the stern,
although while the drops are in the air the ship runs many spans. The
fish in their water will swim toward the front of their bowl with no
more effort than toward the back, and will go with equal ease to bait
placed anywhere around the edges of the bowl. Finally the butterflies
and flies will continue their flights indifferently toward every side,
nor will it ever happen that they are concentrated toward the stern,
as if tired out from keeping with the course of the ship from which
they will have been separated during long intervals by keeping
themselves in the air. And if smoke is made by burning some incense,
it will be seen going up in the form of a little cloud, remaining
still and moving no more toward one side than the other. The cause of
all these correspondences of these effects is the fact that the ship's
motion is common to all the thing contained in it, and to the air
also. That is why I say you should be below decks; for if this took
place in the open air, which would not follow the course of the ship,
more or less noticeable differences would be seen in some of these
effects noted. No doubt the smoke would fall as much behind us as the
air itself. The flies likewise, and the butterflies, held back by the
air, would be unable to follow the ship's motion if they were
separated from it by a perceptible distance. By keeping themselves
near it, they would follow it without effort or hindrance; for the
ship, being an unbroken structure, carries with it a part of the
nearby air. For similar reason we sometimes, when riding horseback,
see persistent flies and horseflies following our horses, flying now
to one part of their bodies and now to another. But the difference
would be small as regards the following drops, as to the jumping and
the throwing it would be quite imperceptible.
**** end quote ***
In summation, we can claim: it is impossible to perform a mechanical
experiment in an inertial frame that will detect the frame's absolute
velocity (if it has one).
By inventing a quasi-mechanical theory of light propagation, Lorentz
came up with a theory that happened to obey the PoR (formally, i.e., in
the transformation of the equations only). But Einstein, by
specifically attempting to generalize the PoR from its limited
mechanical view to include electrodynamics (in which he treated the E
and B fields as irreducible to mechanics) succeeded while
deconstructing the luminiferous ether, thus treating it as superfluous.
Thus, the PoR is a formal contraint (which can be of heuristic use)
that applies to the equations describing the behavior of the physical
system of interest, but is not an absolute constraint on the underlying
models that theories can adopt. In other words, the PoR does not forbid
the invention of preferred (or absolute) frames, so long as the frame
is not experimentally identifiable by mechanical or electrodynamical
means.
Mike
Tom Roberts wrote:
> Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > "Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
> > news:mO%Yf.62411$H71....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> >> In modern physics, all of our fundamental theories obey the Principle of
> >> Relativity, which says that the local laws of physics do not depend on
> >> which locally-inertial frame one references them to.
> >
> > Let me ask the question from a different angle. In a local frame of
> > reference, what would constitute a new law of physics?
>
> Dependence of physical constants on frame. Or something like this:
> F = m a - m w x (w x r) - 2 m w x v
> (F, v, and a are 3-vectors; w is the pseudo-3-vector rotation;
> m is the mass of the object)
> Here w is a frame-dependent violation. Now this example is obviously
> rotating frames in Newtonian mechanics, but the point is that the
> appearance of any vector describing the _frame_ is not allowed.
No, you are confused. This does not constitute a violation of Newton's
law. Still, the sum of all forces acting on a body is equal to ma. Your
naive equation can be rewritten as:
F +m w x (w x r) + 2 m w x v = ma or F' = ma
You are as confused as Einstein was, no wonder because you are
brainwashed by his crackpot theories. The so called "violation"
applies only to moving observers in non-inertial reference frames, such
as in rotation, and it is not really a violation leading to a new law
of physics but a realization that laws of physics retain their form
only wrt an absolute frame, as Newton demonstrated with his bucker
experiment for which it is a general consensous there is not yer a
convincing rebuttal other than the metaphysical hypothesis Mach.
As you can see above, Newton's law retains its general form in
non-inertial reference frames (also called D'Alembert's law) but the
specific components of the force acting on a test particle are
different. Do you think that when the composition of a compound chenges
in chemistry the laws of chemistry change? This is analogous to what
happens to Newton's law in non-inertial FoR
Your claim that a new law arises just because the components of the
force are different for inertial and non-inertial observers is an
extraordinary demonstration of an inability to comprehend the
foundational issues of physics. Furthermore, it shows how this
inability has led to declarations of the "discovery" of new laws based
on profound misunderstandings of physical principles as well as the
rules of logic.
> This example _is_ relevant, because in SR relative
> motion of frames is just a different type of rotation,
> but there is no corresponding "centrifugal" or "Coriolis
> force", _which_is_the_point_.
With mathematics you can do anything you like, eliminate any variables
you want to define new ones. But when mathematics is declared the basis
of physics rather than its tool, people can claim the absurdities you
do.
You have demonstrated you do not understand the issue of ficticious
forces and you repeated the same misconceptions Einstein had about
them. These forces are very real and when they are transformed out
physics becomes spooky and even insane.
I will try to help you by telling you how the misconception started.
Newton equated the time rate of change of momentum to impressed forces
only. as in F = dp/dt.
Since one needs to add those fincticious forces in non-inertial FoR,
some naive philosophers thought the law was violated. You can easily
correct that as D'Alembert did by eliminating the term "impressed" and
define: Sum(F) = dp/dt
As you see there is no change in the law now and just the force
components change for inertial to non-inertial frames. Still, it is a
philosophical questions whether these forces can cause dp/dt but that
is not a issue here and basically the misunderstanding of this lead
some cranks believe that the law was violated.
I hope you are clever and you have the clarity of mind to understand
these points and correct the mistakes you keep repeating in these
groups.
Mike
Tom Roberts
> Tom Roberts wrote:
>> F = m a - m w x (w x r) - 2 m w x v
>> (F, v, and a are 3-vectors; w is the pseudo-3-vector rotation;
>> m is the mass of the object)
>> Here w is a frame-dependent violation. Now this example is obviously
>> rotating frames in Newtonian mechanics, but the point is that the
>> appearance of any vector describing the _frame_ is not allowed.
>
> law.
Sure it does! Newton's second law is F=ma, and in a rotating frame that
simply does not hold -- one must _invent_ fictitious "forces" (called
"centrifugal force" and "Coriolis force") in order to "save" the law.
Those fictitious "forces" are special, are coordinate dependent (i.e.
rotation dependent), and cannot possibly be real (because they are
coordinate dependent).
And also: I was not discussing Newton's laws, this was an _example_ I
used while discussing the PoR.
> Still, the sum of all forces acting on a body is equal to ma.
Calling the last two terms in my equation above "forces" does not make
them so. <shrug>
> Since one needs to add those fincticious forces in non-inertial FoR,
> some naive philosophers thought the law was violated. You can easily
> correct that as D'Alembert did by eliminating the term "impressed" and
> define: Sum(F) = dp/dt
That does not solve the problem.
This approach can solve the problem, but one needs differential geometry
and a _covariant_ derivative (remember that p is a 3-vector).
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Tom Roberts
> Tom Roberts wrote:
>> Koobee Wublee wrote:
>> > What fundamental theories are you referring to?
>>
>> The fundamental theories of modern physics: GR and the standard model of
>> particle physics.
>
> GR is NOT a fundamental theory of physics.
Hmmm. It is as fundamental a theory as we have for describing
gravitation and cosmology.
> It has been falsified even
> recently by a factor of some million billion times.
You must have a _VERY_ low threshold for "falsification". To the rest of
us, an unconfirmed claim based on a dubious analysis does not constitute
falsification.
> But the first
> falsification GR was made
> by Allaiss back in the fifties.
You and he have very low thresholds for belief. In particular, none of
his analyses have errorbars. Certainly some of his claims are clearly
wrong because an elementary computation of errorbars shows them to be
statistically insignificant (this certainly applies to his claims about
Miller's results, for example, and probably to others).
> The effect is well documented now and
> not predicted by GR. All possible sources of experimental erros have
> been ruled out.
> http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0408/0408023.pdf
You are not alone in having very low thresholds for belief. <shrug>
There are some real and important anomalies that have the potential to
refute GR. That is not one of them (serious attempts to reproduce it
failed). The ones I know of are: dark matter, dark energy, and the
anomalous acceleration of the Pioneer spacecraft. At present it is not
known if these will refute GR or not, and they are active areas of research.
>> "absolute" in the sense that the laws of physics are different in one
>> frame than in any other is not part of modern physics. The ancient
>> aether theories had it, but they have all been refuted experimentally.
>> Your example here does not go deep enough.
>
> Then you are one of "those" who believe that when the bucket of water
> stops rotating and the water surface is curved it is caused by the rest
> of the universe rotating the other way.
That claim of yours is completely unfounded, and totally unrelated to
what I wrote. Please don't ascribe your personal beliefs to me. <shrug>
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
tomgee
surrealis...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > "Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
> > news:5RHYf.66729$dW3....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> > > In modern physics, all of our fundamental theories obey the Principle of
> > > Relativity, which says that the local laws of physics do not depend on
> > > which locally-inertial frame one references them to.
> >
> > What fundamental theories are you referring to? Principle of
> > Relativity is based on a few equations of Lorentz Transform.
>
> It is reprehensible that introductory physics books do not teach that
> the principle of relativity was first set down by Galileo in his book
> _Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems_.
>
lands teachers in the pokey til they write 100k times, "It was not AE's
original idea at all."
And thanks for the info below from Galileo.
I have wondered about that claim of his. Can you explain where the
ether becomes unnecessary? My model makes several ideas superfluous,
but I explain precisely why and where my ideas do that.
>
> Thus, the PoR is a formal contraint (which can be of heuristic use)
> that applies to the equations describing the behavior of the physical
> system of interest, but is not an absolute constraint on the underlying
> models that theories can adopt. In other words, the PoR does not forbid
> the invention of preferred (or absolute) frames, so long as the frame
> is not experimentally identifiable by mechanical or electrodynamical
> means.
>
Meaning what, exactly?
Koobee Wublee
Referring to other posts you have scattered through out this thread, I
am not sure what your point is. However, here is something that it
should reflect what actually happened in history.
> While that could be true in principle, historically that is not what
> happened at all. Einstein started on the journey to GR because of
> inconsistencies he found in the _theory_, not because of anomalies like
> this.
Other than Mercury's orbital anomaly known at that time, Newtonian
physics did explain all the phenomenon ever observed back then. Thus,
it was this anomaly that encouraged others such as Gerber, Minkowski,
Grossmann, Nordstrom, Einstein, and a few others to modify Newtonian
law of gravity. In the spring to summer of 1915, Einstein gave a series
of lectures at Goettingen. In doing so, he successfully recruited the
eventually biggest contributer of GR, Hilbert, to look into the
problem. To derive the field equations, Hilbert took a different
method than the geometric method Einstein/Grossman had done earlier.
It was Hilbert's Lagrangian that gave rise to the Einstein-Hilbert
Action that allowed Hilbert to apply calculus of variations to come up
with the field equations. Hilbert did not initiate this on his own.
In September to October time frame of that year, Einstein with Besso's
help using the same methodology as Gerber had done almost 20 years
prior modified the Newtonian gravitational potential and derived an
equation which Einstein claimed would predict Mercury's orbital
anomaly. When Einstein said years later that he did not know of
Gerber's work, I do believe him. Einstein cannot even do mid to
complex math. It was Besso who did it for Einstein in which Besso had
to copy Gerber's work. Without Gerber's interest trying to explain
Mercury's orbital anomaly, Einstein would not know where to start.
Thus, without Mercury's orbital anomaly, there would be no attempts
needed to modify Newtonian law of gravity back then. Modification of
Newtonian gravity would eventually come but would do decades later than
1915.
In addition, you wrote:
> Newton's second law is F=ma, and in a rotating frame that
> simply does not hold -- one must _invent_ fictitious "forces" (called
> "centrifugal force" and "Coriolis force") in order to "save" the law.
> Those fictitious "forces" are special, are coordinate dependent (i.e.
> rotation dependent), and cannot possibly be real (because they are
> coordinate dependent).
In which you were referring to another message you wrote:
> > [...what would constitute a new law of physics?]
>
> Dependence of physical constants on frame. Or something like this:
> F = m a - m w x (w x r) - 2 m w x v
> (F, v, and a are 3-vectors; w is the pseudo-3-vector rotation;
> m is the mass of the object)
> Here w is a frame-dependent violation. Now this example is obviously
> rotating frames in Newtonian mechanics, but the point is that the
> appearance of any vector describing the _frame_ is not allowed.
I don't know where you get the following from.
F = m a - m w x (w x r) - 2 m w x v
However, you seem to refer to the parameters derived from the
Euler-Lagrange Equation associated with r. Given the classical
Lagrangian,
L = (dr/dt)^2 / 2 + r^2 (dH/dt)^2 / 2 + G M / r
The Euler-Lagrange Equation associated with r is
d^2r/dt^2 - r (dH/dt)^2 = - G M / r^2
Apparently, you refer (r (dH/dt)^2) as the centrifugal acceleration
which is very correct. However, you said it cannot be real.
Have you seen a magic show? The magician is very effective at creating
incidences that will distract you. In the meantime, he will show you
the wonder of magic. What you have done here going from coordinate to
coordinate, frame to frame, force to force, law to law, correctness to
validity, etc, is similar to what this magician is doing.
In doing so, you have argued for phantom centrifugal force, and thus
the attempt to validate your position on whatever is still obscure.
> And also: I was not discussing Newton's laws, this was an _example_ I
> used while discussing the PoR.
>
>> Still, the sum of all forces acting on a body is equal to ma.
>
> Calling the last two terms in my equation above "forces" does not make
> them so. <shrug>
It looks like the magic show continues. You just call certain forces
acting on an object unreal.
>> Since one needs to add those fincticious forces in non-inertial FoR,
>> some naive philosophers thought the law was violated. You can easily
>> correct that as D'Alembert did by eliminating the term "impressed" and
>> define: Sum(F) = dp/dt
>
> That does not solve the problem.
>
> This approach can solve the problem, but one needs differential geometry
> and a _covariant_ derivative (remember that p is a 3-vector).
Is the show finally over? If yes, <applaud>
Now, let's get back to discuss the topic which I don't see you have
addressed. That is
a) Under what circumstance, you would call an observed anomaly to the
laws of physics as you know of a failure of the Principle of Relativity
where all frames must obey the same laws of physics?
When it is someone else's theory as the answer?
b) Under what circumstance, you would declare the laws of physics as
you know of being not complete after observing an anomaly to the laws
of physics? And thus this allows you to maintain the validity of the
Principle of Relativity by modifying the laws of physics as you know of
to explain the anomaly.
When it is GR as the answer?
Do you have double standards?
Tom Roberts
> "Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
> news:NUXZf.65646$Jd.1...@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
>> inconsistencies he found in the _theory_, not because of anomalies like
>> this.
>
> Other than Mercury's orbital anomaly known at that time, Newtonian
> physics did explain all the phenomenon ever observed back then.
Yes. As I said, it was a _theoretical_inconsistency_ that started
Einstein on the journey to GR. Specifically: the inconsistency between
SR and Newtonian gravitation.
> To derive the field equations, Hilbert took a different
> method than the geometric method Einstein/Grossman had done earlier.
> It was Hilbert's Lagrangian that gave rise to the Einstein-Hilbert
> Action that allowed Hilbert to apply calculus of variations to come up
> with the field equations.
Yes. But that is really a geometric approach. Indeed, today _all_ of our
fundamental theories are at base geometric, and their Lagrangians are
_all_ the curvature of an appropriate manifold (for GR, spacetime; for
the standard model, a fiber bundle over spacetime). Curvature is, of
course, quintessentially geometric.
> Hilbert did not initiate this on his own.
> In September to October time frame of that year, Einstein with Besso's
> help using the same methodology as Gerber had done almost 20 years
> prior modified the Newtonian gravitational potential and derived an
> equation which Einstein claimed would predict Mercury's orbital
> anomaly.
That is just plain false. Einstein did not "modify the Newtonian
gravitational potential", he took an appropriate limit of the equations
of GR. I don't know Besso's role in this, but Einstein had certainly
done similar things before.
> I don't know where you get the following from.
> F = m a - m w x (w x r) - 2 m w x v
Then go back and take Physics 101. Anyone interested in doing physics
should be able to recognize Newton's law in a rotating frame, as it is
commonly written (e.g. see Haliday and Resnick). <shrug>
> Apparently, you refer (r (dH/dt)^2) as the centrifugal acceleration
> which is very correct. However, you said it cannot be real.
> Have you seen a magic show? The magician is very effective at creating
> incidences that will distract you. In the meantime, he will show you
> the wonder of magic. What you have done here going from coordinate to
> coordinate, frame to frame, force to force, law to law, correctness to
> validity, etc, is similar to what this magician is doing.
> In doing so, you have argued for phantom centrifugal force, and thus
> the attempt to validate your position on whatever is still obscure.
Anything that is real must be independent of arbitrary human choices,
such as coordinate system. Equivalently, real phenomena do not depend on
who is looking at them or how they are described by humans. "Centrifugal
force" and "Coriolis" force fail this, and thus cannot be real. Indeed,
in GR "gravitational force" is likewise not real -- all of those
"forces" are merely components of the connection, and are thus merely
consequences of the geometry and coordinates. <shrug>
> It looks like the magic show continues. You just call certain forces
> acting on an object unreal.
This is not a "magic show", it is merely a basic understanding that
human descriptions of the world cannot possibly affect real phenomena.
<shrug>
> a) Under what circumstance, you would call an observed anomaly to the
> laws of physics as you know of a failure of the Principle of Relativity
> where all frames must obey the same laws of physics?
When some reproducible experiment or observation shows some phenomena
that violates the PoR.
> b) Under what circumstance, you would declare the laws of physics as
> you know of being not complete after observing an anomaly to the laws
> of physics?
When some reproducible experiment or observation shows some phenomena
that is unexplainable via the currently known laws of physics.
This has, of course, happened rather often in the past. And I know of
three anomalies that may well do so in the future, but at present we
don't known enough about them to conclude that: dark matter, dark
energy, and the anomalous acceleration of the Pioneer spacecraft. All
three would meet the criteria above, except it's not yet clear whether
they are: a) new physics that conforms to GR, b) new physics that does
not conform to GR, or c) already known physics that has been
misidentified as anomalous.
And, of course, there are neutrino masses which are generating
modifications to the standard model, but seem to have no relation to GR
(e.g. they cannot explain dark matter).
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Mike
Tom Roberts wrote:
> Mike wrote:
> > Tom Roberts wrote:
> >> F = m a - m w x (w x r) - 2 m w x v
> >> (F, v, and a are 3-vectors; w is the pseudo-3-vector rotation;
> >> m is the mass of the object)
> >> Here w is a frame-dependent violation. Now this example is obviously
> >> rotating frames in Newtonian mechanics, but the point is that the
> >> appearance of any vector describing the _frame_ is not allowed.
> >
> > This does not constitute a violation of Newton's
> > law.
>
> Sure it does! Newton's second law is F=ma, and in a rotating frame that
> simply does not hold -- one must _invent_ fictitious "forces" (called
> "centrifugal force" and "Coriolis force") in order to "save" the law.
These forces are not ficticious at all. This name is a historical
misnomer. Are you trying to deny the real existence of centrifugla
forces that make centrifuges work and coriolis forces who are
responsible for the rotation of the water when it goes down the drain?
What are you talking about here? Your physics (SR/GR) transforms away
REAL forces and this is not good, not really good science.
> Those fictitious "forces" are special, are coordinate dependent (i.e.
> rotation dependent), and cannot possibly be real (because they are
> coordinate dependent).
Your argument is a plain non sequitur. As I said before, the absurdity
of SR/GR is based on both a misconception of physics and a violation of
the rules of logic.
You have done both. Just because something is coordinate dependent it
does not mean it is not "real". The premise cannot guarantee the truth
of your conclusion. At any rate, as I said you are confused because the
term "REAL" does not carry the semantics you think. Einstein also did
not understand that and end up with the absurd theory.
>
> And also: I was not discussing Newton's laws, this was an _example_ I
> used while discussing the PoR.
You got nothing else to discuss unfortunatelly. The only laws of motion
that are available are Newton's laws and nothing else.
>
>
> > Still, the sum of all forces acting on a body is equal to ma.
>
> Calling the last two terms in my equation above "forces" does not make
> them so. <shrug>
It seems that in order for you to support you false argument you will
go out of your way calling forces that everyone feels every day in a
car, in an amusement park, riding a bicycle, unreal. This is mind
boggling to me.
>
>
> > Since one needs to add those fincticious forces in non-inertial FoR,
> > some naive philosophers thought the law was violated. You can easily
> > correct that as D'Alembert did by eliminating the term "impressed" and
> > define: Sum(F) = dp/dt
>
> That does not solve the problem.
>
> This approach can solve the problem, but one needs differential geometry
> and a _covariant_ derivative (remember that p is a 3-vector).
When one is totally confused nothing he does will solve any problem but
only make things worse, which you do it well.
Einstein should have understood first what philosopher of science meant
by the term "real" before he started on his road to absurdity. Like
every other crank, he thought he understood everything. But "real" in
philosophy of physics does not mean whay he thought and you think.
Mike
Mike
>
>
> Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Tom Roberts
> Tom Roberts wrote:
>> Newton's second law is F=ma, and in a rotating frame that
>> simply does not hold -- one must _invent_ fictitious "forces" (called
>> "centrifugal force" and "Coriolis force") in order to "save" the law.
>
> These forces are not ficticious at all. This name is a historical
> misnomer.
Applying the word "force" to them is the misnomer, not the word
"fictitious".
> Are you trying to deny the real existence of centrifugla
> forces that make centrifuges work and coriolis forces who are
> responsible for the rotation of the water when it goes down the drain?
But they don't. <shrug>
Centrifuges work because the material in them tries to move in a
straight line (relative to the inertial frame of the centrifuge's
center), but the centripetal force of the centrifuge outer wall compels
the material to deviate from that straight line and move in a circle.
The centripetal force ("center seeking") is real, and is what causes the
material to move in a circle.
> Just because something is coordinate dependent it
> does not mean it is not "real".
Sure it does! Arbitrary human choices of how to describe a real
phenomenon cannot possibly affect the phenomenon itself.
>> Calling the last two terms in my equation above "forces" does not make
>> them so. <shrug>
>
> It seems that in order for you to support you false argument you will
> go out of your way calling forces that everyone feels every day in a
> car, in an amusement park, riding a bicycle, unreal.
You have _NEVER_ felt "centrifugal force". What you have felt is the
door of a car pushing sideways on you as the car turns a corner. Etc.
All of these "fictitious forces" have that character -- nobody _ever_
feels them (because your nerves sense differences, and these "forces"
are all proportional to mass and thus there is no difference for your
nerves to feel; what you feel is other forces which are _always_ in the
opposite direction: your chair pushes up, the car door pushes toward the
_inside_ of the curve, etc.).
The fact that many people describe these things in an invalid way does
not make it valid. <shrug>
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Mike
Besides containing several innacuracies and basic physics errors, your
neurophysiologicallly based assertions to defend an absurd postion show
desperation.
I suggest to you getting a ride in one of those holocoasters. Sure, you
will feel getting pushed against the side of your cart. But when you
feel your lips and cheeks getting tweested you will understand the
power of the centrifugal force.
If you cannot take a ride for a reason, tie a stone at the end of a
string and swing it above your head carefully. The force on your hand
is the centrifugal force. Without it, no centripetal force on the stone
so it can rotate would be possible. If you do not feel it on your hand,
go have a nerve check up before you attempt to base a physical theory
on what you feel or not. Honestly...
Mike
Tom Roberts
> I suggest to you getting a ride in one of those holocoasters. Sure, you
> will feel getting pushed against the side of your cart. But when you
> feel your lips and cheeks getting tweested you will understand the
> power of the centrifugal force.
Not true. What you feel is your lips being pulled from their desired
straight line by the other parts of your body, which are constrained by
the design of the 'coaster (walls of the car, restraints, etc.). <shrug>
> If you cannot take a ride for a reason, tie a stone at the end of a
> string and swing it above your head carefully. The force on your hand
> is the centrifugal force.
Again not true. The force on your hand is the tension of the string.
That tension acting on the stone is the _centripetal_ force. <shrug>
Somewhere on the web is an animation with two cameras, one attached to a
merry-go-round and another fixed above it. They then toss a ball across
the platform of the rotating merry-go-round. The camera rotating with it
shows a wildly non-straight line, and the camera fixed above it shows it
goes in a straight line. In the rotating coordinates one must _invent_
"centrifugal and Coriolis forces" to account for the not-straight line;
in the inertial frame no such _fictitious_ forces are needed.
This is all basic Physics 101. If you don't understand that, you have no
hope of understanding the more subtle concepts of relativity.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Koobee Wublee
>> Other than Mercury's orbital anomaly known at that time, Newtonian
>> physics did explain all the phenomenon ever observed back then.
>
> Yes. As I said, it was a _theoretical_inconsistency_ that started
> Einstein on the journey to GR. Specifically: the inconsistency between
> SR and Newtonian gravitation.
SR does not deal with gravitation. What inconsistency are you
referring to between SR and Newtonian gravitation?
>> To derive the field equations, Hilbert took a different
>> method than the geometric method Einstein/Grossman had done earlier.
>> It was Hilbert's Lagrangian that gave rise to the Einstein-Hilbert
>> Action that allowed Hilbert to apply calculus of variations to come up
>> with the field equations.
>
> Yes. But that is really a geometric approach. Indeed, today _all_ of our
> fundamental theories are at base geometric, and their Lagrangians are
> _all_ the curvature of an appropriate manifold (for GR, spacetime; for
> the standard model, a fiber bundle over spacetime). Curvature is, of
> course, quintessentially geometric.
Curvature is only perfect at the finest scale if the mathematics allows
it so which it does. So, I don't see anything usefual of your
statements above. I hope I am not the only one who does not see what
your point is.
>> Hilbert did not initiate this on his own.
>> In September to October time frame of that year, Einstein with Besso's
>> help using the same methodology as Gerber had done almost 20 years
>> prior modified the Newtonian gravitational potential and derived an
>> equation which Einstein claimed would predict Mercury's orbital
>> anomaly.
>
> That is just plain false. Einstein did not "modify the Newtonian
> gravitational potential", he took an appropriate limit of the equations
> of GR. I don't know Besso's role in this, but Einstein had certainly
> done similar things before.
At that stage, GR was not yet invented. My accounts referred to a few
months before discovery of EFE.
>> I don't know where you get the following from.
>> F = m a - m w x (w x r) - 2 m w x v
>
> Then go back and take Physics 101. Anyone interested in doing physics
> should be able to recognize Newton's law in a rotating frame, as it is
> commonly written (e.g. see Haliday and Resnick). <shrug>
I did. I still don't see how you got all that. Do you not subscribe
to the classical Lagrangian that gives rise to Geodesic equations
through Calculus of Variations?
>> Apparently, you refer (r (dH/dt)^2) as the centrifugal acceleration
>> which is very correct. However, you said it cannot be real.
>> Have you seen a magic show? The magician is very effective at creating
>> incidences that will distract you. In the meantime, he will show you
>> the wonder of magic. What you have done here going from coordinate to
>> coordinate, frame to frame, force to force, law to law, correctness to
>> validity, etc, is similar to what this magician is doing.
>> In doing so, you have argued for phantom centrifugal force, and thus
>> the attempt to validate your position on whatever is still obscure.
>
> Anything that is real must be independent of arbitrary human choices,
> such as coordinate system. Equivalently, real phenomena do not depend on
> who is looking at them or how they are described by humans. "Centrifugal
> force" and "Coriolis" force fail this, and thus cannot be real. Indeed,
> in GR "gravitational force" is likewise not real -- all of those
> "forces" are merely components of the connection, and are thus merely
> consequences of the geometry and coordinates. <shrug>
Given spacetime in general, if space is not curved, would it cause
gravitation? If it does without a curvature in space, what you are
talking about above is totally erroneous. In this case, gravity must
be a physical force as we (except you I suppose) experience it every
day.
>> It looks like the magic show continues. You just call certain forces
>> acting on an object unreal.
>
> This is not a "magic show", it is merely a basic understanding that
> human descriptions of the world cannot possibly affect real phenomena.
> <shrug>
By saying this above, you don't subscribe to the fact that you can
derive the geodesics using the Calculus of Variations. This method is
drastically different than the approach of pure geometrics as
Riemann/Christoffel had characterized it. All the results derived from
Calculus of Variations are as realistic as they can be including the
centrifugal force.
>> a) Under what circumstance, you would call an observed anomaly to the
>> laws of physics as you know of a failure of the Principle of Relativity
>> where all frames must obey the same laws of physics?
>
> When some reproducible experiment or observation shows some phenomena
> that violates the PoR.
>
>> b) Under what circumstance, you would declare the laws of physics as
>> you know of being not complete after observing an anomaly to the laws
>> of physics?
>
> When some reproducible experiment or observation shows some phenomena
> that is unexplainable via the currently known laws of physics.
Your answers are interchangeable with the two questions. You are
contradicting yourself.
> This has, of course, happened rather often in the past. And I know of
> three anomalies that may well do so in the future, but at present we
> don't known enough about them to conclude that: dark matter, dark
> energy, and the anomalous acceleration of the Pioneer spacecraft. All
> three would meet the criteria above, except it's not yet clear whether
> they are: a) new physics that conforms to GR,
Not likely, but that is another chapter of discussions.
> b) new physics that does not conform to GR, or
So, in this case, GR violates PoR.
> c) already known physics that has been
> misidentified as anomalous.
So, GR doesn't violate PoR, but it needs to modified in such a way that
GR would not violate PoR.
If b), GR is wrong. If c), PoR is a bogus concept.
Hexenmeister
"Koobee Wublee" <koobee...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1144651355....@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| "Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
| news:_fa_f.64159$H71....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
|
| >> Other than Mercury's orbital anomaly known at that time, Newtonian
| >> physics did explain all the phenomenon ever observed back then.
| >
| > Yes. As I said, it was a _theoretical_inconsistency_ that started
| > Einstein on the journey to GR. Specifically: the inconsistency between
| > SR and Newtonian gravitation.
|
| SR does not deal with gravitation. What inconsistency are you
| referring to between SR and Newtonian gravitation?
As you can see, shrugging Humpty Roberts has totally lost all reason.
I'll keep that little gem for the psychosis classes I'll be running soon.
Androcles.
Mike
Tom Roberts wrote:
> Mike wrote:
> > I suggest to you getting a ride in one of those holocoasters. Sure, you
> > will feel getting pushed against the side of your cart. But when you
> > feel your lips and cheeks getting tweested you will understand the
> > power of the centrifugal force.
>
> Not true. What you feel is your lips being pulled from their desired
> straight line by the other parts of your body, which are constrained by
> the design of the 'coaster (walls of the car, restraints, etc.). <shrug>
This is what the centifugal force does. Didn't you ever learn Newton's
second law and the fact that a force is required to change the state of
motion.
>
>
> > If you cannot take a ride for a reason, tie a stone at the end of a
> > string and swing it above your head carefully. The force on your hand
> > is the centrifugal force.
>
> Again not true. The force on your hand is the tension of the string.
> That tension acting on the stone is the _centripetal_ force. <shrug>
I am surprised you do not even understand basic physics.
Centripetal-centrifugal forces are action-reaction pairs. the force on
the hand is the centrifugal force and if your teacher did not tell you
this, which I doubt, open a physics 1001 book to find out.
>
> Somewhere on the web is an animation with two cameras, one attached to a
> merry-go-round and another fixed above it. They then toss a ball across
> the platform of the rotating merry-go-round. The camera rotating with it
> shows a wildly non-straight line, and the camera fixed above it shows it
> goes in a straight line. In the rotating coordinates one must _invent_
> "centrifugal and Coriolis forces" to account for the not-straight line;
> in the inertial frame no such _fictitious_ forces are needed.
That should make you think about it harder.
Again, you are twisting the logic to serve your agenda. Nobody refused
the facts you mention and the camera results. What is in dispute is you
calling real forces ficticious. The fact that these real forces must be
accouned for in non-inertial reference frames in order to justify the
state of motion, whereas, in inertial reference frames they are not
needed, although they exist. This was what prompted Newton to claim the
existence of an absolute FoR. By twisting logic and claiming these
forces are not real you are led to an absurd theory. if you cannot
understand this fine point I am not surprised of your confusion.
>
> This is all basic Physics 101. If you don't understand that, you have no
> hope of understanding the more subtle concepts of relativity.
You mean if I do not misunderstand them like you do I have no hope to
understand how such a misunderstanding has led to the theory of
Relativity.
As a final note, what is required in non-inertial reference frames is
the considerations of those real forces in order to explain the state
of motion. For an stationary observer in an inertial FoR these forces
are internal to the system under observation, like in the case of the
rope and revolving stone where the centrifugal force is the reaction on
the hand of the centripetal force on the stone. These corces cancel out
and allow the observer in the inertial FoR to apply Newton's 2nd law
without any modifictions. But when you consider a stationary observer
on the rotating stone (such as a camera attached to it) there is no
cancelling of centripetal/centrifugal pair and you must consider the
centripetal force to account for the state of rest (or staright like
motion according to the first law).
Thus, in the merry-go-around, when you release the stone it has the
initial condition of rotation (angular velocity) but it is no longer
attached to the platform so that the centripetal force to cancel the
centrifugal force. There is simply no centripetal force on the stone
and as a result of the centrifugal force it moves in a curve wrt a
stationary observer. In the rotating frame, the centripetal force
needed to cancel the centrifugal force on the stone is acting on the
observer. Thus, the observer-stone system is inertial and the only
motion possible is a straight line.
If I did not manage to enlight you I apologize but I did my best to
explain to you these fine points with words in the lack of a
blackboard. What remains is you being objective and since you have a
higher intelligence as it seems to understand where you have been
wrong.
Mike
>
>
> Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
PD
When you accelerate forward in your car, the little voodoo head hanging
from your rear-view mirror by a string swings backwards. Why does it do
that?
One person might say there is a force backwards on the voodoo head. Of
course, one is hard pressed to find the agent of such a backwards
force. What would be pushing backwards?
Another person might say that in order for the voodoo head to keep up
with the car, a force has to be applied to it to make it accelerate
forward. The only agent available for such a force is the string.
Unfortunately, a string can only pull along its length and so a
vertical string cannot possibly apply a horizontal force required for
horizontal acceleration. Now, if the string were to be inclined, so
that its length were partially vertical and partially horizontal...
Which explanation makes more sense?
PD
surrealis...@hotmail.com
tomgee wrote:
> surrealis...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > > "Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
> > > news:5RHYf.66729$dW3....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
> > >
> > > > In modern physics, all of our fundamental theories obey the Principle of
> > > > Relativity, which says that the local laws of physics do not depend on
> > > > which locally-inertial frame one references them to.
> > >
> > > What fundamental theories are you referring to? Principle of
> > > Relativity is based on a few equations of Lorentz Transform.
> >
> > It is reprehensible that introductory physics books do not teach that
> > the principle of relativity was first set down by Galileo in his book
> > _Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems_.
> >
> I agree, but not only is it reprehensible, it should be a felony that
> lands teachers in the pokey til they write 100k times, "It was not AE's
> original idea at all."
Well, Einstein never claimed that it was his principle, to be clear
about that. The honor obviously doesn't go to Poincare either. But both
of those men wrote to other professionals of that time who knew that
the PoR was old, even if they didn't know how old.
Physicists always write to other physicsists without crediting what is
considered common knowldege at the time of their writing. If we forget
this, we distort the truth. Einstein would not have credited Galileo in
his scholarly writing for the simple reason that he assumed that all
competent physicists of his day knew this fact! It would be like a
physicist today writing about classical mechanics and saying,
"According to the Second Law of Motion --- Newton's Second Law, that is
---" Well, duh! Certain things are understood in certain contexts.
It's a funny thing about two very different principles of classical
mechanics:
A) the PoR
B) the equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass
Before Einstein, they were both noted in physics as interesting, but
nobody quite knew how to put them to extreme theoretical use. [True
that B) was used when gravity was used as a force in the Second Law of
motion.] It's true that Poincare noted that LET was consistent with the
PoR, but LET was not built to be consistent with the PoR, though SR
was.
Well, to use Einstein's own word 'superfluous', SR treated the
luminiferous ether as superfluous in SR in the sense that the entire
physical content of LET was contained in SR without SR assuming the
existence of an ether --- and certainly not a mechanical one.
The covariance of the equations of SR came out of the fact that the
equations of mechanics are covariant and SR is a generalization of
mechanics, at least to Einstein it was.
> >
> > Thus, the PoR is a formal contraint (which can be of heuristic use)
> > that applies to the equations describing the behavior of the physical
> > system of interest, but is not an absolute constraint on the underlying
> > models that theories can adopt. In other words, the PoR does not forbid
> > the invention of preferred (or absolute) frames, so long as the frame
> > is not experimentally identifiable by mechanical or electrodynamical
> > means.
> >
> Meaning what, exactly?
Back in the day when SR meant only a theory of electrodynamics, it had
the same physical content as LET, though the former didn't have an
absolute rest space but the latter did (i.e., the rest space of the
luminiferous ether). Now, in order to use a mechanical or
electrodynamical experiment to determine a frame's absolute velocity,
one presupposes that the outcome of the experiment is dependent on
which inertial frame one chooses, presumably because the frame carries
the knowledge of its absolute velocity, but no such differences have
ever been consistently observed (PoR). If an inertial frames does
"know" its absolute velocity, it refuses to share that knowledge with
humans through the mechanical or electrodynamical experiments they
perform!
Mike
I'm glad you've notices that.
>
> One person might say there is a force backwards on the voodoo head. Of
> course, one is hard pressed to find the agent of such a backwards
> force. What would be pushing backwards?
Agent 007
>
> Another person might say that in order for the voodoo head to keep up
> with the car, a force has to be applied to it to make it accelerate
> forward. The only agent available for such a force is the string.
> Unfortunately, a string can only pull along its length and so a
> vertical string cannot possibly apply a horizontal force required for
> horizontal acceleration. Now, if the string were to be inclined, so
> that its length were partially vertical and partially horizontal...
Someone is "pulling the strings then". Some "agent"...
>
> Which explanation makes more sense?
The explanation I gave before in the case of the marry-go-around
experiment which I suggest you read it and understand it.
If you and Roberts have any doubts theat a coriolis force for example
is a real force all you have to do is watch the water go down the sink
drain. Actually its rotation direction is different in the north and
south hemisphere, this shows that water molecules are clearly affected
by this real force which Einstein misunderstood and ended up
transforming away.
Mike
PD
Actually, Einstein did no such thing. He didn't have a lot of comment
about the Coriolis force.
As for whether the force is real or not, I suggest you take a friend to
the playground for an experiment. Sit on a merry-go-round and toss a
playground ball across the rotating platform while you stand on it.
You'll need a third person standing on the ground to observe the motion
of the ball through the air and ask whether this person sees any force
acting on the ball.
http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/DVE/FusionDVE/html/coriolis_force_lesson_plan.html
PD
tomgee
it their business to be clear about that, becase the students grew up
thinking Relativity all came from Einstein. In fact, it was
well-accepted then that all motion is relative, which is the basis of
Relativity. Relativity begins at AE's reported statement that,
"...motion is meaningful only between two bodies.
>
> It's a funny thing about two very different principles of classical
> mechanics:
>
> A) the PoR
>
> B) the equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass
>
> Before Einstein, they were both noted in physics as interesting, but
> nobody quite knew how to put them to extreme theoretical use. [True
> that B) was used when gravity was used as a force in the Second Law of
> motion.] It's true that Poincare noted that LET was consistent with the
> PoR, but LET was not built to be consistent with the PoR, though SR
> was.
>
> >
SNIP
> > >
> > > In summation, we can claim: it is impossible to perform a mechanical
> > > experiment in an inertial frame that will detect the frame's absolute
> > > velocity (if it has one).
> > >
> > > By inventing a quasi-mechanical theory of light propagation, Lorentz
> > > came up with a theory that happened to obey the PoR (formally, i.e., in
> > > the transformation of the equations only). But Einstein, by
> > > specifically attempting to generalize the PoR from its limited
> > > mechanical view to include electrodynamics (in which he treated the E
> > > and B fields as irreducible to mechanics) succeeded while
> > > deconstructing the luminiferous ether, thus treating it as superfluous.
> > >
> > I have wondered about that claim of his. Can you explain where the
> > ether becomes unnecessary? My model makes several ideas superfluous,
> > but I explain precisely why and where my ideas do that.
>
> Well, to use Einstein's own word 'superfluous', SR treated the
> luminiferous ether as superfluous in SR in the sense that the entire
> physical content of LET was contained in SR without SR assuming the
> existence of an ether --- and certainly not a mechanical one.
>
what is needed.", and also, "non-essential". It seems then he was not
saying it does not exist, but that whether or not it does is not
required for his SR to be valid. If then there is no ether, it is
still true that motion is meaningful only between two or more bodies.
But even if the ether exists, the PoR stands. SR, then, contains
nothing in it to contradict the notion of an ether, luminiferous or
otherwise. If later "the entire physical content of LET" was found to
be essentially correct, it is already contained in SR? Where and how
is it contained there? If he ignored the issue, it would not be in SR.
If he addressed it in SR, (other than to say it is "superfluous"), I
would like to know what else he said about it therein.
>
> The covariance of the equations of SR came out of the fact that the
> equations of mechanics are covariant and SR is a generalization of
> mechanics, at least to Einstein it was.
>
> > >
> > > Thus, the PoR is a formal contraint (which can be of heuristic use)
> > > that applies to the equations describing the behavior of the physical
> > > system of interest, but is not an absolute constraint on the underlying
> > > models that theories can adopt. In other words, the PoR does not forbid
> > > the invention of preferred (or absolute) frames, so long as the frame
> > > is not experimentally identifiable by mechanical or electrodynamical
> > > means.
> > >
> > Meaning what, exactly?
>
> Back in the day when SR meant only a theory of electrodynamics, it had
> the same physical content as LET, though the former didn't have an
> absolute rest space but the latter did (i.e., the rest space of the
> luminiferous ether). Now, in order to use a mechanical or
> electrodynamical experiment to determine a frame's absolute velocity,
> one presupposes that the outcome of the experiment is dependent on
> which inertial frame one chooses, presumably because the frame carries
> the knowledge of its absolute velocity, but no such differences have
> ever been consistently observed (PoR). If an inertial frames does
> "know" its absolute velocity, it refuses to share that knowledge with
> humans through the mechanical or electrodynamical experiments they
> perform!
>
motions of sole objects or motion wrt the universe. Obviously, such a
frame wrt the universe cannot be known because there can be no
comparisons of motion between an object and the universe in which it
exists.
Mike
if you want to discuss physics seriously you must first understand that
forces are measured, not 'seen". Then:
Attach a spring to the center of a rotating top and a steel ball at the
end of the spring. set the top in constant rotation. You will now
measure a force on the ball although it is not moving. For an observer
in an in ertial reference frame (if such thing really exists and that
is a small part of the confusion) everything is explained by Newton's
2nd law. The force on the ball is the centripetal force.
Now, the confusion you and Roberts has and Einstein did of course is
what happens in the case of an observer moving with the ball. the ball
appears stationary but there is a force on it as indicated by the
spring. is this a violation of newton's law? Do we need ficticious
forces to correct for such observation as many naive thinkers believe?
Both answers are negative. Now, we have a different system all together
to consider and the mistake Einstein did and you and Roberts do along
with many many others is that the same analysis does not hold. The
centrifugal fprce which is real and is impressed on the ball did not
need to be considered in the case of the inertial FoR because it is an
internal force acting on the pin that holds the spring attached to the
rotating top. But when you consider the frame moving with the top, this
force must be translated and added to the forces acting on the ball
because the pin is part of the inertial frame that holds the top
rotating. Thus, newton's law holds again and the sum of the forces on
the ball is zero and you get no change in motion, as expected.
The dispute is whether centrigugal forces are real or ficticious. I
have shown to you that they are real forces, and produce real change in
motion. Now, transforming away real forces because one thinks they are
ficticious is not a good idea and leads to absusrd physical models.
That is the issue. So basically, the laws of mechanics are the same in
both frames and all forces are real. But the two frames are different
by definition. making them the same as Einstein attempted with the
strong version of the POR is a twisted view at reality.
Now, what remains is to ask whether the difference in the two analyses
constituttes a violation of the epistemological POR. It does not, since
the two frames are not equivalent.
All the merry-go-around and cameras in the world will not teach physics
to anybody who cannot formulate and solve a simple problem according to
thr rules of mechanics, which involves a simultaneous understanding of
statics, kinematics and dynamics.
Mike
>
> http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/DVE/FusionDVE/html/coriolis_force_lesson_plan.html
>
> PD
PD
I disagree that they are measured. Forces are *deduced* by a
combination of
- measured effect, usually by measuring acceleration (or lack of it)
- being able to attribute an agent of that force, a partner in the
interaction.
Having one without the other is not sufficient.
>
>
> Attach a spring to the center of a rotating top and a steel ball at the
> end of the spring. set the top in constant rotation. You will now
> measure a force on the ball although it is not moving. For an observer
> in an in ertial reference frame (if such thing really exists and that
> is a small part of the confusion) everything is explained by Newton's
> 2nd law. The force on the ball is the centripetal force.
>
> Now, the confusion you and Roberts has and Einstein did of course is
> what happens in the case of an observer moving with the ball. the ball
> appears stationary but there is a force on it as indicated by the
> spring. is this a violation of newton's law? Do we need ficticious
> forces to correct for such observation as many naive thinkers believe?
>
> Both answers are negative. Now, we have a different system all together
> to consider and the mistake Einstein did and you and Roberts do along
> with many many others is that the same analysis does not hold. The
> centrifugal fprce which is real and is impressed on the ball did not
> need to be considered in the case of the inertial FoR because it is an
> internal force acting on the pin that holds the spring attached to the
> rotating top. But when you consider the frame moving with the top, this
> force must be translated and added to the forces acting on the ball
> because the pin is part of the inertial frame that holds the top
> rotating. Thus, newton's law holds again and the sum of the forces on
> the ball is zero and you get no change in motion, as expected.
An inertial frame is *defined* as one where the first law holds --
where a net force is absent, there is no acceleration. This is how one
can tell if the the frame of reference is not an inertial frame: that
there is acceleration where there is no net force, or where there is no
acceleration where there is a net force. Keep in mind that a the
deduction of a force stems from both qualities above, and so an agent
or a partner in the interaction must be identifiable.
>
> The dispute is whether centrigugal forces are real or ficticious. I
> have shown to you that they are real forces, and produce real change in
> motion. Now, transforming away real forces because one thinks they are
> ficticious is not a good idea and leads to absusrd physical models.
> That is the issue. So basically, the laws of mechanics are the same in
> both frames and all forces are real. But the two frames are different
> by definition. making them the same as Einstein attempted with the
> strong version of the POR is a twisted view at reality.
>
> Now, what remains is to ask whether the difference in the two analyses
> constituttes a violation of the epistemological POR. It does not, since
> the two frames are not equivalent.
>
> All the merry-go-around and cameras in the world will not teach physics
> to anybody who cannot formulate and solve a simple problem according to
> thr rules of mechanics, which involves a simultaneous understanding of
> statics, kinematics and dynamics.
And someone who does not understand what is going on with the video of
the merry-go-round is unlikely to be able to formulate or solve a
simple problem according to the rules of mechanics.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
>
> >
> > http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/DVE/FusionDVE/html/coriolis_force_lesson_plan.html
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > PD
Mike
That is what I meant by "measured". I agree with you on that one.
I principle things are not as simple as you describe above.
Oversimplification often leads to absurdities.
>
> >
> > The dispute is whether centrigugal forces are real or ficticious. I
> > have shown to you that they are real forces, and produce real change in
> > motion. Now, transforming away real forces because one thinks they are
> > ficticious is not a good idea and leads to absusrd physical models.
> > That is the issue. So basically, the laws of mechanics are the same in
> > both frames and all forces are real. But the two frames are different
> > by definition. making them the same as Einstein attempted with the
> > strong version of the POR is a twisted view at reality.
> >
> > Now, what remains is to ask whether the difference in the two analyses
> > constituttes a violation of the epistemological POR. It does not, since
> > the two frames are not equivalent.
> >
> > All the merry-go-around and cameras in the world will not teach physics
> > to anybody who cannot formulate and solve a simple problem according to
> > thr rules of mechanics, which involves a simultaneous understanding of
> > statics, kinematics and dynamics.
>
> And someone who does not understand what is going on with the video of
> the merry-go-round is unlikely to be able to formulate or solve a
> simple problem according to the rules of mechanics.
>
I understand that for many people this is a video/tv/reality show
world. But if you want to do physics correctly you must get your hands
dirty and use videos only in the context that is appropriate. I never
disputed what the video shows. I disputed the false analysis of it.
Centrifugal and Coriolis forces are very real and you, Roberts or
anyone lese has not produced a compeling argument for them being
"ficticious" forces. Intead of trying to twist things around it is more
profitable to try to investigate why things have ended up this way,
what kind of misunderstandings have led so many physicists calling them
ficticious and of course alternative avenues to formulate physics in a
way that preserve the phenomena rather than trying to tailor them so
they fit an otherwise mathematically elegant theory but in essence
absurd.
Mike
> >
> > Mike
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/DVE/FusionDVE/html/coriolis_force_lesson_plan.html
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > PD
surrealis...@hotmail.com
Teachers will teach the correct historical foundation to relativity
when physicists write the textbooks that get it right. But they don't
care to, I guess. The history and philosophy of physics is anathema in
physics today, and even more so in formal instruction. Madison Avenue
has also done a lot to distort relativity to sell books. E = mc^2 is a
lot more attention-grabbing to the layman than 'no absolute velocities
are needed in physics,' which Einstein would have considered his
bragging rights! University and college physics textbooks do little to
correct the misconceptions and historical inaccuracies surrounding
relativity. If you want the truth, read Ideas and Opinions and The
Evolution of Physics.
> In fact, it was
> well-accepted then that all motion is relative, which is the basis of
> Relativity. Relativity begins at AE's reported statement that,
> "...motion is meaningful only between two bodies.
Einstein showed his operationalism at that point. Einstein was a
strange mixture of realism, operationalism, and instrumentalism.
Correct. SR did not eliminate the possibility of a mechanical
luminiferous ether, though Einstein himself didn't believe in it on
arguments of simplicity and the PoR in its strongest form. However,
Einstein was never opposed to the idea of an ether as a space-filling
field, but it could not be thought of as a mechanical object with
moving parts in space and time, so to speak.
BTW, by the phrase "physical content of LET was contained in SR" I mean
that the equations that describe the observable behaviors of
electrodynamics are contained in SR, but not that the underlying models
of LET are contained in SR.
> If then there is no ether, it is
> still true that motion is meaningful only between two or more bodies.
This is in keeping with the early operationalist viewpoint of physics,
in which "meaning" can only be derived from observable operations in
the lab, so to speak. Bridgman said much on this. Later, he extended
"operations" to included "paper and pencil" operations by which meaning
is meaningful! (ha ha.) That's about where modern physics is today,
except for one more extention or softening of the viewpoint: Physical
theories are really about their empirical content (not their underlying
models), and that is what can be measured in principle; and what can be
measured are observable physical relationships among visible bits of
matter that constitute your measuring instruments. All of physics,
therefore, reduces to this one simple question: What are the equations
that together describe how my set of measuring instruments will behave
under any given circumstance! Well, there's no unique theory to
accomplish answering the question! As Einstein and Infeld put it:
Physical concepts [hence theories as well] are free creations of the
human mind, and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by
the external world [of visible behaviors].
One can take the instrumentalist viewpoint that physics is not about
metaphysics: I. e., one can freely invent models that may have nothing
to do with "what really exists" and only care about whether those
theories work with those models or not. If a theory works, that doesn't
imply to the instrumentalist anything about the truth of the models the
theory uses. So, if an ether theory should work, that doesn't imply
that there is an ether. And if a non-ether theory works, that doesn't
imply that there isn't an ether. The question of what really exists
physically is not of interest to the instrumentalist.
The instrumentalist believes that metaphysics should be left to the
metaphysicist! Instrumentalism is a pragmatic search for what works,
not an idealistic, and thus argumentative and divisive, search for what
is true.
SR was never meant to be a final theory. It was intended as an
extension to Newton's mechanics that was to 1) include electrodynamics,
2) continue to treat the inertial frame as preferred, 3) treat
acceleration as absolute, 4) treat E and B as fields not reducible to
mechanical explanation, 5) gravity would be left out for the moment
(dealt with in GR), 6) have a minimal number of logical objects, and 7)
use the PoR as a heuristic guide. The resulting theory was, of course,
a local theory, despite that fact that the electromagnetic field has
infinite extent, for the very practical reason that to test
electromagnetic interactions requires a fairly confined lab.
This is what Einstein had to say about the limitations he found in
Lorentz's theory:
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.
---- Einstein, H. A. Lorentz, Creator and Personality,
Ideas and Opinions, p. 75.
What this meant to Einstein was that the complete equivalence of the
inertial system in Newton's theory ("from the empirical point of view"
or the PoR) was lost in LET. In LET, the laws of physics were definable
only in the rest frame of the ether. Ouch! LET required the concept of
absolute velocity, but Newton's theory did not. Weird. How, then, could
one consider LET to be a true generalization of Newton's theory since
they had such different ontologies? Now, to be accurate, the PoR does
not forbid the use of an absolute velocity space, but it certainly
doesn't suggest it either. To Einstein, if he could get rid of it, he
would be improving the resulting theory by simplifying it, i.e., it
having fewer independent categories of objects (minimal ontology).
Einstein asked himself a simple question, which apparently neither
Lorentz nor Poincare bothered to ask: Is it possible to invent a field
theory of electrodynamics, as an extension to Newton's mechanics, that
does not introduce any concept of absolute velocity? His answer to that
question was yes, but the theory would have to wait until Einstein
realized that in this new theory time could not be defined as absolute,
meaning that two events simultaneous in one inertial frame could not be
simultaneous in any other inertial frame. Simultaneity was, therefore,
just a madeup concept! Now, that is philosophically significant.
Ironically, then, SR was Einstein's attempt to go Back to Newton, in
not using the concept of an absolute velocity in his new theory.
> Obviously, such a
> frame wrt the universe cannot be known because there can be no
> comparisons of motion between an object and the universe in which it
> exists.
As a local theory, SR never cared about the distribution of matter in
the universe or in identifying some universal frame.
PD
Mike wrote:
> PD wrote:
> >
> > And someone who does not understand what is going on with the video of
> > the merry-go-round is unlikely to be able to formulate or solve a
> > simple problem according to the rules of mechanics.
> >
>
> I understand that for many people this is a video/tv/reality show
> world. But if you want to do physics correctly you must get your hands
> dirty and use videos only in the context that is appropriate. I never
> disputed what the video shows. I disputed the false analysis of it.
>
> Centrifugal and Coriolis forces are very real and you, Roberts or
> anyone lese has not produced a compeling argument for them being
> "ficticious" forces. Intead of trying to twist things around it is more
> profitable to try to investigate why things have ended up this way,
> what kind of misunderstandings have led so many physicists calling them
> ficticious and of course alternative avenues to formulate physics in a
> way that preserve the phenomena rather than trying to tailor them so
> they fit an otherwise mathematically elegant theory but in essence
> absurd.
>
> Mike
>
>
The issue is not whether the effects are real or not. The question is
whether they should be called "forces". Forces by definition, as I
tried to point out, imply a causal agent. This is why I asked the
question about the object hanging from the rear-view mirror. When the
car accelerates, the object swings backward in the frame of reference
of the driver. However, there is no causal agent that is responsible
for the swinging backward in this frame. Indeed, the only causal agent
available is the string, and the string is pulling the object
*forward*, and the only way it can do that is if the string swings
upwards so the tension has a horizontal (forward) component. The
appearance of swinging backwards is an artifact of the reference frame.
In an inertial frame, the object is accelerating *forward*, not
backwards, and this is consistent with the presence of a force that
acts *forward*, not backwards. There is a world of difference between
saying that there is a visible effect and being precise about the
causal agent responsible for that fact.
When an acceleration appears not to be due to a causal agent but is an
artifact of the choice of the reference frame, then we say that it is
something that behaves very much like a force but is not quite a force,
and therefore it is called a "fictitious" force. This does not deny the
effect, but does deny the presence of a force that behaves in the same
way that *causal* forces do -- that is, obeys Newton's laws and is
attributable to an agent.
PD
PD
Gee, Tom, as far as I know, good teachers do that. I take it that,
because you apparently came to the opposite impression, that you blame
your teachers for allowing you to come to the wrong idea. This could be
due to any of a number of reasons:
1. You had a poor teacher (and you think that all teachers are that
bad)
2. You had a good teacher, but you didn't understand what the teacher
was trying to teach.
3. You had a good teacher, but you don't remember clearly now what the
teacher told you.
4. You were never taught by a teacher on this subject.
PD
tomgee
surrealis...@hotmail.com wrote:
> tomgee wrote:
> > surrealis...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > tomgee wrote:
> > > > surrealis...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > > > Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > > > > > "Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:5RHYf.66729$dW3....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
> > > > > >
>
> Teachers will teach the correct historical foundation to relativity
> when physicists write the textbooks that get it right. But they don't
> care to, I guess.
>
>
The history and philosophy of physics is anathema in
> physics today, and even more so in formal instruction. Madison Avenue
> has also done a lot to distort relativity to sell books. E = mc^2 is a
> lot more attention-grabbing to the layman than 'no absolute velocities
> are needed in physics,' which Einstein would have considered his
> bragging rights! University and college physics textbooks do little to
> correct the misconceptions and historical inaccuracies surrounding
> relativity. If you want the truth, read Ideas and Opinions and The
> Evolution of Physics.
>
>
> > In fact, it was
> > well-accepted then that all motion is relative, which is the basis of
> > Relativity. Relativity begins at AE's reported statement that,
> > "...motion is meaningful only between two bodies.
>
> Einstein showed his operationalism at that point.
>
>
> Einstein was a
> strange mixture of realism, operationalism, and instrumentalism.
> > >
> > > It's a funny thing about two very different principles of classical
> > > mechanics:
> > >
> > > A) the PoR
> > >
> > > B) the equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass
> > >
> > > Before Einstein, they were both noted in physics as interesting, but
> > > nobody quite knew how to put them to extreme theoretical use. [True
> > > that B) was used when gravity was used as a force in the Second Law of
> > > motion.] It's true that Poincare noted that LET was consistent with the
> > > PoR, but LET was not built to be consistent with the PoR, though SR
> > > was.
> > >
> > Gravity in the 2nd law?
> > > >
> > SNIP
> > > > >
> > > > ether becomes unnecessary? My model makes several ideas superfluous,
> > > > but I explain precisely why and where my ideas do that.
> > >
> > > Well, to use Einstein's own word 'superfluous', SR treated the
> > > luminiferous ether as superfluous in SR in the sense that the entire
> > > physical content of LET was contained in SR without SR assuming the
> > > existence of an ether --- and certainly not a mechanical one.
> > >
> > AE was very careful with words, and the term means, "...in excess of
> > what is needed.", and also, "non-essential". It seems then he was not
> > saying it does not exist, but that whether or not it does is not
> > required for his SR to be valid.
>
> Correct. SR did not eliminate the possibility of a mechanical
> luminiferous ether, though Einstein himself didn't believe in it on
> arguments of simplicity and the PoR in its strongest form. However,
> Einstein was never opposed to the idea of an ether as a space-filling
> field, but it could not be thought of as a mechanical object with
> moving parts in space and time, so to speak.
>
> BTW, by the phrase "physical content of LET was contained in SR" I mean
> that the equations that describe the observable behaviors of
> electrodynamics are contained in SR, but not that the underlying models
> of LET are contained in SR.
>
observations.
>
> > If then there is no ether, it is
> > still true that motion is meaningful only between two or more bodies.
>
> This is in keeping with the early operationalist viewpoint of physics,
> in which "meaning" can only be derived from observable operations in
> the lab, so to speak. Bridgman said much on this. Later, he extended
> "operations" to included "paper and pencil" operations by which meaning
> is meaningful! (ha ha.) That's about where modern physics is today,
> except for one more extention or softening of the viewpoint: Physical
> theories are really about their empirical content (not their underlying
> models), and that is what can be measured in principle; and what can be
> measured are observable physical relationships among visible bits of
> matter that constitute your measuring instruments. All of physics,
> therefore, reduces to this one simple question: What are the equations
> that together describe how my set of measuring instruments will behave
> under any given circumstance! Well, there's no unique theory to
> accomplish answering the question! As Einstein and Infeld put it:
> Physical concepts [hence theories as well] are free creations of the
> human mind, and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by
> the external world [of visible behaviors].
>
not
see that as the final reducible stage of physics. That seems to relate
more
to empirical research at its final level than to theoretical physics.
The
quality and type of our instruments can be put aside until it comes
time to
measure; thus predictions can be made before we have the tools to
confirm the theory. Even when some elements of a theory can never be
confirmed (such as the BBT and its supportive IP concept), they can be
accepted so long as they can be falsified.
The BBT is falsifiable in its tenets, while the IP notion is not. Even
so,
both are accepted equally as good explanations for what is observed.
To
that extent, surely the science of physics deserves more than one
simple
question.
>
SNIP
> > >
> > > Back in the day when SR meant only a theory of electrodynamics, it had
> > > the same physical content as LET, though the former didn't have an
> > > absolute rest space but the latter did (i.e., the rest space of the
> > > luminiferous ether). Now, in order to use a mechanical or
> > > electrodynamical experiment to determine a frame's absolute velocity,
> > > one presupposes that the outcome of the experiment is dependent on
> > > which inertial frame one chooses, presumably because the frame carries
> > > the knowledge of its absolute velocity, but no such differences have
> > > ever been consistently observed (PoR). If an inertial frames does
> > > "know" its absolute velocity, it refuses to share that knowledge with
> > > humans through the mechanical or electrodynamical experiments they
> > > perform!
> > >
> > Okay. IOWs, SR has to do only with relative motion and not with the
> > motions of sole objects or motion wrt the universe.
>
> SR was never meant to be a final theory.
>
SNIP
>
I agree. That's why I stress to others who see SR as reality that it
can be seen as a special case of the general case which is the
universe.
>
SNIP
>
> Ironically, then, SR was Einstein's attempt to go Back to Newton, in
> not using the concept of an absolute velocity in his new theory.
>
The current trend then must have been still an overtly strong belief in
Aristotle's F=mv in support for absolute velocity.
>
> > Obviously, such a
> > frame wrt the universe cannot be known because there can be no
> > comparisons of motion between an object and the universe in which it
> > exists.
>
> As a local theory, SR never cared about the distribution of matter in
> the universe or in identifying some universal frame.
>
I'm saying it even stronger than that. Relativity means relative
motion,
as opposed to unfalsifiable absolute velocity, is the reality of our
universe.
Tom Roberts
> If you and Roberts have any doubts theat a coriolis force for example
> is a real force all you have to do is watch the water go down the sink
> drain. Actually its rotation direction is different in the north and
> south hemisphere,
This is an old wives' tale, aided and abetted by impoverished
entrepreneurs living near the equator who use it to extract money from
tourists.
In fact, for a typical drain, careful observations show it requires
several hours of rest after filling before the water has settled down
enough so its rotation direction is random when drained. Indeed,
computations of Coriolis force for such a drain show it to be far too
small to account for the observed direction -- asymmetries in the drain
and/or initial conditions of the water are _FAR_ more important. There
was an article in AJP a few years ago on this.
The entrepreneurs can easily control which way the drain
flows by the way they fill the container. So they walk
100 yards north of the equator and show one direction, and
walk 100 yards south of the equator and show the other.
They are in _complete_ control of the water's direction.
Amazed tourists, gullible as anywhere else, pay up.
There's no point in continuing this argument over fictitious forces, as
you are unwilling to actually learn what has been well known for
centuries. <shrug>
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Tom Roberts
> "Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
> news:_fa_f.64159$H71....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>> Einstein on the journey to GR. Specifically: the inconsistency between
>> SR and Newtonian gravitation.
>
> SR does not deal with gravitation. What inconsistency are you
> referring to between SR and Newtonian gravitation?
The instantaneous action at a distance of Newtonian gravitation is
incompatible with SR.
>>> I don't know where you get the following from.
>>> F = m a - m w x (w x r) - 2 m w x v
>> Then go back and take Physics 101. Anyone interested in doing physics
>> should be able to recognize Newton's law in a rotating frame, as it is
>> commonly written (e.g. see Halliday and Resnick). <shrug>
>
> I did. I still don't see how you got all that.
Halliday and Resnick. Basic Physics 101. <shrug>
> Do you not subscribe
> to the classical Lagrangian that gives rise to Geodesic equations
> through Calculus of Variations?
This was at the level of Physics 101. In classical mechanics geodesics
are not important, and the "classical Lagrangian" yields equations of
motion and trajectories in phase space, not geodesics.
> Given spacetime in general, if space is not curved, would it cause
> gravitation?
That depends on the meanings of your words. But the mathematics is
unequivocal, and in GR it is the curvature of spaceTIME that is
important, not the curvature of space alone. In most situations, earth's
surface included, the effects of the curvature of space are down by a
large factor from the effects of curvatures involving the time axis.
For instance, a stone dropped from 16 feet up takes 1 second
to fall to the ground. Its geodesic path through spacetime
(ignoring air) is a portion of an elliptical helix that
moves 16 feet along the vertical spatial axis, and 186,000
miles along the time axis. That is _VERY_ close to a straight
line....
> If it does without a curvature in space, what you are
> talking about above is totally erroneous. In this case, gravity must
> be a physical force as we (except you I suppose) experience it every
> day.
You have _NEVER_ experienced gravity as a force. What you have
experienced is contact forces between your body and other objects which
are caused by those objects pushing your body off its preferred geodesic
path through spaceTIME. <shrug>
>>> It looks like the magic show continues. You just call certain forces
>>> acting on an object unreal.
>> This is not a "magic show", it is merely a basic understanding that
>> human descriptions of the world cannot possibly affect real phenomena.
>> <shrug>
>
> By saying this above, you don't subscribe to the fact that you can
> derive the geodesics using the Calculus of Variations.
I haven't a clue where you got that. Of course the calculus of
variations can determine geodesics, when applied in an appropriate
manner. <shrug>
> All the results derived from
> Calculus of Variations are as realistic as they can be including the
> centrifugal force.
In GR, "centrifugal force" is merely one component of the connection
when projected onto rotating coordinates. Use locally-inertial
coordinates and that component is identically zero. A "force" that
disappears due to an _arbitrary_human_choice_ cannot possibly be real.
<shrug>
[This is going nowhere; don't expect me to continue until and
unless you actually _LEARN_ something about GR, or even
classical mechanics.]
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
surrealis...@hotmail.com
PD wrote:
.....
> >
> > If you and Roberts have any doubts theat a coriolis force for example
> > is a real force all you have to do is watch the water go down the sink
> > drain. Actually its rotation direction is different in the north and
> > south hemisphere, this shows that water molecules are clearly affected
> > by this real force which Einstein misunderstood and ended up
> > transforming away.
>
> Actually, Einstein did no such thing. He didn't have a lot of comment
> about the Coriolis force.
>
> As for whether the force is real or not, I suggest you take a friend to
> the playground for an experiment. Sit on a merry-go-round and toss a
> playground ball across the rotating platform while you stand on it.
> You'll need a third person standing on the ground to observe the motion
> of the ball through the air and ask whether this person sees any force
> acting on the ball.
In other words, you're claiming the reality is what is observed from an
inertial frame?
PD
Well, I wouldn't put it quite so baldly, but the fact that a force has
to have an identifiable agent does end up amounting to that.
In other words, in an inertial frame, every force in Newton's 2nd law
will have an identifiable agent.
PD
Mike
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_force
He insists drain efefct not noticable but cyclon effect is.
The point is how far people like you will go in their attempt to blind
people and push forward their agends. You constantly use formal
fallacies in your reasoning. Because there are some crooks out there,
this does not mean the effect is not noticable. Actually, since it
turns out to be much pronounced than predicted by physics, it appears
that some physicists are cooks also.
Close your eyes now and think you live in the 4-D spacetime you
deserve.
Mike
>
>
> Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Tom Roberts
> In other words, you're claiming the reality is what is observed from an
> inertial frame?
Not at all! The reality is what actually happens, and that cannot
possibly depend on which frame one uses to describe it. Reality does
not, and can not, depend on arbitrary human choices of how to describe
it. By that standard, "centrifugal force" and "Coriolis force" are not
part of reality. <shrug>
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
surrealis...@hotmail.com
But if we accept that reality is what is observed from an inertial
reference frame this causes an inconsistency in the force concept if we
also endow inertial frames with an absolute global structure, which,
BTW, classical mechanics does! Consider the fact that a charged block
being accelerated in a constant electric field and having an
accelerometer attached to the block will have the accelerometer measure
the acceleration the block undergoes. This acceleration will be the
same as measured kinematically by observers in a global inertial frame.
On the other hand, a block being accelerated by gravity alone is in
free fall and an accelerometer attached to it will not measure its
acceleration relative to a global inertial frame (it will measure an
acceleration of zero!). This inconsistency and weakness of the force
concept has always been in classical mechanics. The simplest solution
is to treat gravity as a non-force.
Bilge
>Teachers will teach the correct historical foundation to relativity
>when physicists write the textbooks that get it right.
That is what historians are for. This night be a shock, but physicists
typically write physics textbooks and their obligation is to present
the physics as it is understood today, so that students find it useful
for doing physics that is relevant to the questions in physics right now
and in the future.
>But they don't care to, I guess.
I wonder why? Every physicist I've encountered has mentioned that
he/she studied physics for the express purpose of writing history
and philosophy textooks.
>The history and philosophy of physics is anathema in physics today, and
>even more so in formal instruction.
At least as far as philosophy goes, that is because philosophers
have mainly made themselves irrelevant. If you think philosophy ought
to be taught by philosophers rather than by physicists, then you
ought to go pester philosophers to become acquainted with the philo-
sophical views held by physicists rather than continue to harp on
physicists for doing what has proven to be very successful.
[...]
>Correct. SR did not eliminate the possibility of a mechanical
>luminiferous ether, though Einstein himself didn't believe in it on
As a matther of fact, it did, as there is nothing that can satisfy
the concept of an ether which is also consistent with relativity.
FrediFizzx
news:slrne3uf19...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
> surrealis...@hotmail.com:
[snip]
> >Correct. SR did not eliminate the possibility of a mechanical
> >luminiferous ether, though Einstein himself didn't believe in it on
>
> As a matther of fact, it did, as there is nothing that can satisfy
> the concept of an ether which is also consistent with relativity.
Baloney. Two intersecting 3-branes with virtual fermionic pairs in the
bulk. And "less than virtual" fermionic pairs in the other 3-brane.
It's called the quantum "vacuum" and it *is* a relativistic medium.
Dirac was on the right track many moons ago. He just didn't quite have
the right configuration. The "less than virtual" Sea is all positive
energy states; not negative energy. However, we can't touch it. Yet...
It produces the mass gap.
Volovik says it like it is very well in his book "The Universe in a
Helium Droplet" page 461 sect. 33 Conclusion;
"According to the modern view the elementary particles (electrons,
neutrinos, quarks, etc.) are excitations of some more fundamental medium
called the quantum vacuum. This is the new ether of the 21st century
[and the last part of the 20th]. The electromagnetic and gravitational
fields, as well as the fields transferring the weak and the strong
interactions, all represent different types of collective motion of the
quantum vacuum."
FrediFizzx
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
Koobee Wublee
> The instantaneous action at a distance of Newtonian gravitation is
> incompatible with SR.
The same arguement goes with how GR can instantaneously manifest a
curvature in spaceTIME ajacent to a central mass. GR is no better than
Newton on this account. <shrug>
>>>> I don't know where you get the following from.
>>>> F = m a - m w x (w x r) - 2 m w x v
>>> Then go back and take Physics 101. Anyone interested in doing physics
>>> should be able to recognize Newton's law in a rotating frame, as it is
>>> commonly written (e.g. see Halliday and Resnick). <shrug>
>>
>> I did. I still don't see how you got all that.
>
> Halliday and Resnick. Basic Physics 101. <shrug>
They did not use the Lagrangian to justify their claim. <shrug>
>> Do you not subscribe
>> to the classical Lagrangian that gives rise to Geodesic equations
>> through Calculus of Variations?
>
> This was at the level of Physics 101. In classical mechanics geodesics
> are not important, and the "classical Lagrangian" yields equations of
> motion and trajectories in phase space, not geodesics.
What is the difference between "phase space" and "geodesics"?
>> Given spacetime in general, if space is not curved, would it cause
>> gravitation?
>
> That depends on the meanings of your words. But the mathematics is
> unequivocal, and in GR it is the curvature of spaceTIME that is
> important, not the curvature of space alone. In most situations, earth's
> surface included, the effects of the curvature of space are down by a
> large factor from the effects of curvatures involving the time axis.
You have the tendancy to go off on a tangent when confronted with
logical arguments against your believes imposed from your academic
days. You need to go back to answer my question please.
> For instance, a stone dropped from 16 feet up takes 1 second
> to fall to the ground. Its geodesic path through spacetime
> (ignoring air) is a portion of an elliptical helix that
> moves 16 feet along the vertical spatial axis, and 186,000
> miles along the time axis. That is _VERY_ close to a straight
> line....
Yes, I know. <shrug>
>> If it does without a curvature in space, what you are
>> talking about above is totally erroneous. In this case, gravity must
>> be a physical force as we (except you I suppose) experience it every
>> day.
>
> You have _NEVER_ experienced gravity as a force. What you have
> experienced is contact forces between your body and other objects which
> are caused by those objects pushing your body off its preferred geodesic
> path through spaceTIME. <shrug>
When you jump off a 10-story building, if you are not experiencing a
force pulling you to the ground, what are you experiencing? Your
zealous belief of the false interpretation to GR is making you making
irrational comments like above. Properly interpreted, GR is just like
any others which acknowledge gravitation as a force.
>>>> It looks like the magic show continues. You just call certain forces
>>>> acting on an object unreal.
>>> This is not a "magic show", it is merely a basic understanding that
>>> human descriptions of the world cannot possibly affect real phenomena.
>>> <shrug>
>>
>> By saying this above, you don't subscribe to the fact that you can
>> derive the geodesics using the Calculus of Variations.
>
> I haven't a clue where you got that. Of course the calculus of
> variations can determine geodesics, when applied in an appropriate
> manner. <shrug>
The clue was in your comment previously. Calculus of Variations do
show what you accused of ficitious forces are actually real. When you
swing a ball attached to a string around, you feel the centripetal
force. When you let it go, the centrifugal force pulls the ball away
from you. Duh! (no shrug this time)
>> All the results derived from
>> Calculus of Variations are as realistic as they can be including the
>> centrifugal force.
>
> In GR, "centrifugal force" is merely one component of the connection
> when projected onto rotating coordinates. Use locally-inertial
> coordinates and that component is identically zero. A "force" that
> disappears due to an _arbitrary_human_choice_ cannot possibly be real.
> <shrug>
Your interpretation of GR is full of holes. GR if properly interpreted
actually obeys Newtonian result. This should be a no brainer since
Newtonain result is a sub-set of GR.
> [This is going nowhere; don't expect me to continue until and
> unless you actually _LEARN_ something about GR, or even
> classical mechanics.]
Perhaps, you have failed as a teacher. <shrug>
Pmb
> surrealis...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> In other words, you're claiming the reality is what is observed from an
>> inertial frame?
>
Please define "The reality". I can choose a coordinate system in which two
events are "really" simultaneous and I can also choose a coordinate system
where they are "really" simultaneous.
> ...is what actually happens, and that cannot possibly depend on which
> frame one uses to describe it. Reality does not, and can not, depend on
> arbitrary human choices of how to describe it. By that standard,
> "centrifugal force" and "Coriolis force" are not part of reality. <shrug>
Sure they are. What's with the <shrug>? Don't you know that's condescending?
Pete
surrealis...@hotmail.com
Bilge wrote:
> surrealis...@hotmail.com:
>
> >Teachers will teach the correct historical foundation to relativity
> >when physicists write the textbooks that get it right.
>
> That is what historians are for. This night be a shock, but physicists
> typically write physics textbooks and their obligation is to present
> the physics as it is understood today,
In other words, cookbook physics. The ignorance that modern physicists
have for historical issues in physics can lead them to mess up the
traditional meanings of the terminology of physics, resulting in
equivocations in meaning and that resulting in massive confusion by
laymen and professionals alike. For example, the term "absolute" has a
historical meaning in relativity that has nothing to do with 'invariant
under a group transformation' (if one means invariant, just say
'invariant'). Indeed, the term was used in physics two centuries before
group theory became popular in physics around the beginning of the 20th
century. The original notion of "absolute" used in physics by Galileo
and Newton and for three-hundred years on was "a quality or property of
fixedness, preferredness, or invariabliltiy associated to
non-operational notions of space, motion, or time."
But can the student learn anything useful from the philosophies
underlying the major theories of physics? Yes. For example, the history
of physics provides an example in relativity for the practical effect
of what happens when a physicist commits to the philosophy of
operationalism in the process of theory making, compared to the effect
of not so commiting on the part of non-operational physicists like
Lorentz. Inspired by Einstein's operationalism, Heisenberg invented his
matrix mechanics in 1925. Thus emphasizing to the physics student that
Heisenberg's theory didn't just come out of the blue. It has a
pedigree. Of course, the same is true of Einstein's theory of
relativity. The same is also true of Lorentz's theory, though it has a
very different pedigree.
> so that students find it useful
> for doing physics that is relevant to the questions in physics right now
> and in the future.
'As is understood today' is a very poor excuse for ignorance. The
misconceptions propagated by this non-historical context are abundantly
clear here. Take, for example, just the case of the PoR and its origin,
which goes all the way back to Galileo. How many physicists today even
know that? Sure, modern physics books can suppress this fact, but why?
They could suppress Newton as the founder to classical mechanics, but
why? If Newton gets recognized for his mechanics, why doesn't Galileo
for the PoR, though he does for the principle of inertia? Suppressing
important knowledge of who did what when is detrimental to the student
having a context that makes sense.
This non-historical approach to teaching physics has distorted the
nature of classical physics and modern physics, and it fails to clarify
why there were introduced in the early 20th century two different ways
to explain electrodynamical phenomena --- either in mechanical or
non-mechanical theories. The explanation for the difference in these
two theories lies in the profound differences between the philosophies
of Lorentz and his predecessors (such as Maxwell) and Einstein and his
predecessors (such as Mach and the positivists).
Modern physics is the result of a long journey from Galileo to today.
Along that pathway physics encountered many forks in the road. If
physics education ever decides to teach why physics chose to zig rather
than zag at each of those forks, then the students can understand
modern physics as a reasoned, rather than arbitrary, discipline. But if
not, the rationale to modern physics will continue to appear
mysterious, at least to anyone who wants to know more about modern
physics than how to use it as a cookbook. Granted, many physicists and
students don't.
>
> >But they don't care to, I guess.
>
> I wonder why? Every physicist I've encountered has mentioned that
> he/she studied physics for the express purpose of writing history
> and philosophy textooks.
That's a fallacious argument, since I'm not calling on them to write
such books. I'm only calling on physics authors to include mention of
those historical and philosophical aspects of physics that glue the
subject together as a logical whole, rather than leave it in the minds
of students as an apparent hodgepodge of disassociated subdiciplines
that seems to pop up in time from out of the blue. And it really
doesn't take a lot of copy to accomplish that.
>
> >The history and philosophy of physics is anathema in physics today, and
> >even more so in formal instruction.
>
> At least as far as philosophy goes, that is because philosophers
> have mainly made themselves irrelevant.
It is irrelevant whether philosophers per se are irrelevant; what is
relevant is the philosophies of the theoretical physicists who have
made the profound contributions (directly or indirectly) to physics.
And that certainly is going to include Galileo, Newton, Maxwell,
Lorentz, Mach, Planck, Einstein, Dirac, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, and
Bohr.
Hexenmeister
"Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message news:wgC%f.65504$H71....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
"Real" has nothing to do with it. --Tom Roberts.
Tom Roberts
> "Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
> news:wgC%f.65504$H71....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>
> Please define "The reality".
I did so in the remainder of that sentence.
> I can choose a coordinate system in which two
> events are "really" simultaneous and I can also choose a coordinate system
> where they are "really" simultaneous.
Right. Which means that for those events simultaneity is not part of an
objective reality. If _YOU_ can choose whether or not the events are
simultaneous, than that cannot possibly be an aspect of the events
themselves or their relationship, or anything that is independent of the
contents of your personal thoughts, can it? After all, you could make
your choice long after both events have happened. And anyone else could
make a different choice.
You were right in putting "really" in quotes, because you used an
unusual definition of the word -- in your statement above you consider
your personal thoughts to be "real"; nobody else could possibly think that.
>> ...is what actually happens, and that cannot possibly depend on which
>> frame one uses to describe it. Reality does not, and can not, depend on
>> arbitrary human choices of how to describe it. By that standard,
>> "centrifugal force" and "Coriolis force" are not part of reality. <shrug>
>
> Sure they are.
You actually think that reality is subject to arbitrary human choices?
If so, then physics itself is impossible. I disagree. Strongly. The fact
that physics actually works is a counterexample to your claim. <shrug>
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Tom Roberts
> "Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
> news:Mfl%f.46676$_S7....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>> The instantaneous action at a distance of Newtonian gravitation is
>> incompatible with SR.
>
> The same arguement goes with how GR can instantaneously manifest a
> curvature in spaceTIME ajacent to a central mass. GR is no better
> than Newton on this account.
This is not true. GR is a _field_theory_, and the curvature at point A
depends only on field values in an infinitesimal neighborhood of A;
indeed this holds not just for curvature but for all fields. This can
also be stated: the field values at A can be completely determined from
the field values on a spacelike Cauchy surface inside the past lightcone
of A. This latter observation is the statement of causality in GR.
In particular, in GR curvature does _NOT_ "propagate" from sources. In
Newtonian gravitation, gravitational force does indeed propagate
_instantaneously_ from distant sources (just look at the Green's
function). This latter is the inconsistency I mentioned.
> What is the difference between "phase space" and "geodesics"?
If you have to ask that, it's no wonder you are confused. Study. Learn.
These are very basic concepts in all of physics, from classical
mechanics to GR to QFT. <shrug>
>>> Given spacetime in general, if space is not curved, would it cause
>>> gravitation?
>> That depends on the meanings of your words. [...]
>
> You have the tendancy to go off on a tangent when confronted with
> logical arguments against your believes imposed from your academic
> days. You need to go back to answer my question please.
You are transferring your confusions to me. I _cannot_ answer your
question, because it is not well formed, as I said. The words you used
simply do not fit together in a sensible way, within the context of GR.
"if space is not curved" is a coordinate-dependent question
and no general response is possible. Your use of "cause" is
completely inappropriate and meaningless. "gravitation" has
several different possible meanings in GR (metric, connection,
or curvature).
I have yet to see a "logical argument" from you; all you do is dance....
And I am not discussing "beliefs from academic days", I am discussing my
current understanding of GR. Worry about your own shortcomings, and
don't attempt to ascribe them to me. <shrug>
> When you jump off a 10-story building, if you are not experiencing a
> force pulling you to the ground, what are you experiencing?
Freefall (neglecting air). You will feel no "force" at all, just like
astronauts in an orbiting space station who are also in freefall. Unlike
them, the geodesic path you follow leads to a catastrophic intersection
with the ground. <shrug>
Locally there is no "force", and if while in freefall you
drop a small marble, it will "hang in space" with you,
_proving_ there is no "gravitational force" in your local
freefalling frame. An external observer on the ground will
say that the marble is falling right with you. That ground
observer will indeed claim there is a "gravitational force"
(or equivalent), but that is really due to his being
accelerated upward by the ground. You are confusing that
observer's point of view with "reality", but in fact it is
a parochial viewpoint of no general validity.
> Your
> zealous belief of the false interpretation to GR is making you making
> irrational comments like above.
Again you are transferring your confusions to me. This is most
definitely _not_ "irrational", it's just that you refuse to _learn_ the
context of GR. <shrug>
> Properly interpreted, GR is just like
> any others which acknowledge gravitation as a force.
This is simply not true. GR requires more degrees of freedom at each
point in the manifold than any "force" can ever express.
[In a _quantum_ field theory sufficient degrees of freedom
can be had. But then that's not "force", either.]
> GR if properly interpreted
> actually obeys Newtonian result. This should be a no brainer since
> Newtonain result is a sub-set of GR.
Then _use_ your brain and _learn_ about GR. The Newtonian result is an
_APPROXIMATION_ to GR, and it _neglects_ the differences. GR does most
definitely _NOT_ "obey the Newtonian result" -- if that were true there
would be no theory known as GR, because it would be known as Newtonian
gravity. <shrug>
[This is going nowhere. Don't expect me to continue until
you actually _learn_ something. You have a large number of
misconceptions about GR, and can clearly dance around the
issues forever because you refuse to _learn_.]
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Koobee Wublee
> > The same arguement goes with how GR can instantaneously manifest a
> > curvature in spaceTIME ajacent to a central mass. GR is no better
> > than Newton on this account.
>
> This is not true. GR is a _field_theory_, and the curvature at point A
> depends only on field values in an infinitesimal neighborhood of A;
> indeed this holds not just for curvature but for all fields. This can
> also be stated: the field values at A can be completely determined from
> the field values on a spacelike Cauchy surface inside the past lightcone
> of A. This latter observation is the statement of causality in GR.
>
> In particular, in GR curvature does _NOT_ "propagate" from sources. In
> Newtonian gravitation, gravitational force does indeed propagate
> _instantaneously_ from distant sources (just look at the Green's
> function). This latter is the inconsistency I mentioned.
The following three points can also apply to Newtonian mechanics.
** Newtonian law of gravity is also a field theory.
** The gravitational potential at point A only depends on field values
in an infinitesimal neighborhood of A as well.
** When Newton published his law of gravity, he did not know even the
speed of light has a limit. So, if you apply a speed limit to
Newtonian gravitational potential, you basically would achieve the same
causality and consistency in Newtonian mechanics.
So, I still don't see any advancement in concept of GR over Newtonian
mechanics.
> > What is the difference between "phase space" and "geodesics"?
>
> If you have to ask that, it's no wonder you are confused. Study. Learn.
> These are very basic concepts in all of physics, from classical
> mechanics to GR to QFT. <shrug>
OK, if you want to skip over this one, that is fine with me.
> >>> Given spacetime in general, if space is not curved, would it cause
> >>> gravitation?
> >> That depends on the meanings of your words. [...]
> >
> > You have the tendancy to go off on a tangent when confronted with
> > logical arguments against your believes imposed from your academic
> > days. You need to go back to answer my question please.
>
> You are transferring your confusions to me. I _cannot_ answer your
> question, because it is not well formed, as I said. The words you used
> simply do not fit together in a sensible way, within the context of GR.
No, that is what my experience indicates. If you don't have an answer,
please just say so. Believe me. I would not hold my breath waiting
for your answer.
> "if space is not curved" is a coordinate-dependent question
> and no general response is possible. Your use of "cause" is
> completely inappropriate and meaningless. "gravitation" has
> several different possible meanings in GR (metric, connection,
> or curvature).
As I have interpreted your arguments above, your argument also
indicates the curvature of spacetime not making any sense because it is
coordinate-dependent. Thus, the whole concept of GR does not make any
sense. In doing so, you are the one transferring your confusions to
me. I was not confused before. Now, I am totally confused.
> I have yet to see a "logical argument" from you; all you do is dance....
> And I am not discussing "beliefs from academic days", I am discussing my
> current understanding of GR. Worry about your own shortcomings, and
> don't attempt to ascribe them to me. <shrug>
Extending to the curvature of spacetime, it is coordinate-dependent.
So, talking about the curvature of spacetime does not make any sense.
In doing so, you are rocking the very foundation of GR. Your attempt
to side-step my question produces contradictions to the very core
believes of GR. Why do you blame me for it?
> > When you jump off a 10-story building, if you are not experiencing a
> > force pulling you to the ground, what are you experiencing?
>
> Freefall (neglecting air). You will feel no "force" at all, just like
> astronauts in an orbiting space station who are also in freefall. Unlike
> them, the geodesic path you follow leads to a catastrophic intersection
> with the ground. <shrug>
Yes, I agree.
> Locally there is no "force", and if while in freefall you
> drop a small marble, it will "hang in space" with you,
> _proving_ there is no "gravitational force" in your local
> freefalling frame. An external observer on the ground will
> say that the marble is falling right with you. That ground
> observer will indeed claim there is a "gravitational force"
> (or equivalent), but that is really due to his being
> accelerated upward by the ground. You are confusing that
> observer's point of view with "reality", but in fact it is
> a parochial viewpoint of no general validity.
What you are saying is very valid, but this is not GR. What you are
talking above is pre-GR, "entwurf", which did not get anywhere. GR is
about how one observes the geodesics of another test object.
> > Your
> > zealous belief of the false interpretation to GR is making you making
> > irrational comments like above.
>
> Again you are transferring your confusions to me. This is most
> definitely _not_ "irrational", it's just that you refuse to _learn_ the
> context of GR. <shrug>
>
> > Properly interpreted, GR is just like
> > any others which acknowledge gravitation as a force.
>
> This is simply not true. GR requires more degrees of freedom at each
> point in the manifold than any "force" can ever express.
As I have pointed out, interpreting gravity (using the principle of
least time) as a force is still very valid in GR despite all the
freedoms you can give to each point in spaceTIME.
Pmb
> Pmb wrote:
>> "Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
>> news:wgC%f.65504$H71....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>>> Not at all! The reality .....
>>
>> Please define "The reality".
>
> I did so in the remainder of that sentence.
>
>
>> I can choose a coordinate system in which two events are "really"
>> simultaneous and I can also choose a coordinate system where they are
>> "really" simultaneous.
>
> Right. Which means that for those events simultaneity is not part of an
> objective reality. If _YOU_ can choose whether or not the events are
> simultaneous, than that cannot possibly be an aspect of the events
Why pretent that the obsever is not a geeometrical object or that any of
this makes sense without observing?
> ...or anything that is independent of the contents of your personal
> thoughts, can it? After all, you could make your choice long after both
> events have happened. And anyone else could make a different choice.
>
> You were right in putting "really" in quotes, because you used an unusual
> definition of the word -- in your statement above you consider your
> personal thoughts to be "real"; nobody else could possibly think that.
>
>
>>> ...is what actually happens, and that cannot possibly depend on which
>>> frame one uses to describe it. Reality does not, and can not, depend on
>>> arbitrary human choices of how to describe it. By that standard,
>>> "centrifugal force" and "Coriolis force" are not part of reality.
>>> <shrug>
>>
>> Sure they are.
>
> You actually think that reality is subject to arbitrary human choices?
I think "really" is a word that must be used with the utmost care in physics
and preferably not at all since the person using it usually has a different
meaning in some of the most abstract topics in physic.
> If so, then physics itself is impossible. I disagree. Strongly. The fact
> that physics actually works is a counterexample to your claim. <shrug>
<shrug>
Peete
Koobee Wublee
Newton discovered his law of gravity by observing an object under the
influence of gravity such as an apple falling from the tree.
Einstein's Principle of Equivalence fancied himself trapped under the
influence of gravity either in free fall or in orbit around a more
massive object. The difference is that Newton had a postive result
while Einstein did not. This was before "Entwurf". Realizing himself
not getting anywhere, Einstein enlisted Grossmann's help. As a first
rate mathematician, Grossmann applied Riemann/Christoffel's
differential geometry to Minkowski's concept of spacetime. This is
"Entwurf" which also did not get anywhere, but this allowed Hilbert to
patch together a Lagrangian to arrive at the field equations. GR is
the set of field equations. Thus, fancying one's self trapped under
the influence of gravity whether resulting in a tragic end or not is a
dead end in the concept of GR. Again, Newton proved to be correct. To
understand gravity, you must observe how an object behaves under
gravity and not to fancy yourself under the influence of gravity.
Bilge
>Bilge wrote:
>> surrealis...@hotmail.com:
>>
>> >Teachers will teach the correct historical foundation to relativity
>> >when physicists write the textbooks that get it right.
>>
>> That is what historians are for. This night be a shock, but physicists
>> typically write physics textbooks and their obligation is to present
>> the physics as it is understood today,
>
>In other words, cookbook physics.
Any time you feel confident that you can demonstrate your self-decribed
superiority in elucidating any aspect of any physical theory better than I
can, give it your best shot. You are the philosophical counterpart to the
ether kook brigade. You are unable to conceive of a universe in which the
physics and/or philosophical ideas needed to accurately reflect the physics
could possibly require a major change in the way one needs to think about
the universe from the thinking 80 years ago.
Beyond that, however, I'll wager that you have no idea how physicists
in the 18th century thought about physics.
[...]
>century. The original notion of "absolute" used in physics by Galileo
>and Newton and for three-hundred years on was "a quality or property of
>fixedness, preferredness, or invariabliltiy associated to
>non-operational notions of space, motion, or time."
You are engaging in the time-honored kook tradition of selectively
omitting the details in favor of the vague in order to gain credibility
for your personal views by attributing identifying with someone who is
famous and highly regarded, but too dead to dispute your misuse of their
work. Specifically, in the principia, newton wrote:
``Absolute motion is the translation of a body from one absolute place
into another; and relative motion, the translation from one relative
place into another.''
and
``All motions may be accelerated and retarded, but the true, or
equable, progress of absolute time is liable to no change.''
and,
``As the order of the parts of time is immutable, so also is the order
of the parts of space.''
and
``But because the parts of space cannot be seen, or distinguished from
one another by our senses, therefore in their stead we use sensible
measures of them. For from the positions and distances of things from
any body considered as immovable, we define all places;''
Algebra is precisely the right tool to use in evaluating the
logical consistency of those statements. For example, the third
quote regarding the order of the ``parts of time'' being immutable
is precisely what is meant by defining `t' to be a one dimensional
subspace of affine time functions differing by a constant.
>But can the student learn anything useful from the philosophies
>underlying the major theories of physics? Yes.
Unless the student is lulled into believing your understanding
of physics history.
>For example, the history of physics provides an example in relativity
>for the practical effect of what happens when a physicist commits to
>the philosophy of operationalism in the process of theory making,
>compared to the effect of not so commiting on the part of non-operational
>physicists like Lorentz.
Both of those viewpoints are naive.
>Inspired by Einstein's operationalism, Heisenberg invented his matrix
>mechanics in 1925.
What you mean, is ``inspired by his misunderstanding of Einstein's
operationalism.'' If anything, quantum mechanics has been hindered
by attempts to find a conceptual basis in terms of antiquated philosophical
ideas which are inadequate for the task.
>Thus emphasizing to the physics student that Heisenberg's theory didn't
>just come out of the blue.
What makes you think physics students believe it came out of the blue?
I'll wager that I can connect the elements that led to quantum mechanics,
in much greater detail than you realize exists.
[...]
>> so that students find it useful
>> for doing physics that is relevant to the questions in physics right now
>> and in the future.
>
>'As is understood today' is a very poor excuse for ignorance.
I'm not offering at as an excuse for ignorance. I'm criticizing your
ignorance of modern physics and pointing out the deficiencies of your
antiquated philosophical notions to point out why your philosophical
notions are irrelevant. Either learn enough physics to make philosophy
relevant to this century or hawk your ideas to the ether kooks.
[...]
>clear here. Take, for example, just the case of the PoR and its origin,
>which goes all the way back to Galileo. How many physicists today even
>know that?
All of the physicists I know. Stop transferring your own latelife
realizations onto the rest of the world.
>Sure, modern physics books can suppress this fact, but why?
They do? You must shop at the kook bookstores. To precisely which
modern books do you refer? I have several ``modern physics books,''
and just to list a few which span the range of difficulty and abstraction
from the freshman level to the ridiculously arcane:
In roughly increasing order of sophistication:
University Physics, Sears, Zemansky and Young
Introduction to Physics for Scientists and Engineers, Bueche
Introduction to Modern Physics, Arya
Classical Dynamics, Marion
Introduction to Electrodynamics, Griffiths
Electromagnetic Fields and Waves, Lorrain and Corson
Classical Mechanics, Goldstein
Geometry, Particles and Fields, Felsager
Quantum Fields and Strings: A Course for Mathematicians,
ed. Deligne, Etingof, Freed, Jeffery, Kazhdan, Morgan, Morrison, Witten
To be fair, I should note that there is no mention of galileo
in bjorken & drell's book on relativistic quantum mechanics book,
nor in quigg's book on gauge theories of strong, weak and electromagnetic
interactions. Is it your contention that galileo is getting the short
end of the stick because students are expected to simply remember what
they learn from year to year rather than devote a section in every
textbook on every topic to galileo? Personally, if you really think the
cross section of books listed above isn't getting the point across, then
your expectations of college students are a lot lower than mine.
>They could suppress Newton as the founder to classical mechanics, but
>why? If Newton gets recognized for his mechanics, why doesn't Galileo
>for the PoR, though he does for the principle of inertia? Suppressing
>important knowledge of who did what when is detrimental to the student
>having a context that makes sense.
We're the physics Kabal. We supress whatever we want.
[...]
>Modern physics is the result of a long journey from Galileo to today.
99% of which, you are totally unaware.
[...]
>>
>> >But they don't care to, I guess.
>>
>> I wonder why? Every physicist I've encountered has mentioned that
>> he/she studied physics for the express purpose of writing history
>> and philosophy textooks.
>
>That's a fallacious argument, since I'm not calling on them to write
>such books.
Oh, really? Read your own post.
[...]
>> At least as far as philosophy goes, that is because philosophers
>> have mainly made themselves irrelevant.
>
>It is irrelevant whether philosophers per se are irrelevant; what is
>relevant is the philosophies of the theoretical physicists who have
>made the profound contributions (directly or indirectly) to physics.
>And that certainly is going to include Galileo, Newton, Maxwell,
>Lorentz, Mach, Planck, Einstein, Dirac, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, and
>Bohr.
And my argument is that physics students have a better understanding of
that than you do. This is 2006. The antiquated terms you use to pidgeon-
hole philosophical viewpoints is no longer adequate to express the
conceptual requirements of modern physics.
Tom Roberts
> "Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
> news:kD80g.1990$Lm5....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
>> and no general response is possible. Your use of "cause" is
>> completely inappropriate and meaningless. "gravitation" has
>> several different possible meanings in GR (metric, connection,
>> or curvature).
>
> As I have interpreted your arguments above, your argument also
> indicates the curvature of spacetime not making any sense because it
> is coordinate-dependent.
<sigh> You must improve the accuracy of your reading!
The curvature of spacetime means the Riemann tensor and is therefore
coordinate independent. The "curvature of space" is inherently dependent
on the manner of foliating spacetime into space and time; this foliation
is usually done via coordinates, hence I called it coordinate dependent.
The manner of foliation is an arbitrary human choice....
> Thus, the whole concept of GR does not make any
> sense.
Yes, while you remain willfully ignorant of it and refuse to study. <shrug>
Goodbye.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Phil
> socratus wrote:
>
>> 1 Ptolemee considered, that reference frame connected with the Earth
>> is absolute.
>> 2. Copernicus proved, that reference frame connected with the Sun
>> is absolute.
>> 3. Then they began to consider, that reference frame connected with far
>> stars is absolute.
>> 4. Now it is consider, that reference frame connected with relict
>> isotropic radiation T = 2,7K is absolute.
>
>
> Your use of "proved" is too strong. "assumed" would be much more accurate.
>
> Note also that the word "absolute" has many connotations, many of which
> do not really hold here.
>
> In modern physics, all of our fundamental theories obey the Principle of
> Relativity, which says that the local laws of physics do not depend on
> which locally-inertial frame one references them to. That means there is
> no "absolute frame" in modern physics, for suitable meanings of
> "absolute". I put it in quotes, because these phrases have such nebulous
> and variable meanings that one must be careful in interpreting them.
>
> In particular, the CMBR dipole=0 frame is "absolute" in the sense that
> at the location of earth it is a specific locally-inertial frame. But it
> is not "absolute" in the sense that the laws of physics are any
> different in it than in other locally-inertial frames (this was the
> meaning of "absolute" in ~century old aether theories, among others; all
> have been soundly refuted by experiments).
Well, Lorentz believed that light did, in fact, travel at a constant
velocity relative to "the ether," or as we would say today, the medium
of space, but he also showed that an experiment's initial velocity would
not affect the results, so it's not entirely fair or accurate to say
that they believed that "the laws of physcis were different," without
distinguishing between "some of the laws of nature are 'absolute laws,'
i.e., functions of absolute velocity" -- their belief, and one which is,
for all we know, quite true -- and the idea that those laws were
*observably* different in the sense that they would change the outcome
of an experiment. After all, the principle of relativity will be correct
if there are no absolute laws, true, but it will also be correct if
there are absolute laws, but (1) experiments contain either two or more
absolute laws, or no absolute laws at all, and (2) when an absolute law
exists in an experiment, its effect on the results is always exactly
cancelled out by the effects from one or more other absolute laws.
The modern objection to absolute laws is more of a philosophical
objection, rather than one which necessarily follows from experiments.
Remember, if an experiment is stopped, its absolute velocity changed,
and then resumed, the results often change (the standard clock paradox
is an example, as are most experiments that measure the speed of light).
If the *only* thing that has changed is the experiment's absolute
velocity, then that change, alone, is the *only* thing that can have
affected the results, which means that *something* must exist that is a
function of absolute velocity. If no laws existed that were functions of
absolute velocity, then changing an experiment's absolute velocity and
nothing else while it was temporarily stopped could not possibly change
the results. In contrast, experiments which are at least assumed to fall
under the laws of Newtonian mechanics can be stopped, their absolute
velocity changed, and then resumed *thousands* of times during the
experiment with no effect whatsoever on the results (since the laws
controlling the results are not functions of absolute velocity, only
absolute acceleration).
A more realistic view of things would be to state that "Our experiments
can reveal only that information about our absolute velocity that we can
deduce beforehand." If our absolute velocity *changes* by 0.5c, then we
can deduce beforehand that the results will be affected accordingly, and
the results will indeed confirm our predictions. However, we cannot
distinguish beforehand between a change from 0 to 0.5c, or from 0.5 to
0.8c -- our *initial* absolute velocity -- and in fact the results will
also tell us nothing about our initial velocity. Changes in the results
of experiments caused by changes in absolute velocity during the
experiment (even if it is stopped, meaning that acceleration plays no
part), or by having a mimimum absolute velocity relative to some
inertial observer -- simple geometry forces an "out and back" observer
like the traveling observer in the clock paradox to have an average
absolute velocity that is at least as great as that seen by the local
observers -- do occur, something that would be quite impossible if there
really was no such thing as an absolute law.
That frame is no more
> "absolute" than is the locally-inertial frame in which the sun is at
> rest. Or my little finger.
>
>
>> And if has the scientific idea stopped in this point?
>> What is farther?
>
>
> I don't know what you are trying to ask. While current theories of
> physics have no "absolute frame", there just might be future theories
> which do so, but they necessarily must be constructed so it is
> exceedingly difficult to detect the "absolute frame", because of the
> absence of such detection in current experiments[#]. These possible
> future theories are related to quantum gravity....
>
> [#] There are some people around here who claim that some
> experiments have detected an "absolute frame", or the
> "absolute motion of the earth", or somesuch. They are
> wrong, and basically don't understand what experimental
> physics is.
>
Actually, there is one experiment (that I am aware of) that truly
violates the principle of relativity, but it would be really hard, and
take a really long time. Physicists believe that if you travel in a
straight line long enough (as in, follow a beam of light), you will
eventually return to your starting point. In theory, therefore, we could
send out radar pulses (or the output from a supernova, whatever) in all
directions, and they also would eventually return to their starting
point. Assume that observer A does so, and that everything returns in 10
billion years (as a side note, I know of nothing in GR that says that
this could not possibly occur, at least in a "GR-legitimate thought
experiment," but if you know differently, please let me know, as I plan
to incorporate this in a paper). If observer B moves 1 million
light-years "to the right," and then synchronizes his clocks with A,
both A and B will expect one radar pulse to reach B 1 million years
before it reaches A, and another pulse to reach B 1 million years after
it reaches A; a perfectly normal and expected result under GR. However,
if inertial observer C just happens to be next to A when the radar
pulses are sent out, and just happens to have a velocity that will put
him next to B when the first radar pulse reaches B, then NO ONE will
expect all the radar pulses to return to C simultaneously, and in fact,
C can use the difference in return times, plus the total time, to deduce
his absolute velocity. Now, both A and C are inertial observers, and
they *should* have the same results, but they won't, even if it is C who
sends out the radar pulses when he is next to A, nor will A *predict*
that C will have the same results, although that also is a violation of
the principle of relativity. Of course, if light traveled at a constant
velocity, c, relative to the *source*, then if C sent out the radar
pulses, he would see himself as motionless, but this has been proven
false by the observations of binary stars, and is in fact contrary to
Einstein's second postulate (as an interesting side note, the second
postulate cannot simply state that "the measured value of c is the same
for all observers" -- that would not tell us whether time slows down,
mass increases, etc. -- but must *specifically* state, either directly
or indirectly (as was done by Einstein), whether c is an absolute law).
I posted this in a much less clear form a few years ago, and got either
rabidly stupid and/or defensive responses (here; e.g., "How can you
travel around the universe by moving in a straight line?"), or dead
silence, not one response (s.p.research). All I ask is that you do not
tell me, as one idiot did, that the lack of responses was due to "polite
sliense," since all other would-be exceptions to the principle of
relativity get responses, and they make WAY less sense than this one!
Phil
P.S. To email me off-list, remove my head.
>
> Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Koobee Wublee
news:3fb75cf29adef9e7...@anon.mixmaster.mixmin.net...
> Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote:
>
>> Right. Which means that for those events simultaneity is not part of an
>> objective reality. If _YOU_ can choose whether or not the events are
>> simultaneous, than that cannot possibly be an aspect of the events
>> themselves or their relationship, or anything that is independent of the
>> contents of your personal thoughts, can it? After all, you could make
>> your choice long after both events have happened. And anyone else could
>
> by its height of a position the same or just from was cured.
> For squash the other large dicks and to locate a: heated to be
> commended to Stop Posting Crap to Stop Posting Crap To Stop
> Posting To be funny, and perceive to and as unlawful unfit to
> Stop Posting Crap to Stop Posting Crap To do that dies tantum
I thought I was the only one who did not understand what Jack
Sarfatti's posts on what is supposed to be GR. In fact, not even a
sentence of them. However, it is comforting to know Dr. Roberts also
admits not to have understood Mr. Sarfatti.
Until now, I thought I am the only one who does not understand what Dr.
Roberts is writing about stuff that is supposed to be GR. If I take
your sarcasm correctly, I am not alone.
PD
Euclid Uranium wrote:
> Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote:
>
> > Right. Which means that for those events simultaneity is not part of an
> > objective reality. If _YOU_ can choose whether or not the events are
> > simultaneous, than that cannot possibly be an aspect of the events
> > themselves or their relationship, or anything that is independent of the
> > contents of your personal thoughts, can it? After all, you could make
> > your choice long after both events have happened. And anyone else could
>
> by its height of a position the same or just from was cured.
> For squash the other large dicks and to locate a: heated to be
> commended to Stop Posting Crap to Stop Posting Crap To Stop
> Posting To be funny, and perceive to and as unlawful unfit to
> Stop Posting Crap to Stop Posting Crap To do that dies tantum
> seen a a new iron objects they had Confidence the to
> asymmetries which is the mass moving away themselves, that your
> trying to Stop Posting Crap to say you are confusing the values
> of the Bible Institute Keene State the affections. Light is
> mostly very simple enough information about his fundamental
> problems Associated with advanced spatial Tribune Mountain
> independent New errors: resulted in the Witches fairies and of
> and in his comments; and knuckles! Possibly happen in a Band
> of an implication and contracts: warps, Gravity concept of
> course is something submarines balloons my John Pena,
> manifestly Lorentz group velocity I mean the I post Tribune
> Asheville Asheville there are the world time is by the Nobel
> Prize now it's online Univ the Era Enterprise R'side Ca, moving
> with a way he is a burdened soul of the work even the strikes
> the wavelength. In a single and other force and only Columns:
> in loads of Persians, ob gloriam, ut (liberaretur de Antonius
> Adrian you are saying according to though Androcles; as he uses
> better or some few tens of health physics meetings and think
> are all: bad and most virtuous mind and You're is possible to
> Badger avg). In obtained was just the top speed of This is
> relative symptoms pulse of glass, was reported. Eric I'm doing
> detriment.
>
> The number of these businesses, much of anti buoyancy. F F r
> are many finally last month, or color Tv, dinner or didn't know
> that your Bush lying. What they don't since its . Paul and legs
> at the question between a B RJESSON by religion, like or
> edition: with nonzero energy measurement would like as they can
> make mine are manifestly not through: the Maxwell Lorentz it,
> is: that you what being used its relativity even though if you
> information without using events become fools: actually,
> relative speeds up: keywords, she called mass density where a
> fine crime scene, and others In France Press converage of life,
> were content, and every other bodies, and put in areas Now is
> you can't measure the spin model. I no valid as much I can see.
Does anybody know what the purpose of this bot is?
It seems to operate in flurries, touching topics that have gone idle
for a few days and thereby elevating them to the top of the
recently-active list. The side-effect is to push newer topics down on
the same list. This may have the tertiary effect of suppressing traffic
on the group, both by raising the noise level on the recently-active
list and lowering the visibility of newer topics.
This bot became active about four months ago and has been remarkably
consistent at the level of about 500-600 gibberish posts per month.
PD
Eric Gisse
PD wrote:
[snip]
>
> Does anybody know what the purpose of this bot is?
Probably a social experiment of some kind. See what kind of responses
it gets...
[snip]
Phil
[My first post was pretty unclear in some places, so here is an updated
version.]
Well, Lorentz believed that light did, in fact, travel at a constant
velocity relative to "the ether," or as we would say today, the medium
of space, but he also showed that an experiment's initial velocity would
not affect the results, so it's not entirely fair or accurate to say
that they believed that "the laws of physics were different," without
distinguishing between "some of the laws of nature are 'absolute laws,'
i.e., functions of absolute velocity" -- their belief, and one which is,
for all we know, quite true -- and the idea that those laws were
*observably* different in the sense that they would change the outcome
of an experiment. After all, the principle of relativity will be correct
if there are no absolute laws, true, but it will also be correct if
there are absolute laws, but (1) experiments contain either two or more
absolute laws, or no absolute laws at all, and (2) when an absolute law
exists in an experiment, its effect on the results is always exactly
canceled out by the effects from one or more other absolute laws.
The modern objection to absolute laws is more of a philosophical
objection, rather than one which necessarily follows from experiments.
Remember, if an experiment is stopped, its absolute velocity changed,
and then resumed, the results often change (the standard clock paradox
is an example, as are most experiments that measure the speed of light).
If the *only* thing that has changed is the experiment's absolute
velocity, then that change, alone, is the *only* thing that can have
affected the results, which means that *something* must exist that is a
function of absolute velocity.
This is easier for us humans to see and understand when using position,
rather than velocity. Running an experiment for a while, stopping it,
changing its position, and then resuming it, can affect the results if
and only if some of the characteristics that affect the results *vary*
as a function of position. If nothing varies as a function of position,
then changing the position, alone, cannot possibly affect the results.
Similarly, if no laws existed that were functions of absolute velocity,
then changing an experiment's absolute velocity and nothing else while
it was temporarily stopped could not possibly change the results. In
contrast, experiments which are at least assumed to fall under the laws
of Newtonian mechanics can be stopped, their absolute velocity changed,
and then resumed *thousands* of times during the experiment with no
effect whatsoever on the results (since the laws controlling the results
are not functions of absolute velocity, only absolute acceleration).
A more realistic view of things would be to state that "Nature 'permits'
our experiments to reveal only that information about our absolute
velocity that we could deduce on our own, before running the
experiments." If our absolute velocity *changes* by 0.5c, and the
results depend in part on some characteristic that *varies* as a
function of absolute velocity, then we can deduce beforehand that the
results will be affected accordingly, and the results will indeed
confirm our predictions. However, we cannot distinguish beforehand
between a change from 0 to 0.5c, or from 0.5 to 0.8c -- both of which
*appear* to be a change of 0.5c relative to our *initial* absolute
velocity -- and in fact the results will also tell us nothing about our
initial velocity. Changes in the results of experiments caused by
changes in absolute velocity during the experiment (even if it is
stopped, meaning that acceleration plays no part), or by having a
minimum absolute velocity relative to some inertial observer -- simple
geometry forces an "out and back" observer like the traveling observer
in the clock paradox to have an average absolute velocity that is at
least as great as that seen by the local observers -- do occur,
something that would be quite impossible if there really was no such
thing as an absolute law.
That frame is no more
> "absolute" than is the locally-inertial frame in which the sun is at
> rest. Or my little finger.
>
>
>> And if has the scientific idea stopped in this point?
>> What is farther?
>
>
> I don't know what you are trying to ask. While current theories of
> physics have no "absolute frame", there just might be future theories
> which do so, but they necessarily must be constructed so it is
> exceedingly difficult to detect the "absolute frame", because of the
> absence of such detection in current experiments[#]. These possible
> future theories are related to quantum gravity....
>
> [#] There are some people around here who claim that some
> experiments have detected an "absolute frame", or the
> "absolute motion of the earth", or somesuch. They are
> wrong, and basically don't understand what experimental
> physics is.
Actually, there is one experiment (that I am aware of) that truly
violates the principle of relativity, but it would be really hard to do,
and take a really long time. Physicists believe that if you travel in a
straight line long enough (as in, follow a beam of light), you will
eventually return to your starting point. In theory, therefore, we could
send out radar pulses (or the output from a supernova, whatever) in all
directions, and they also would eventually return to their starting
point. Assume that observer A does so, and that everything returns in 10
billion years (as a side note, I know of nothing in GR that says that
this could not possibly occur, at least in a "GR-legitimate thought
experiment," but if you know differently, please let me know, as I plan
to incorporate this in a paper). If observer B moves 1 million
light-years "to the right," and then synchronizes his clocks with A,
both A and B will expect one radar pulse to reach B 1 million years
before it reaches A, and another pulse to reach B 1 million years after
it reaches A; a perfectly normal and expected result under GR. However,
if inertial observer C just happens to be next to A when the radar
pulses are sent out, and just happens to have a velocity that will put
him next to B when the first radar pulse reaches B, then NO ONE (except
C) will expect all the radar pulses to return to C simultaneously, and
in fact, C can use the difference in return times, plus the total time,
to deduce his absolute velocity. Now, both A and C are inertial
observers, and they *should* have the same results, but they won't, even
if it is C who sends out the radar pulses when he is next to A, nor will
A *predict* that C will have the same results, although that also is a
violation of the principle of relativity (observers should both predict
and see that experiments by others have the same results as the
observers own experiments). Of course, if light traveled at a constant
velocity, c, relative to the *source*, then if C sent out the radar
pulses, he would see himself as motionless, but this has been proven
false by the observations of binary stars, and is in fact contrary to
Einstein's second postulate (as an interesting side note, the second
postulate cannot simply state that "the measured value of c is the same
for all observers" -- that would not tell us whether time slows down,
mass increases, etc. -- but must *specifically* state, either directly
or indirectly (as was done by Einstein), whether c is an absolute law).
I posted this in a much less clear form a few years ago, and got either
rabidly stupid and/or defensive responses (here; e.g., "How can you
travel around the universe by moving in a straight line?"), or dead
silence, not one response (s.p.research). All I ask is that you do not
tell me, as one idiot did, that the lack of responses was due to "polite
silence," since all other would-be exceptions to the principle of
Tom Roberts
> Euclid Uranium wrote:
>> [... incomprehensible gobbledygook]
Or <shudder> is Archimedes Plutonium back? The similarity in name does
not seem like a coincidence, and this makes about as much sense as most
of his posts....
Tom Roberts
Tom Roberts
> Well, Lorentz believed that light did, in fact, travel at a constant
> velocity relative to "the ether,"
Sure. Because Maxwell's equations as then understood (~1904) were valid
in the ether frame. As they are not invariant under Galilean transforms,
people expected Maxwell's equations to not be valid in labs on the
moving earth. But experiments did indeed show them to be valid. So
Lorentz, Poincare', and Einstein (plus others) looked for ways to
explain this. Einstein's approach has won out over the others.
> The modern objection to absolute laws is more of a philosophical
> objection, rather than one which necessarily follows from experiments.
Not true at all. At present there is no local experiment that can detect
any type of "absolute motion", reliably and reproducibly.
There are a few toys masquerading as experiments that claim
to do so, but none are reproducible or reliable.
> Actually, there is one experiment (that I am aware of) that truly
> violates the principle of relativity,
Reference, please.
> Physicists believe that if you travel in a
> straight line long enough (as in, follow a beam of light), you will
> eventually return to your starting point.
I have no idea where you got this. It is blatantly false. There are
indeed certain cosmological models in which there are closed paths
"around the universe", but they all include a "big crunch" that ends the
universe, and it happens before it is possible to send a light ray all
the way around, much less a timelike observer.
At present there is no clear experimental or observational evidence that
the universe is anything other than spatially flat at cosmological
scales. That precludes such "all the way around" trips.
Tom Roberts
Phil
> Phil wrote:
>
>> Well, Lorentz believed that light did, in fact, travel at a constant
>> velocity relative to "the ether,"
>
>
> Sure. Because Maxwell's equations as then understood (~1904) were valid
> in the ether frame. As they are not invariant under Galilean transforms,
> people expected Maxwell's equations to not be valid in labs on the
> moving earth. But experiments did indeed show them to be valid. So
> Lorentz, Poincare', and Einstein (plus others) looked for ways to
> explain this. Einstein's approach has won out over the others.
>
>
>> The modern objection to absolute laws is more of a philosophical
>> objection, rather than one which necessarily follows from experiments.
>
>
> Not true at all. At present there is no local experiment that can detect
> any type of "absolute motion", reliably and reproducibly.
Come on, be honest here, don't just mindlessly defend the status quo
without reason. True science is more than capable of handling
criticisms, especially those that lead to new insights, new realizations
and improvements in our understanding of nature, without having to
resort to such measures. Can we see dinosaurs? No, so they never
existed? That line of "reasoning" is great for debates, but it has no
place in true science. We can't see that most of the mass of an atom is
in a central region that Rutherford named the "nucleus," but it is,
because that fact *necessarily follows* from things which we *can*
observe. The first error in your reasoning is that the absence of an
experiment that can measure absolute velocity (and there are some
experiments that I would *not* consider to be a violation of the
principle of relativity even if they could measure AV) "proves" that
absolute laws are either non-existent or meaningless. In reality, it
proves only what I said, namely EITHER that (1) there are no absolute
laws, or (2) there are absolute laws, but you never find just one in any
event, and when they are present, the INITIAL effect that one law has on
the results is always exactly cancelled out by the initial effects from
other absolute laws.
Logically speaking, you must dig deeper to know which of these two
alternatives is correct, and scientifically speaking, you must do so
because the alternative is to act like Galileo's jailers, people more
concerned with "protecting the Great Beliefs" than with true science,
true understanding, or honesty. Einstein would NEVER have tolerated such
an attitude -- you KNOW that's true -- so why would you want to do that
yourself? Be honest here about what "the facts" do, but also do NOT,
tell you. If you do otherwise, I will, quite legitimately, look down on
you as a roadblock to true science, Einstein's kind of science. Sorry to
be "preachy" here, but this attitude is rampant out there, and it really
needs to be *consciously* recognized and refuted, otherwise we really do
end up acting just like Galileo's jailers (and yes, I was once in your
shoes, until I was forced to wake up).
In reality, not one experiment has proven that light does *not* travel
at a constant velocity relative to the medium of space, or that there
are no laws that are functions of absolute velocity. In other words, not
one experiment has proven that option (1) above is in fact the case. In
fact, as I mentioned in this post (you removed that part), the fact that
changing an experiment's absolute velocity and nothing else whatsoever
about the experiment can change the results *proves* -- in exactly the
same manner as it has been proven that the nucleus exists and dinosaurs
once walked the Earth -- that option (2) above is correct, absolute laws
do exist, *unless* I have made an error of logic and scientific
reasoning. Now, if you can see some such error, please do tell me, and I
will admit to the world that you, Tom, kicked my (mentally speaking)
ass! No problem! I will be more intelligent as a result, and that's fine
with me! But please, no debating tricks, no half-truths, and no mindless
defense of the current beliefs, merely because no one before noticed
this possible oversight or error.
>
> There are a few toys masquerading as experiments that claim
> to do so, but none are reproducible or reliable.
I am utterly unimpressed with ANY so-called "exception to the principle
of relativity," other than the one I mention below, but not even that is
necessary to prove, scientifically, that many of the laws of nature are
in fact functions of absolute velocity, unless you or someone else can
find a *legitimate* error in my reasoning. Actually, this isn't so bad,
as it mostly means that we do not, after all, live in a "neutered"
universe, one which has no laws which vary as a function of absolute
velocity. Basically, the fact that the universe is *partially*
relativistic means that we cannot use the absolute laws to measure our
absolute velocity (I don't view the use of the CMBR as an exception to
the P of R), but the fact that it is *only* partially relativistic means
that we cannot stop an experiment, change our absolute velocity, and
resume it without running a risk of changing the results. Nor can we
travel along a closed path relative to an inertial observer without
seeing results consistent with a higher average absolute velocity than
the inertail observer, for the simple reason that the "closed-path"
observer really does have a higher average absolute velocity, making it
possible for the laws that do vary as a function of absolute velocity to
affect him.
>
>
>> Actually, there is one experiment (that I am aware of) that truly
>> violates the principle of relativity,
>
>
> Reference, please.
It's the one I then described, starting below.
>
>
>> Physicists believe that if you travel in a straight line long enough
>> (as in, follow a beam of light), you will eventually return to your
>> starting point.
>
>
> I have no idea where you got this. It is blatantly false. There are
> indeed certain cosmological models in which there are closed paths
> "around the universe", but they all include a "big crunch" that ends the
> universe, and it happens before it is possible to send a light ray all
> the way around, much less a timelike observer.
Steven Weinberg, among others, says so (p 34 of The First Three
Minutes). Remember, the universe can, in theory, expand to a point where
it takes a VERY long time to collapse, time enough for many trips around
the universe. All that is necessary is for the combined mass of the
universe to barely exceed the critical mass. A trillion years? No
problem. A trillion trillion years? No problem. And during most of that
time, the universe will be expanding, or contracting, or both
(sequentially, of course), at a rate which is much less than the speed
of light. Face reality here, it has long since been established that if
the universe is closed, then unless the big crunch comes VERY quickly,
light and other objects can travel around the universe. You can
double-check on s.p.research, but when I posted this there a couple of
years ago, no one brought up your "point," and for good reason; it isn't
true. Look, I'll save you some of the trouble. It expands, starting now,
for a trillion years. It then contracts for a trillion years, until the
size is again what it is today. Do you ACTUALLY BELIEVE that light won't
get around the universe in all that time, even given an *initial* rate
of circumferential expansion greater than the speed of light? Yes, I
haven't run the math here, but surely you already know what the result
is going to be, especially given the number of top physicists who say
that we can, in theory, return to our starting point by traveling in
what appears to be a perfectly straight line.
>
> At present there is no clear experimental or observational evidence that
> the universe is anything other than spatially flat at cosmological
> scales.
That's true.
That precludes such "all the way around" trips.
That's both stupid and false. For an ant, the Earth *appears* spatially
flat. But it could still go around the Earth. Come on Tom, you seem like
a bright guy, so WAKE UP! You don't *improve* the staus quo by
mindlessly *defending* the staus quo. If I've made an error, but you
don't know where, SAY SO! Maybe someone else can figure it out. Or maybe
there's nothing to figure out, because today's physicists are not gods
handing out perfect descriptions of nature. Maybe they're humans who
occasionally have oversights, make errors, or draw partailly incorrect
conclusions. Like, since we cannot measure our absolute velocity,
*therefore* (the error), even if some laws are functions of absolute
velocity, there is no reason to say so in our physical models. In
reality, that is true *if and only if* those absolute laws have no
visible effects under *any* circumstances. As soon as our experiments
have results that can ONLY be explained by the presence of absolute
laws, then we have a reason to acknowledge their existence in our
physical models. And changing an experiment's absolute velocity in the
middle, when it has been temporarily stopped, and then *observing* that
this change in absolute velocity, and this change in absolute velocity
ALONE, changed the results, *proves* that some of the laws affecting the
results *must be* functions of absolute velocity. The error was to
observe one aspect of our partially relativistic universe, and then fall
prey to an *invalid* line of logic and reasoning, concluding that it is
either entirely relativistic, or functionally equivalent to such a beast.
Phil
>
>
> Tom Roberts
kenseto
> objection, rather than one which necessarily follows from experiments.
>Tom Roberts wrote:
>Not true at all. At present there is no local experiment that can detect
>any type of "absolute motion", reliably and reproducibly.
> There are a few toys masquerading as experiments that claim
> to do so, but none are reproducible or reliable.
KS:
The reason is that established physicists refuse to do any experiment
that could potentially falsify SR. For example they refused to do a an
OWLS experiment by claiming that it is a waste of money. Yet they do
all sorts of OWLS isotropy experiment so that they can claim that OWLS
has the same value as TWLS. The question is: What is the value of OWLS
for those OWLS isotropy experiments done so far? And why didn't they
report those values?
> Actually, there is one experiment (that I am aware of) that truly
> violates the principle of relativity,
Roberts:
Reference, please.
KS:
The Pound and Rebka experiments.
Bilge
More like some kook tried to write a markov chain algorithm that
communicates with the network using Visual COBOL, thus illustrating
the inadequacies of both the language and the programmer.
Phil
What do "OWLS" and "TWLS" stand for? Also, are you saying that the
Pound-Rebka experiments violate the P of R, and if so, why? I am all for
people who think for themselves, but I am not aware that PR violates
anything.
Phil
kenseto
What do "OWLS" and "TWLS" stand for? Also, are you saying that the
Pound-Rebka experiments violate the P of R, and if so, why? I am all
for
people who think for themselves, but I am not aware that PR violates
anything.
Ken:
OWLS=one-way light speed.
TWLS=two-way light speed.
Pound and Rebka detected frequency shift in the vertical direction. I
interpretreted this as detecting absolute motion in the vertical
direction.
In order to understand what I said more fully I suggest that you read
my paper in the following link:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Unification.pdf
Tom Roberts
> Tom Roberts wrote:
>> At present there is no local experiment that can detect any type of
>> "absolute motion", reliably and reproducibly.
>
I'm not. This is based on a serious and comprehensive search of the
literature.
And also on my own investigation and re-analysis of Miller's
data, which were about the only observations that had any
serious chance of doing that. Miller's data do not support
his conclusion of an "absolute motion of the earth". As I
said, the other "experiments" are really toys (e.g.
Silvertooth).
> The first error in your reasoning is that the absence of an experiment
> that can measure absolute velocity (and there are some experiments
> that I would *not* consider to be a violation of the principle of
> relativity even if they could measure AV) "proves" that absolute laws
> are either non-existent or meaningless.
I have never claimed that. I have simply stated that to date no reliable
and reproducible local experiment has measured any sort of "absolute
motion", or any violation of SR.
But there are many experiments that directly refute many/most theories
that contain "absolute laws" (in the sense you seem to mean).
> In reality, not one experiment has proven that light does *not* travel
> at a constant velocity relative to the medium of space, or that there
> are no laws that are functions of absolute velocity.
This depends on the meanings of your words. Many of the experiments that
support SR directly refute most "medium of space" theories, and also
most theories with a dependency on some sort of "absolute velocity".
"Proof" is inappropriate in physics. It is for math and logic, not
science. A reliable and reproducible observation in conflict with the
prediction of a given theory will refute that theory, but no physical
theory can ever be "proven".
I know of no theory incorporating a "medium of space" or a dependency on
"absolute velocity" that has not been refuted by numerous experiments.
Some of the folks investigating quantum gravity are indeed
considering such theories, but have no serious example, yet....
>>> Actually, there is one experiment (that I am aware of) that truly
>>> violates the principle of relativity,
>> Reference, please.
>
> It's the one I then described, starting below. [...]
That is not an experiment, that is your personal hopes and dreams.
Tom Roberts
Tom Roberts
> The reason is that established physicists refuse to do any experiment
> that could potentially falsify SR.
This is plain and simply not true. There are _MANY_ physicists who would
greatly enjoy finding an experiment that could refute SR (within its
domain of applicability). And indeed, the quest for quantum gravity has
spurred significnat improvements in resolutions of numerous such
experiments.
You just don't understand how science is actually performed. <shrug>
> For example they refused to do a an
> OWLS experiment by claiming that it is a waste of money. Yet they do
> all sorts of OWLS isotropy experiment so that they can claim that OWLS
> has the same value as TWLS.
Sure. There is no point in "measuring OWLS" when the result cannot
possibly affect any current theory of physics. The resolution possible
in isotropy experiments is billions of times better, and they do have
such potential. So that's where physicists spend their time. <shrug>
> The question is: What is the value of OWLS
> for those OWLS isotropy experiments done so far? And why didn't they
> report those values?
I repeat: you simply do not understand this. These experiments did not
measure OWLS, and they _have_ no value to report. <shrug>
> The Pound and Rebka experiments.
That is outside the domain of applicability of SR. That is, gravitation
is important for it. <shrug>
Tom Roberts
kenseto
> The reason is that established physicists refuse to do any
experiment
> that could potentially falsify SR.
Roberts:
This is plain and simply not true. There are _MANY_ physicists who
would
greatly enjoy finding an experiment that could refute SR (within its
domain of applicability). And indeed, the quest for quantum gravity has
spurred significnat improvements in resolutions of numerous such
experiments.
Seto:
What you said is nonsense. SR is based on the postulate that the OWLS
is a constant c. So why don't physicists do a direct measure of the
OWLS.
Seto wrote:
> For example they refused to do a an
> OWLS experiment by claiming that it is a waste of money. Yet they do
> all sorts of OWLS isotropy experiment so that they can claim that
OWLS
> has the same value as TWLS.
Roberts' answer:
Sure. There is no point in "measuring OWLS" when the result cannot
possibly affect any current theory of physics. The resolution possible
in isotropy experiments is billions of times better, and they do have
such potential. So that's where physicists spend their time. <shrug>
Seto:
Sure there is point. The SR postulate is based on that the OWLS is
c....and yet physicists refused to do any direct OWLS measurements by
claiming that it is impossible to do and then later by claiming that it
is not worth wasting money to do. But you physicists do all sorts of
isotropy experiments for OWLS and TWLS and then claiming that
OWLS=TWLS=c.
Seto wrote:
> The question is: What is the value of OWLS
> for those OWLS isotropy experiments done so far? And why didn't they
> report those values?
Roberts:
I repeat: you simply do not understand this. These experiments did not
measure OWLS, and they _have_ no value to report. <shrug>
Seto:
So how do they measure OWLS isotropy if not by measuring the transit
times in the opposite directions between two synchronized clocks? Once
you got the transit time in one direction all you needed to do is to
measure the physical distance between these two synchronized clocks to
determine the OWLS.
Seto:
> The Pound and Rebka experiments.
Roberts:
That is outside the domain of applicability of SR. That is, gravitation
is important for it. <shrug>
Seto:
Frequency shift observed in the Pound and Rebka Experiments is due to
different states of absolute motion at different heights. Therefore the
Pound and Rebka is a direct observation of absolute motion.
Ken Seto
Phil
intelligently, honestly EXPLORED, not merely DEBATED. Twice you have
pussied out on my point that (using position, which is easier to see) if
there are no laws that are functions of position, then changing an
experiment's position and nothing else while it is temporarily stopped
*cannot possibly* change the results. Conversely, if changing an
experiment's absolute position (or velocity) and nothing else whatsoever
changes the results, then you have PROOF -- which does exist in physics
and science, given that even mathematical proofs are subject to error --
that a law that is a function of position (or velocity) MUST exist,
period. There is no wiggle room here, no possible alternative. But then,
you at least appear to be utterly uninterested in reality, truth,
honesty, or any of the other attributes Einstein prized, and so often
did NOT find in his fellow scientists. For you, there is defending the
current Great Beliefs, and nothing else. I have an iron-clad PROOF that
absolute velocity laws exist? You'll just cut those out of your posts
and ignore them. How intelligent! Wouldn't Einstein have really, really
respected you! And your intellectual integrity! Hint for a would-be
scientist: put reality and truth first, and voyeuristic ego based on "my
side has the TRUTH, aren't we brilliant!" dead last.
Okay, that's probably too harsh, as your behavior, bad as it is, is
extrememly common. Look, Zeno's paradoxes are NOT "the enemy." They are
devices that shine a spotlight on precisely those areas in which our
understanding of the most basic mathematical principles is weak, and
like geodes, although they may look like ugly rocks on the outside, on
the inside they often -- not always but often -- contain the most
beautiful gems and insights imaginable. ALL paradoxes, conundrums,
apparent contradictions, etc., have this potential property. Einstein
didn't obtain his results by confirming the status quo, but by asking
the hard questions, by looking into those areas of physics where things
did NOT add up. You don't follow Einstein's lead by rabidly defending
anything he said. You do so by asking the hard questions, by looking
into areas where things do NOT add up.
Ask yourself a simple question, and do so honestly and intelligently,
the way Einstein did. Is it possible to change the results of an
experiment simply by changing the experiment's absolute velocity and
NOTHING else while it is temporarily stopped if none of the laws that
determine the results are laws of absolute velocity? Don't pussy out,
don't become rabidly defensive, just do what any normal, sane,
functionally intelligent human being SHOULD be able to do, namely
honestly and intelligently answer the question. If the answer is no,
meaning that absolute laws MUST exist, THEN you can panic if you want
to, but not before! And by the way, the fact that absolute laws do exist
doesn't change one single law of relativity. Not one. The laws are the
same. The only difference is whether we should state that certain laws
are functions of absolute velocity and absolute acceleration. It is a
philosophical difference, based on Mach's idea of the characterisitcs
that physical theories should and should not have, and Mach was NOT the
world's greatest thinker! David Bohm, a good friend of Einstein's, came
up with an alternative to quantum mechanics that (last I heard) does
everything that QM does, but without the weirdness. The drawback? It
assumes that a preferred reference frame exists, i.e., that absolute
velocity has a genuine meaning in our universe. So it has been rejected,
INCORRECTLY!!! Given that the laws of GR do NOT change, we need to be
both honest and correct about the existence of absolute velocity laws,
because more than just GR is at stake. That's an example of why you
practice honest science, not rabid defensiveness.
Skipping ahead ...
> That is not an experiment, that is your personal hopes and dreams.
A LOVELY general criticism!!! Without any need for supporting examples
that actually show some flaw in my reasoning!!! Three points in your
debating class!!! Umm, I notice that you have no sane, logical,
intelligent refutation of my thought experiment, just the usual crap
from the bag of typical debating tricks and techniques. I guess maybe
real science doesn't need any of that "reality" stuff? Do you have even
the faintest idea of why I find your posts so pathetic? Do me a favor,
from now on, when you want to pussy out on me, don't even bother to
respond. When it comes to real science, real honesty, real thinking, and
real intelligence, you're useless. But then, who knows, maybe one day
you'll WAKE UP and realize that if Einstein could see your "responses,"
he also would stomp all over them, and all over you.
Phil
> Tom Roberts
Bilge
[...]
>current Great Beliefs, and nothing else. I have an iron-clad PROOF that
>absolute velocity laws exist? You'll just cut those out of your posts
>and ignore them. How intelligent! Wouldn't Einstein have really, really
>respected you! And your intellectual integrity! Hint for a would-be
>scientist: put reality and truth first, and voyeuristic ego based on "my
>side has the TRUTH, aren't we brilliant!" dead last.
I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here, but it appears
you are arguing for the possible existence of an absolute position
in space and time. Well, ok, you can do that. Most physicists consider
the principle that the laws of physics are the same here as there,
today or tomorrow to be a close to sancrosanct as anything could be,
in lieu of evidence to the contrary.
In more colloquial terms, that principle means: (1) experiments are
repeatable. (2) experiments performed in different locations give results
consistent with the same laws of physics. (3) Experiments obey the same
laws of physics independent of orientation.
If you adopt those three concepts, then the _least_ restrictive
definitions of space and time are those of general relativity. You could
choose to forego any or all of those assumptions, but general relativity
already allows for quite bizarre spacetimes (the godel universe being a
case in point). It's safe to say that no one knows how to formulate a
theory of anything if you cannot assume that experiments are repeatable in
different places. If that were true, you could not count on the same
outcome when doing something twice. If you want physicists to consider
that sort of a theory, you will have to explain what such a theory could
possibly mean.
[...]
>Ask yourself a simple question, and do so honestly and intelligently,
>the way Einstein did. Is it possible to change the results of an
>experiment simply by changing the experiment's absolute velocity and
>NOTHING else while it is temporarily stopped if none of the laws that
>determine the results are laws of absolute velocity?
I'm not sure that I understand what that means. How do you change
the absolute velocity of something and how do you temporally stop
something? If there is no way to perform such an experiment, even
in principle, then there can be no answer to that question based on
the physical laws which apply to the universe we inhabit.
[...]
>honestly and intelligently answer the question. If the answer is no,
>meaning that absolute laws MUST exist, THEN you can panic if you want
>to, but not before! And by the way, the fact that absolute laws do exist
>doesn't change one single law of relativity. Not one. The laws are the
What is an ``absolute law?'' The ``laws of physics'' are the most basic
assumptions one can make such that the rest follows from the assumptions.
For galilean relativity, one assumes invariance under space and time
translations and spatial rotations plus absolute simultaneity and in-
variance under a galilean boost. From that, newtonian mechanics follows.
If you eliminate the restrictions of absolute simultaneity and invariance
under galilean boosts, you get special relativity. If you also require
gravitational mass and inertial mass to be equivalent, then you get
general relativity. If you assume something different than the above,
you get a different theory. If you don't want a different theory, then
there is no point in assuming something which requires you to eliminate
all of the consequences of your assumptions that would otherwise lead
to the prediction of physical effects which are not observed.
>same. The only difference is whether we should state that certain laws
>are functions of absolute velocity and absolute acceleration.
Not if you cannot, even in principle, devise an experiment to
measure those absolute quantities. My definition of experiment
and measurement are quite broad. An experiment is any conceivable
circumstances under which those parameters have an effect that
differs from random chance and a measurement is any outcome which
could possibly affect anything in the universe differently than
random chance. (By random chance, I mean any result which requires
nothing more sophisticated than dividing the outcomes into yes/no
answers and predicting the results with a probability that differs
from precisely 0.5. Otherwise, even nature could not distinguish
a cause and effect from random chance.)
>It is a
>philosophical difference, based on Mach's idea of the characterisitcs
>that physical theories should and should not have, and Mach was NOT the
>world's greatest thinker! David Bohm, a good friend of Einstein's, came
>up with an alternative to quantum mechanics that (last I heard) does
>everything that QM does, but without the weirdness.
Bohm's interpretation of quantum mechanics has a great deal _more_
weirdness (and if you are referring to what goes by the name ``bohmian
mechanics,'' which is weirder still and doesn't even have a self-consistent
ontology, be aware that david bohm did not agree with that peculiar
variation of his interpretation. The term ``bohmian mechanics'' was,
to the est of my knowledge, coined by sheldon goldstein to represent
sheldon goldstein's interpretation of quantum mechanics which has
a resemblence to bohm's interpretation.) Bohm, in fact, stated that
quantum mechanics was a misnomer in that it should have been called
quantum nonmechanics and he meant that in reference to his own
interpretation as well. Bohm clearly did not see his interpretation
as a means of giving quantum mechanics a basis in classical concepts.
>The drawback? It assumes that a preferred reference frame exists,
No, that isn't why. Bohmian mechanics has been crushed by the weight
of its own ontology. Bohm (very sanely) proposed his interpretation
in order to offer the possiblity of distinguishing between his and
the copenhagen interpertation through experiments. In other words,
he gave ontological status to the constructs he used in order to
try and find justification for his interpretation in experiments. (Read
his original papers). ``Bohmian mechanics,'' does exactly the opposite.
Bohmian mechanics assumes, a priori, that no physical experiment can
depend on anything that would give a different result than standard
quantum theory. It does so rather dishonestly, too. The ``logic'' goes
something like this: Standard quantum theory and bohmian mechanics have
the schriedinger equation in common, therefore they must give the same
results. To that extent, they introduce randomness by asserting it
as the ``quantum equilirium hypothesis.'' It's sole function is ostensibly
to insure that no prediction ever differs from that of quantum theory
by defining a random distribution which insures the outcome.
At the same time, they insist on retaining an ontology in which, for
example, two particles have distinct physical trajectories. However,
the fallacy here is that thr treatment of identical particles goes
beyond the schroedinger equation. The schroedinger equation doesn't
care whether you treat two particles as two particles or a single
quantum state. You cannot treat two particles with definite trajectories
as a single quantum state without violating your own ontology, since
a single state is not two particles on thier own trajectories.
Furthermore, you can _count_ the constituents of your system through
the entropy. The entropy is a measure of how much information about a
system is unknown. The discrepancy between the measured entropy and entropy
otained by a simple counting argument is a famous. It's called gibbs'
paradox. If you have N particles, n1 of which are in state 1, n2 in state
2, etc., then the entropy has the factor, N!/(n1! n2! ... n_m!),
n1 + n2 + ... + n_m = N, just by counting. The measured entropy differs
by a factor of N!. Bohmian ontology is not compatible with the ontology
through which standard quantum theory resolves the paradox. Standard
quantum theory justifies the resolution of the paradox y giving up precisely
what bohmian mechanics holds sacred: the notion of distinct particles.
The standard bohmian response so far seems to be to resort to a declaration
of equivalence by fiat.
>i.e., that absolute velocity has a genuine meaning in our universe.
Actually, it does not. In fact, you cannot find any advocate of
bohmian mechanics who will tell you that you could ever expect to
measure that velocity. Furthermore, there are real experiments which
invalidate bohmian mechanics (and bohm's interpretation in general)
precisely by invalidating the absolute simultaneity required by the
interpretation. I could go on and on since the inconsistencies abound.
Standard quantum theory is _much_ more straight forward, and even makes
more sense ontologically.
Phil
> Phil:
> [...]
> >current Great Beliefs, and nothing else. I have an iron-clad PROOF that
> >absolute velocity laws exist? You'll just cut those out of your posts
> >and ignore them. How intelligent! Wouldn't Einstein have really, really
> >respected you! And your intellectual integrity! Hint for a would-be
> >scientist: put reality and truth first, and voyeuristic ego based on "my
> >side has the TRUTH, aren't we brilliant!" dead last.
>
> I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here, but it appears
> you are arguing for the possible existence of an absolute position
> in space and time. Well, ok, you can do that. Most physicists consider
> the principle that the laws of physics are the same here as there,
> today or tomorrow to be a close to sancrosanct as anything could be,
> in lieu of evidence to the contrary.
I must be writing badly, because you are not the first person to think I
am referring to absolute position, as opposed to absolute velocity and
absolute acceleration. But to answer the question, although it may be
possible that some characteristics of the universe do indeed vary as a
function of position in the universe, i.e., that the results of
experiments vary as a function of absolute position, I have to agree
with Newton's 3rd rule of reasoning, which states that if some quality
is found to be true for all bodies within reach of our experiments, then
we should assume that this quality applies to all bodies, period. This
is basically equivalent, I believe, to the claim that the laws of nature
do not vary as a function of absolute position.
By the way, I have a 22 page or so paper I have written on this and hope
to soon publish. Let me know if you would like to see a copy. I will try
to more briefly give some of that here.
>
> In more colloquial terms, that principle means: (1) experiments are
> repeatable. (2) experiments performed in different locations give results
> consistent with the same laws of physics. (3) Experiments obey the same
> laws of physics independent of orientation.
>
> If you adopt those three concepts, then the _least_ restrictive
> definitions of space and time are those of general relativity.
I'll have to take your word for that, but that doesn't mean that
physicists cannot draw incorrect conclusions from those premises.
You could
> choose to forego any or all of those assumptions, but general relativity
> already allows for quite bizarre spacetimes (the godel universe being a
> case in point). It's safe to say that no one knows how to formulate a
> theory of anything if you cannot assume that experiments are repeatable in
> different places. If that were true, you could not count on the same
> outcome when doing something twice. If you want physicists to consider
> that sort of a theory, you will have to explain what such a theory could
> possibly mean.
>
>
> [...]
> >Ask yourself a simple question, and do so honestly and intelligently,
> >the way Einstein did. Is it possible to change the results of an
> >experiment simply by changing the experiment's absolute velocity and
> >NOTHING else while it is temporarily stopped if none of the laws that
> >determine the results are laws of absolute velocity?
>
> I'm not sure that I understand what that means. How do you change
> the absolute velocity of something and how do you temporally stop
> something? If there is no way to perform such an experiment, even
> in principle, then there can be no answer to that question based on
> the physical laws which apply to the universe we inhabit.
Take an experiment that measures how far a car can go on a tank of gas.
Obviously that can be stopped in the middle of the experiment, the
position changed, after which the experiment can resume. If the
experiment is started on the plains, then stopped, moved to the
mountains, and resumed, that *change in position* will affect the
results. The reason this change will affect the results is because (1)
the experiment is partly affected by characteristics typical of position
-- flat versus mountainous, hot versus cold, etc. -- and (2) the change
in question changed those characteristics. In other words, some of the
factors that affects how far a car can go are *functions of position*.
Therefore, changing position, either at the start or in the middle of
the experiment, can affect the results. The important point here is that
if you change the experiment's position *and nothing else* at any time
during the experiment (although you need to stop the experiment *during*
the changes to be certain that you *isolate* the experiment from
anything *except* changes in position), and the results change, then it
*necessarily follows* -- i.e., *proves* -- that some characteristic that
*changes* as a function of position (1) does exist, (2) did occur, and
(3) does affect the experiment. A non-existent change *cannot possibly*
change the results.
For absolute velocity, you first get an experiment that can easily be
stopped and then resumed. A two-way measurement of c will do, since we
can simply receive a light pulse, wait x seconds, and then send a light
pulse back (we simply subtract x from the overall round-trip time).
Another experiment is the standard "out-and-back" clock paradox (as
opposed to the more exotic "orbiting" clock paradox). To change its
absolute velocity requires a small assumption, albeit one that GR must
incorporate, namely that by changing our velocity relative to the stars,
or to the CMBR, we also change our velocity relative to the medium of
space. Notice that even if velocity relative to space is indeed
meaningless, we can probably *test* this premise/fact by changing our
velocity relative to the stars, since only if such a change did *not*
change our velocity relative to space could the test "incorrectly" fail.
In other words, given the premise that space does have characteristics
that vary a function of velocity relative to space, as functions of
"absolute velocity," then a change in velocity relative to the
stars/CMBR *will* produce a change in absolute velocity (actually you
would need two changes to guarantee a change in magnitude, to avoid the
possibility of a change from a velocity of -0.1c to +0.1c, but ...).
Now, you and I both know that changing an experiment's *initial*
absolute velocity will have no effect of the results, but let's move on.
>
> [...]
> >honestly and intelligently answer the question. If the answer is no,
> >meaning that absolute laws MUST exist, THEN you can panic if you want
> >to, but not before! And by the way, the fact that absolute laws do exist
> >doesn't change one single law of relativity. Not one. The laws are the
>
> What is an ``absolute law?'' The ``laws of physics'' are the most basic
> assumptions one can make such that the rest follows from the assumptions.
Take a table with objects on it. The positions, velocities, and
accelerations of the objects are their *relative* positions, velocities,
and accelerations. In contrast, their positions, velocities, and
accelerations relative to the table, to the universe itself, are their
*absolute* positions, velocities, and accelerations. "Relative" and
"absolute," as defined/used by Newton, is the *distinction* between the
positions, velocities, and accelerations of objects relative to other
objects, versus relative to the universe. Absolute laws are simply laws
that vary as a function of absolute position, or velocity, or
acceleration. The important point, as you know, is that if there are no
characteristics that vary as a function of position, or velocity, or
acceleration, then to speak of *absolute* position, or velocity, or
acceleration is literally meaningless. Newton's 3rd rule of reasoning
simply states that, as far as we know, there are no characteristics that
vary as a function of absolute position, making that concept
meaningless. However, Newton claimed that the measurement of
acceleration we obtain by using force is relative to a single set of
reference frames, the inertial set, and this does claim that at least
one characteristic, force, varies as a function of absolute
acceleration. To Mach, this was unacceptable, but while we must be
careful to make sure that no "extra" forces are operating, and that we
know the effects from any significant gravitational fields, we can, in
fact, obtain our absolute acceleration to a very high degree of accuracy
by measuring force and mass.
> For galilean relativity, one assumes invariance under space and time
> translations and spatial rotations plus absolute simultaneity and in-
> variance under a galilean boost. From that, newtonian mechanics follows.
Yes, characteristics that vary as a function of absolute position or
velocity are assumed to either not exist, or at least to not affect the
results of Galilean/Newtonian mechanics, and the experiments that fall
under their domain.
> If you eliminate the restrictions of absolute simultaneity and invariance
> under galilean boosts, you get special relativity. If you also require
> gravitational mass and inertial mass to be equivalent, then you get
> general relativity. If you assume something different than the above,
> you get a different theory. If you don't want a different theory, then
> there is no point in assuming something which requires you to eliminate
> all of the consequences of your assumptions that would otherwise lead
> to the prediction of physical effects which are not observed.
I *think* I understand you here. Why *assume* that laws that vary as a
function of absolute velocity or acceleration exist if can get the same
results *without* making this assumption? There are two possible
reasons; first, if one or more situations exist that do require this
assumption in order to correctly predict the results, and second,
because more than just macro mechanics is at stake. You do *not* want to
incorporate, globally, a belief that is fundamentally false simply
because it is not needed in one particular area. First, we must attempt
to be correct, even if that means incorporating items that are useless
in some areas.
>
> >same. The only difference is whether we should state that certain laws
> >are functions of absolute velocity and absolute acceleration.
>
> Not if you cannot, even in principle, devise an experiment to
> measure those absolute quantities. My definition of experiment
> and measurement are quite broad. An experiment is any conceivable
> circumstances under which those parameters have an effect that
> differs from random chance and a measurement is any outcome which
> could possibly affect anything in the universe differently than
> random chance. (By random chance, I mean any result which requires
> nothing more sophisticated than dividing the outcomes into yes/no
> answers and predicting the results with a probability that differs
> from precisely 0.5. Otherwise, even nature could not distinguish
> a cause and effect from random chance.)
I agree with this. But remember, in addition to the possible existence
of experiments that *do* measure absolute changes, there is the
possibility -- which I am claiming has occurred in fact -- that
physicists made an error in their understanding of what certain things
do and do not imply, and error in logic and reasoning, which I will get
to shortly. First, your point on measuring, even in principle, absolute
qualities (which really means absolute velocity). I don't know if you
saw the earlier posts, but Tom immediately cut out the following (here I
added "inertial" to "observers" for a bit more clarity):
"Actually, there is one experiment (that I am aware of) that truly
violates the principle of relativity, but it would be really hard to do,
and take a really long time. Physicists believe that if you travel in a
straight line long enough (as in, follow a beam of light), you will
eventually return to your starting point. In theory, therefore, we could
send out radar pulses (or the output from a supernova, whatever) in all
directions, and they also would eventually return to their starting
point. Assume that observer A does so, and that everything returns in 10
billion years (as a side note, I know of nothing in GR that says that
this could not possibly occur, at least in a "GR-legitimate thought
experiment," but if you know differently, please let me know, as I plan
to incorporate this in a paper). If observer B moves 1 million
light-years "to the right," and then synchronizes his clocks with A,
both A and B will expect one radar pulse to reach B 1 million years
before it reaches A, and another pulse to reach B 1 million years after
it reaches A; a perfectly normal and expected result under GR. However,
if inertial observer C just happens to be next to A when the radar
pulses are sent out, and just happens to have a velocity that will put
him next to B when the first radar pulse reaches B, then NO ONE (except
C) will expect all the radar pulses to return to C simultaneously, and
in fact, C can use the difference in return times, plus the total time,
to deduce his absolute velocity. Now, both A and C are inertial
observers, and they *should* have the same results, but they won't, even
if it is C who sends out the radar pulses when he is next to A, nor will
A *predict* that C will have the same results, although that also is a
violation of the principle of relativity (inertial observers should both
predict and see that experiments by other inertial observers have the
same results as the inertial observer's own experiments). Of course, if
light traveled at a constant velocity, c, relative to the *source*, then
if C sent out the radar pulses, he would see himself as motionless, but
this has been proven false by the observations of binary stars, and is
in fact contrary to Einstein's second postulate (as an interesting side
note, the second postulate cannot simply state that "the measured value
of c is the same for all observers" -- that would not tell us whether
time slows down, mass increases, etc. -- but must *specifically* state,
either directly or indirectly (as was done by Einstein), whether c is an
absolute law).
I have heard every nut-ball response to this you can imagine! The Earth
might not be there when the light returns, Tom's "the universe would
collapse before the light returns," etc. My hope is that you will at
least come up with an honest objection, or even better, use the "even in
principle" comment you made above to judge this from exactly that point
of view, meaning could this in fact happen, in at least some universe,
under GR's laws? We'll see. I put this on s.p.research a few years back
and got exactly zero responses, which I still find not just extremely
weird, but completely incomprehensible under the usual *stated and
claimed* scientific principles and purposes.
Now, for the error in logic and reasoning. It is true that (except for
the above experiment) that there are no experiments whose results vary
as a function of their *initial* absolute velocity. We'll assume that
you can do what no one else has, and find an honest, real, intelligent
flaw with the above experiment/exception. However, if an experiment
*truly* is unaffected by characteristics of absolute velocity, then we
can stop the experiment, change its absolute velocity, and then resume
it, *thousands* of times during the experiment with no effect
*whatsoever* on the results. Take an experiment that is at least assumed
to fall under the Newtonian laws. You could do just that, or the
equivalent, which is to instantly *shift* from one inertial reference
frame (IRF) to another, and another, etc., thousands of times, thereby
instantly changing the velocities of the objects in the experiment (but
without the infinite acceleration this implies, hence either "freezing"
the experiment during the changes, or simply shifting the IRF from which
the experiment is examined), with no effect whatsoever on the results.
Remember, if none of the laws that affect an experiment's results are
functions of absolute velocity, then changing an experiment's absolute
velocity and nothing else, whether at the beginning or in the middle of
the experiment (again, assuming we have an experiment that can be
stopped and restarted without affecting the results), cannot possibly
affect the results, period. You *cannot* use something that does not
change, to cause a change, period. If the factors controlling the
results do not change with absolute velocity, then changing absolute
velocity cannot change those factors, nor hence the results. Sorry to go
on so long with this, but it is *absolutely crucial* to understand this
if we are to avoid the same error that physicists made.
Take the clock paradox. Observer A stays on Earth for 20 years, while
observer B leaves and returns at 0.866c relative to the Earth, 5 years
each way, a total of 10 years. A second version, where A has a velocity
of 0.866c toward the right as seen by observer C, and B on the spaceship
leaves toward the left at 0.866c relative to A, meaning that B initially
has a velocity of zero relative to C. B ages 5 years, while A ages 2-1/2
years, after which B "turns around" and returns to Earth. As seen by C,
B is moving at 0.9897c, which is 0.866 relative to the Earth as seen by
both A and B, with a time-dilation factor, or time-rate, of 1/7 as seen
by C. It takes 35 years to return, causing B to age another 5 years,
while A ages another 17-1/2 years, a total of 20 years, and everything
is the same, as predicted by the principle of relativity (PofR).
Now, to test whether "time-rate," which is one of the factors
controlling the results of this experiment, is or is not a function of
absolute velocity. If it is *not* a function of absolute velocity, then
changing this experiment's absolute velocity and *nothing else
whatsoever* cannot possibly change the results. Begin with version #2,
where as seen by C, B is motionless and A, on Earth, leaves at 0.866c
for 5 years. B turns around and begins to return at 0.9897c. At this
point, we stop the experiment, change the absolute velocity of the Earth
by 0.866c toward the left as seen by C, giving A a velocity of zero, and
B a velocity of 0.866 relative to the Earth (in order to leave all the
*relative* factors, distance and velocity, the same as seen by A and B).
It will take 5 years for B to return as seen by A, a total of 7-1/2
years for A, and 2-1/2 years as seen by B, also for a total of 7-1/2
years for B. Obviously, changing the absolute velocity in the middle of
the experiment changed the results, which can only happen if (1)
time-rate is a function of absolute velocity, and (2) is one of the
factors controlling the results. Similar results can be found by
synchronizing clocks, measuring c in one direction, changing the
absolute velocity, then measuring c in the other direction. To put it
another way, if observer A synchronized his clocks, fell asleep, and his
absolute velocity changed, he could synchronize another pair and compare
them to determine the *change* in his absolute velocity. Now, he could
not distinguish between a change from 0 to 0.5c, or from 0.5c to 0.8c,
but that is because the PofR is indeed correct, meaning that for
inertial observers, the results of their experiments tell them nothing
about their absolute velocity.
True, the experiments other than the clock paradox could also be
"explained" if we let gravitational effects replace the acceleration
that *must* have accompanied these changes in absolute velocity, but
since we know, in reality, that this constant gravitational field did
not exist, and this does not work for the clock paradox anyway (as
Wolfgang Rindler pointed out in "Essential Relativity" long ago), it
necessarily follows that several laws of nature are in fact laws that
vary as a function of absolute velocity. Specifically, time-rate,
length, and mass are functions of absolute velocity, and of course, c is
relative to the medium of space, just as the old ether theory implies.
Interestingly, the PofR by itself does *not* require time-rate to vary.
If light was a relative law, relative to the source, then time-rate
could *not* vary under the PofR. Einstein's 2nd postulate actually had
to state, at least indirectly, that c is an absolute law, in order to
conclude that time-rate varies.
A more engulfing statement, that applies to all observers, is that
"Nature permits our experiments to reveal only that information about
our absolute velocity that we could deduce on our own, prior to running
the experiments." If our absolute velocity changes by 0.5c, our clocks
and other things will confirm that fact. If we travel along a closed
path at 0.866c relative to an inertial observer, simple geometry shows
that our absolute velocity must have an average value of at least
0.866c, so our clocks *must* run half as fast, on the average, relative
to the inertial observer, and in fact our experiments will confirm this
geometric deduction. The PofR is a subset of this statement, which tells
us what the experiments of inertial observers can reveal about their
absolute velocity.
>
> >It is a
> >philosophical difference, based on Mach's idea of the characterisitcs
> >that physical theories should and should not have, and Mach was NOT the
> >world's greatest thinker! David Bohm, a good friend of Einstein's, came
> >up with an alternative to quantum mechanics that (last I heard) does
> >everything that QM does, but without the weirdness.
>
> Bohm's interpretation of quantum mechanics has a great deal _more_
> weirdness (and if you are referring to what goes by the name ``bohmian
> mechanics,'' which is weirder still and doesn't even have a self-consistent
> ontology, be aware that david bohm did not agree with that peculiar
> variation of his interpretation. The term ``bohmian mechanics'' was,
> to the est of my knowledge, coined by sheldon goldstein to represent
> sheldon goldstein's interpretation of quantum mechanics which has
> a resemblence to bohm's interpretation.) Bohm, in fact, stated that
> quantum mechanics was a misnomer in that it should have been called
> quantum nonmechanics and he meant that in reference to his own
> interpretation as well. Bohm clearly did not see his interpretation
> as a means of giving quantum mechanics a basis in classical concepts.
I have to apologize here, because you have obviously taken a lot of time
with this, but I am going to take your word for it about Bohm's
alternative. The point remains, however, that you do *not* "saddle" the
rest of physics with the requirement of *complete* relativity when, in
fact, our universe is only *partially* relativistic. Laws that vary as a
function of absolute velocity do exist, but their *initial* effect on
experimental results always cancels out. Actually, this leads to two
very interesting insights, which are really just restatements of the PofR.
(1) It is impossible to *isolate* just one absolute law in an experiment
for examination. All experiments contain either two or more absolute
velocity laws, or no absolute velocity at all (doesn't that just make
you think "Oh come on, there *must* be a way to isolate just one law!").
(2) The initial effect that one absolute velocity law has on the results
is always exactly and completely canceled out by the initial effects
from one or more other absolute velocity laws.
This is really cool, of course, but this canceling effect does *not*
exist for any subsequent *changes* in absolute velocity, and
technically, our universe would be fully relativistic *if and only if*
all effects from the absolute velocity laws were invisible even when an
experiment's absolute velocity is changed (while stopped, to avoid
effects from absolute acceleration) in the middle of the experiment. Our
universe is indeed partially relativistic, as proven by the fact that an
experiment's *initial* absolute velocity has no effect on its results.
However, absolute velocity laws *do exist*, which is why subsequent
changes in absolute velocity do change the results. If these absolute
velocity laws did not exist, then changing the experiment's absolute
velocity, and none of the relative factors in the experiment whatsoever,
could not possibly change the results.
As for the "universe circumnavigation experiment" I described above, we
can now see that the reason it works is because the distance around the
universe serves as a "absolute ruler," thereby taking out one of the
absolute laws (length as a function of absolute velocity), and
preventing it from canceling out the effects from another absolute
velocity law, namely that light travels at a constant velocity, c,
relative to the medium of space (and again, believe it or not, a careful
examination of Einstein's 2nd postulate shows that it states, as
indirectly as possible, exactly the same thing).
The above is a brief, not terribly well coordinated version of a 20+
page paper, so it probably has some errors, as well as confusing points,
but hopefully it is done well enough to allow you to see the points I am
trying to make, as well as perhaps some errors. At least well enough to
allow easy, as well as further, discussion.
Phil
Phil
Forgetful Phil
Bilge wrote:
>
Phil
I will try to get back to you soon, but I keep falling behind!
Phil
Phil
> Phil:
> [...]
> >current Great Beliefs, and nothing else. I have an iron-clad PROOF that
> >absolute velocity laws exist? You'll just cut those out of your posts
> >and ignore them. How intelligent! Wouldn't Einstein have really, really
> >respected you! And your intellectual integrity! Hint for a would-be
> >scientist: put reality and truth first, and voyeuristic ego based on "my
> >side has the TRUTH, aren't we brilliant!" dead last.
>
> I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here, but it appears
> you are arguing for the possible existence of an absolute position
> in space and time. Well, ok, you can do that. Most physicists consider
> the principle that the laws of physics are the same here as there,
> today or tomorrow to be a close to sancrosanct as anything could be,
> in lieu of evidence to the contrary.
(I have added a few corrections to my original version of this post. I
will try to put the corrections in brackets "[]")
I must be writing badly, because you are not the first person to think I
am referring to absolute position, as opposed to absolute velocity and
absolute acceleration. But to answer the question, although it may be
possible that some characteristics of the universe do indeed vary as a
function of position in the universe, i.e., that the results of
experiments vary as a function of absolute position, I have to agree
with Newton's 3rd rule of reasoning, which states that if some quality
is found to be true for all bodies within reach of our experiments, then
we should assume that this quality applies to all bodies, period. This
is basically equivalent, I believe, to the claim that the laws of nature
do not vary as a function of absolute position.
By the way, I have a 22 page or so paper I have written on this and hope
to soon publish. Let me know if you would like to see a copy. I will try
to more briefly give some of that here.
>
> In more colloquial terms, that principle means: (1) experiments are
> repeatable. (2) experiments performed in different locations give results
> consistent with the same laws of physics. (3) Experiments obey the same
> laws of physics independent of orientation.
>
> If you adopt those three concepts, then the _least_ restrictive
> definitions of space and time are those of general relativity.
I'll have to take your word for that, but that doesn't mean that
physicists cannot draw incorrect conclusions from those premises.
You could
> choose to forego any or all of those assumptions, but general relativity
> already allows for quite bizarre spacetimes (the godel universe being a
> case in point). It's safe to say that no one knows how to formulate a
> theory of anything if you cannot assume that experiments are repeatable in
> different places. If that were true, you could not count on the same
> outcome when doing something twice. If you want physicists to consider
> that sort of a theory, you will have to explain what such a theory could
> possibly mean.
>
>
> [...]
> >Ask yourself a simple question, and do so honestly and intelligently,
> >the way Einstein did. Is it possible to change the results of an
> >experiment simply by changing the experiment's absolute velocity and
> >NOTHING else while it is temporarily stopped if none of the laws that
> >determine the results are laws of absolute velocity?
>
> I'm not sure that I understand what that means. How do you change
> the absolute velocity of something and how do you temporally stop
> something? If there is no way to perform such an experiment, even
> in principle, then there can be no answer to that question based on
> the physical laws which apply to the universe we inhabit.
Take an experiment that measures how far a car can go on a tank of gas.
Obviously that can be stopped in the middle of the experiment, the
position changed, after which the experiment can resume. If the
experiment is started on the plains, then stopped, moved to the
mountains, and resumed, that *change in position* will affect the
results. The reason this change will affect the results is because (1)
the experiment is partly affected by characteristics typical of position
-- flat versus mountainous, hot versus cold, etc. -- and (2) the change
in question changed those characteristics. In other words, some of the
factors that affects how far a car can go are *functions of position*.
Therefore, changing position, either at the start or in the middle of
the experiment, can affect the results. The important point here is that
if you change the experiment's position *and nothing else* at any time
during the experiment (although you need to stop the experiment *during*
the changes to be certain that you *isolate* the experiment from
anything *except* changes in position), and the results change, then it
*necessarily follows* -- i.e., *proves* -- that some characteristic that
*changes* as a function of position (1) does exist, (2) did occur, and
(3) does affect the experiment. A non-existent change *cannot possibly*
change the results.
For absolute velocity, you first get an experiment that can easily be
stopped and then resumed. A two-way measurement of c will do, since we
can simply receive a light pulse, wait x seconds, and then send a light
pulse back (we simply subtract x from the overall round-trip time).
Another experiment is the standard "out-and-back" clock paradox (as
opposed to the more exotic "orbiting" clock paradox). To change its
absolute velocity requires a small assumption, albeit one that GR must
incorporate, namely that by changing our velocity relative to the stars,
or to the CMBR, we also change our velocity relative to the medium of
space. Notice that even if velocity relative to space is indeed
meaningless, we can probably *test* this premise/fact by changing our
velocity relative to the stars, since only if such a change did *not*
change our velocity relative to space could the test "incorrectly" fail.
In other words, given the premise that space does have characteristics
that vary a function of velocity relative to space, as functions of
"absolute velocity," then a change in velocity relative to the
stars/CMBR *will* produce a change in absolute velocity (actually you
would need two changes to guarantee a change in magnitude, to avoid the
possibility of a change from a velocity of -0.1c to +0.1c, but ...).
Now, you and I both know that changing an experiment's *initial*
absolute velocity will have no effect of the results, but let's move on.
>
> [...]
> >honestly and intelligently answer the question. If the answer is no,
> >meaning that absolute laws MUST exist, THEN you can panic if you want
> >to, but not before! And by the way, the fact that absolute laws do exist
> >doesn't change one single law of relativity. Not one. The laws are the
>
> What is an ``absolute law?'' The ``laws of physics'' are the most basic
> assumptions one can make such that the rest follows from the assumptions.
Take a table with objects on it. The positions, velocities, and
accelerations of the objects [relative to each other] are their
*relative* positions, velocities, and accelerations. In contrast, their
positions, velocities, and accelerations relative to the table, to the
universe itself, are their *absolute* positions, velocities, and
accelerations. "Relative" and "absolute," as defined/used by Newton, is
the *distinction* between the positions, velocities, and accelerations
of objects relative to other objects, versus relative to the universe.
Absolute laws are simply laws that vary as a function of absolute
position, or velocity, or acceleration. The important point, as you
know, is that if there are no characteristics that vary as a function of
position, or velocity, or acceleration, then to speak of *absolute*
position, or velocity, or acceleration is literally meaningless.
Newton's 3rd rule of reasoning simply states that, as far as we know,
there are no characteristics that vary as a function of absolute
position, making that concept meaningless. However, Newton claimed that
the measurement of acceleration we obtain by using force is relative to
a single set of reference frames, the inertial set, and this does claim
that at least one characteristic, force, varies as a function of
absolute acceleration. To Mach, this was unacceptable [largely because
of our inability to specify our position or velocity relative to space],
but while we must be careful to make sure that no "extra" forces are
operating, and that we know the effects from any significant
gravitational fields, we can, in fact, obtain [an object's
*acceleration* relative to space, our *absolute*] acceleration, to a
very high degree of accuracy by measuring force and mass.
> For galilean relativity, one assumes invariance under space and time
> translations and spatial rotations plus absolute simultaneity and in-
> variance under a galilean boost. From that, newtonian mechanics follows.
Yes, characteristics that vary as a function of absolute position or
velocity are assumed to either not exist, or at least to not affect the
results of Galilean/Newtonian mechanics, and the experiments that fall
under their domain.
> If you eliminate the restrictions of absolute simultaneity and invariance
> under galilean boosts, you get special relativity. If you also require
> gravitational mass and inertial mass to be equivalent, then you get
> general relativity. If you assume something different than the above,
> you get a different theory. If you don't want a different theory, then
> there is no point in assuming something which requires you to eliminate
> all of the consequences of your assumptions that would otherwise lead
> to the prediction of physical effects which are not observed.
I *think* I understand you here. Why *assume* that laws that vary as a
function of absolute velocity or acceleration exist if can get the same
results *without* making this assumption? There are two possible
reasons; first, if one or more situations exist that do require this
assumption in order to correctly predict the results, and second,
because more than just macro mechanics is at stake. You do *not* want to
incorporate, globally, a belief that is fundamentally false simply
because it is not needed in one particular area. [Our first priority
must be] to be correct, even if that means incorporating items that are
useless in some areas.
>
> >same. The only difference is whether we should state that certain laws
> >are functions of absolute velocity and absolute acceleration.
>
> Not if you cannot, even in principle, devise an experiment to
> measure those absolute quantities. My definition of experiment
> and measurement are quite broad. An experiment is any conceivable
> circumstances under which those parameters have an effect that
> differs from random chance and a measurement is any outcome which
> could possibly affect anything in the universe differently than
> random chance. (By random chance, I mean any result which requires
> nothing more sophisticated than dividing the outcomes into yes/no
> answers and predicting the results with a probability that differs
> from precisely 0.5. Otherwise, even nature could not distinguish
> a cause and effect from random chance.)
I agree with this. But remember, in addition to the possible existence
of experiments that *do* measure absolute changes, there is the
possibility -- which I am claiming has occurred in fact -- that
physicists made an error in their understanding of what certain things
do and do not imply, and error in logic and reasoning, which I will get
to shortly. First, your point on measuring, even in principle, absolute
qualities (which really means absolute velocity). I don't know if you
saw the earlier posts, but Tom immediately cut out the following (here I
added "inertial" to "observers" for a bit more clarity):
"Actually, there is one experiment (that I am aware of) that truly
violates the principle of relativity, but it would be really hard to do,
and take a really long time. Physicists believe that if you travel in a
straight line long enough (as in, follow a beam of light), you will
eventually return to your starting point. In theory, therefore, we could
send out radar pulses (or the output from a supernova, whatever) in all
directions, and they also would eventually return to their starting
point. Assume that observer A does so, and that everything returns in 10
billion years (as a side note, I know of nothing in GR that says that
this could not possibly occur, at least in a "GR-legitimate thought
experiment," but if you know differently, please let me know, as I plan
to incorporate this in a paper). If observer B moves 1 million
light-years "to the right," and then synchronizes his clocks with A,
both A and B will expect one radar pulse to reach B 1 million years
before it reaches A, and another pulse to reach B 1 million years after
it reaches A; a perfectly normal and expected result under GR. However,
if inertial observer C just happens to be next to A when the radar
pulses are sent out, and just happens to have a velocity that will put
him next to B when the first radar pulse reaches B, then NO ONE (except
C) will expect all the radar pulses to return to C simultaneously, and
in fact, C can use the difference in return times, plus the total time,
to deduce his absolute velocity. Now, both A and C are inertial
observers, and they *should* have the same results, but they won't, even
if it is C who sends out the radar pulses when he is next to A, nor will
A *predict* that C will have the same results, although that also is a
violation of the principle of relativity (inertial observers should both
predict and see that experiments by other inertial observers have the
same results as the inertial observer's own experiments). Of course, if
light traveled at a constant velocity, c, relative to the *source*, then
if C sent out the radar pulses, he would see himself as motionless, but
this has been proven false by the observations of binary stars, and is
in fact contrary to Einstein's second postulate (as an interesting side
note, the second postulate cannot simply state that "the measured value
of c is the same for all observers" -- that would not tell us whether
time slows down, mass increases, etc. -- but must *specifically* state,
either directly or indirectly (as was done by Einstein), whether c is an
absolute law).
I have heard every nut-ball response to this you can imagine! The Earth
might not be there when the light returns, Tom's "the universe would
collapse before the light returns," etc. My hope is that you will at
least come up with an honest objection, or even better, use the "even in
principle" comment you made above to judge this from exactly that point
of view, meaning could this in fact happen, in at least some universe,
under GR's laws? We'll see. I put this on s.p.research a few years back
and got exactly zero responses, which I still find not just extremely
weird, but completely incomprehensible under the usual *stated and
claimed* scientific principles and purposes.
Now, for the error in logic and reasoning. It is true that (except for
the above experiment) that there are no experiments whose results vary
as a function of their *initial* absolute velocity. We'll assume that
you can do what no one else has, and find an honest, real, intelligent
flaw with the above experiment/exception, [thereby allowing us to ignore
it]. However, if an experiment *truly* is unaffected by characteristics
of absolute velocity, then we can stop the experiment, change its
absolute velocity, and then resume it, *thousands* of times during the
experiment with no effect *whatsoever* on the results. Take an
experiment that is at least assumed to fall under the Newtonian laws.
You could do just that, or [something] equivalent, [namely] to instantly
is the same, as predicted by the principle of relativity (PoR).
Now, to test whether "time-rate," which is one of the factors
controlling the results of this experiment, is or is not a function of
absolute velocity. If it is *not* a function of absolute velocity, then
changing this experiment's absolute velocity and *nothing else
whatsoever* cannot possibly change the results. Begin with version #2,
where as seen by C, B is motionless and A, on Earth, leaves at 0.866c
for 5 years. B turns around and begins to return at 0.9897c. At this
point, we stop the experiment, change the absolute velocity of the Earth
by 0.866c toward the left as seen by C, giving A a velocity of zero, and
B a velocity of 0.866 relative to the Earth (in order to leave all the
*relative* factors, distance and velocity, [unchanged] as seen by A and
B). It will take 5 years for B to return as seen by A, a total of 7-1/2
years for A, and 2-1/2 years as seen by B, also for a total of 7-1/2
years for B. Obviously, changing the absolute velocity in the middle of
the experiment changed the results, which can only happen if (1)
time-rate is a function of absolute velocity, and (2) is one of the
factors controlling the results. Similar results can be found by
synchronizing clocks, measuring c in one direction, changing the
absolute velocity, then measuring c in the other direction. To put it
another way, if observer A synchronized his clocks, fell asleep, and his
absolute velocity changed, he could synchronize another pair and compare
them to determine the *change* in his absolute velocity. Now, he could
not distinguish between a change from 0 to 0.5c, or from 0.5c to 0.8c,
but that is because the PoR is indeed correct, meaning that for inertial
observers, the results of their experiments tell them nothing about
their absolute velocity. [However, A *can* determine that his absolute
velocity changed by 0.5c (as measured locally), which *proves* that
absolute laws do exist, and that their effect on results is merely
*limited* by the PoR.]
True, the experiments other than the clock paradox could also be
"explained" if we let gravitational effects replace the acceleration
that *must* have accompanied these changes in absolute velocity, but
since we know, in reality, that this constant gravitational field did
not exist, and this does not work for the clock paradox anyway (as
Wolfgang Rindler pointed out in "Essential Relativity" long ago), it
necessarily follows that several laws of nature are in fact laws that
vary as a function of absolute velocity. Specifically, time-rate,
length, and mass are functions of absolute velocity, and of course, c is
relative to the medium of space, just as the old ether theory implies.
Interestingly, the PoR by itself does *not* require time-rate to vary.
If light was a relative law, relative to the source, then time-rate
could *not* vary under the PoR. Einstein's 2nd postulate actually had to
state, at least indirectly, that c is an absolute law, in order to
conclude that time-rate varies.
A more engulfing statement, that applies to all observers, is that
"Nature permits our experiments to reveal only that information about
our absolute velocity that we could deduce on our own, prior to running
the experiments." If our absolute velocity changes by 0.5c, our clocks
and other things will confirm that fact. If we travel along a closed
path at 0.866c relative to an inertial observer [(as in the clock
paradox)], simple geometry shows that our absolute velocity must have an
average value of at least 0.866c, so our clocks *must* run half as fast,
on the average, relative to the inertial observer, and in fact our
experiments will confirm this geometric deduction. The PoR is a subset
of this statement, which tells us what the experiments of inertial
observers can reveal about their absolute velocity.
>
> >It is a
> >philosophical difference, based on Mach's idea of the characterisitcs
> >that physical theories should and should not have, and Mach was NOT the
> >world's greatest thinker! David Bohm, a good friend of Einstein's, came
> >up with an alternative to quantum mechanics that (last I heard) does
> >everything that QM does, but without the weirdness.
>
> Bohm's interpretation of quantum mechanics has a great deal _more_
> weirdness (and if you are referring to what goes by the name ``bohmian
> mechanics,'' which is weirder still and doesn't even have a self-consistent
> ontology, be aware that david bohm did not agree with that peculiar
> variation of his interpretation. The term ``bohmian mechanics'' was,
> to the est of my knowledge, coined by sheldon goldstein to represent
> sheldon goldstein's interpretation of quantum mechanics which has
> a resemblence to bohm's interpretation.) Bohm, in fact, stated that
> quantum mechanics was a misnomer in that it should have been called
> quantum nonmechanics and he meant that in reference to his own
> interpretation as well. Bohm clearly did not see his interpretation
> as a means of giving quantum mechanics a basis in classical concepts.
I have to apologize here, because you have obviously taken a lot of time
with this, but I am going to take your word for it about Bohm's
alternative. The point remains, however, that you do *not* "saddle" the
rest of physics with the requirement of *complete* relativity when, in
fact, our universe is only *partially* relativistic. Laws that vary as a
function of absolute velocity do exist, but their *initial* effect on
experimental results always cancels out. Actually, this leads to two
very interesting insights, which are really just restatements of the PoR.
(1) It is impossible to *isolate* just one absolute law in an experiment
for examination. All experiments contain either two or more absolute
velocity laws, or no absolute velocity at all (doesn't that just make
you think "Oh come on, there *must* be a way to isolate just one law!").
(2) The initial effect that one absolute velocity law has on the results
is always exactly and completely canceled out by the initial effects
from one or more other absolute velocity laws.
This is really cool, of course, but this canceling effect does *not*
exist for any subsequent *changes* in absolute velocity, and
technically, our universe would be fully relativistic, [effectively free
of laws that are functions of absolute velocity], *if and only if* all
effects from the absolute velocity laws were invisible even when an
experiment's absolute velocity is changed (while stopped, to avoid
effects from absolute acceleration) in the middle of the experiment. Our
universe is indeed partially relativistic, as proven by the fact that an
experiment's *initial* absolute velocity has no effect on its results.
However, absolute velocity laws *do exist*, which is why subsequent
changes in absolute velocity do change the results. If these absolute
velocity laws did not exist, then changing the experiment's absolute
velocity, and none of the relative factors in the experiment whatsoever,
could not possibly change the results. [This is the error in logic and
reasoning made by physicists. They took the fact that experiments are
unaffected by their *initial* absolute velocity and concluded from it
that experiments are *completely* (the error) unaffected by laws of
absolute velocity. Only if experiments were unaffected by both their
initial absolute velocity and any subsequent changes in absolute
velocity -- something which is true for ideal Newtonian experiments --
would this conclusion be logically valid.]
As for the "universe circumnavigation experiment" I described above, we
can now see that the reason it works is because the distance around the
universe serves as a "absolute ruler," thereby taking out one of the
absolute laws ([changes in measured] length as a function of absolute
velocity), and preventing it from canceling out the effects from another
absolute velocity law, namely that light travels at a constant velocity,
c, relative to the medium of space (and again, believe it or not, a
careful examination of Einstein's 2nd postulate shows that it states, as
indirectly as possible, exactly the same thing).
The above is a brief, not terribly well coordinated version of a 20+
page paper, so it probably has some errors, as well as confusing points,
but hopefully it is done well enough to allow you to see the points I am
trying to make, as well as perhaps some errors. At least well enough to
allow easy, as well as further, discussion. [To email me off-list,
remove my head from my email address.]
Phil
Phil
> Phil:
> [...]
> >current Great Beliefs, and nothing else. I have an iron-clad PROOF that
> >absolute velocity laws exist? You'll just cut those out of your posts
> >and ignore them. How intelligent! Wouldn't Einstein have really, really
> >respected you! And your intellectual integrity! Hint for a would-be
> >scientist: put reality and truth first, and voyeuristic ego based on "my
> >side has the TRUTH, aren't we brilliant!" dead last.
>
> I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here, but it appears
> you are arguing for the possible existence of an absolute position
> in space and time. Well, ok, you can do that. Most physicists consider
> the principle that the laws of physics are the same here as there,
> today or tomorrow to be a close to sancrosanct as anything could be,
> in lieu of evidence to the contrary.
(I have added a few corrections to my original version of this post. I
will try to put the corrections in brackets "[]")
I must be writing badly, because you are not the first person to think I
am referring to absolute position, as opposed to absolute velocity and
absolute acceleration. But to answer the question, although it may be
possible that some characteristics of the universe do indeed vary as a
function of position in the universe, i.e., that the results of
experiments vary as a function of absolute position, I have to agree
with Newton's 3rd rule of reasoning, which states that if some quality
is found to be true for all bodies within reach of our experiments, then
we should assume that this quality applies to all bodies, period. This
is basically equivalent, I believe, to the claim that the laws of nature
do not vary as a function of absolute position.
By the way, I have a 22 page or so paper I have written on this and hope
to soon publish. Let me know if you would like to see a copy. I will try
to more briefly give some of that here.
>
> In more colloquial terms, that principle means: (1) experiments are
> repeatable. (2) experiments performed in different locations give results
> consistent with the same laws of physics. (3) Experiments obey the same
> laws of physics independent of orientation.
>
> If you adopt those three concepts, then the _least_ restrictive
> definitions of space and time are those of general relativity.
I'll have to take your word for that, but that doesn't mean that
physicists cannot draw incorrect conclusions from those premises.
You could
> choose to forego any or all of those assumptions, but general relativity
> already allows for quite bizarre spacetimes (the godel universe being a
> case in point). It's safe to say that no one knows how to formulate a
> theory of anything if you cannot assume that experiments are repeatable in
> different places. If that were true, you could not count on the same
> outcome when doing something twice. If you want physicists to consider
> that sort of a theory, you will have to explain what such a theory could
> possibly mean.
>
>
> [...]
> >Ask yourself a simple question, and do so honestly and intelligently,
> >the way Einstein did. Is it possible to change the results of an
> >experiment simply by changing the experiment's absolute velocity and
> >NOTHING else while it is temporarily stopped if none of the laws that
> >determine the results are laws of absolute velocity?
>
> I'm not sure that I understand what that means. How do you change
> the absolute velocity of something and how do you temporally stop
> something? If there is no way to perform such an experiment, even
> in principle, then there can be no answer to that question based on
> the physical laws which apply to the universe we inhabit.
Take an experiment that measures how far a car can go on a tank of gas.
Obviously that can be stopped in the middle of the experiment, the
position changed, after which the experiment can resume. If the
experiment is started on the plains, then stopped, moved to the
mountains, and resumed, that *change in position* will affect the
results. The reason this change will affect the results is because (1)
the experiment is partly affected by characteristics typical of position
-- flat versus mountainous, hot versus cold, etc. -- and (2) the change
in question changed those characteristics. In other words, some of the
factors that affects how far a car can go are *functions of position*.
Therefore, changing position, either at the start or in the middle of
the experiment, can affect the results. The important point here is that
if you change the experiment's position *and nothing else* at any time
during the experiment (although you need to stop the experiment *during*
the changes to be certain that you *isolate* the experiment from
anything *except* changes in position), and the results change, then it
*necessarily follows* -- i.e., *proves* -- that some characteristic that
*changes* as a function of position (1) does exist, (2) did occur, and
(3) does affect the experiment. A non-existent change *cannot possibly*
change the results.
For absolute velocity, you first get an experiment that can easily be
stopped and then resumed. A two-way measurement of c will do, since we
can simply receive a light pulse, wait x seconds, and then send a light
pulse back (we simply subtract x from the overall round-trip time).
Another experiment is the standard "out-and-back" clock paradox (as
opposed to the more exotic "orbiting" clock paradox). To change its
absolute velocity requires a small assumption, albeit one that GR must
incorporate, namely that by changing our velocity relative to the stars,
or to the CMBR, we also change our velocity relative to the medium of
space. Notice that even if velocity relative to space is indeed
meaningless, we can probably *test* this premise/fact by changing our
velocity relative to the stars, since only if such a change did *not*
change our velocity relative to space could the test "incorrectly" fail.
In other words, given the premise that space does have characteristics
that vary a function of velocity relative to space, as functions of
"absolute velocity," then a change in velocity relative to the
stars/CMBR *will* produce a change in absolute velocity (actually you
would need two changes to guarantee a change in magnitude, to avoid the
possibility of a change from a velocity of -0.1c to +0.1c, but ...).
Now, you and I both know that changing an experiment's *initial*
absolute velocity will have no effect of the results, but let's move on.
>
> [...]
> >honestly and intelligently answer the question. If the answer is no,
> >meaning that absolute laws MUST exist, THEN you can panic if you want
> >to, but not before! And by the way, the fact that absolute laws do exist
> >doesn't change one single law of relativity. Not one. The laws are the
>
> What is an ``absolute law?'' The ``laws of physics'' are the most basic
> assumptions one can make such that the rest follows from the assumptions.
Take a table with objects on it. The positions, velocities, and
> For galilean relativity, one assumes invariance under space and time
> translations and spatial rotations plus absolute simultaneity and in-
> variance under a galilean boost. From that, newtonian mechanics follows.
Yes, characteristics that vary as a function of absolute position or
velocity are assumed to either not exist, or at least to not affect the
results of Galilean/Newtonian mechanics, and the experiments that fall
under their domain.
> If you eliminate the restrictions of absolute simultaneity and invariance
> under galilean boosts, you get special relativity. If you also require
> gravitational mass and inertial mass to be equivalent, then you get
> general relativity. If you assume something different than the above,
> you get a different theory. If you don't want a different theory, then
> there is no point in assuming something which requires you to eliminate
> all of the consequences of your assumptions that would otherwise lead
> to the prediction of physical effects which are not observed.
I *think* I understand you here. Why *assume* that laws that vary as a
function of absolute velocity or acceleration exist if can get the same
results *without* making this assumption? There are two possible
reasons; first, if one or more situations exist that do require this
assumption in order to correctly predict the results, and second,
because more than just macro mechanics is at stake. You do *not* want to
incorporate, globally, a belief that is fundamentally false simply
because it is not needed in one particular area. [Our first priority
must be] to be correct, even if that means incorporating items that are
useless in some areas.
>
> >same. The only difference is whether we should state that certain laws
> >are functions of absolute velocity and absolute acceleration.
>
> Not if you cannot, even in principle, devise an experiment to
> measure those absolute quantities. My definition of experiment
> and measurement are quite broad. An experiment is any conceivable
> circumstances under which those parameters have an effect that
> differs from random chance and a measurement is any outcome which
> could possibly affect anything in the universe differently than
> random chance. (By random chance, I mean any result which requires
> nothing more sophisticated than dividing the outcomes into yes/no
> answers and predicting the results with a probability that differs
> from precisely 0.5. Otherwise, even nature could not distinguish
> a cause and effect from random chance.)
I agree with this. But remember, in addition to the possible existence
of experiments that *do* measure absolute changes, there is the
possibility -- which I am claiming has occurred in fact -- that
physicists made an error in their understanding of what certain things
do and do not imply, and error in logic and reasoning, which I will get
to shortly. First, your point on measuring, even in principle, absolute
qualities (which really means absolute velocity). I don't know if you
saw the earlier posts, but Tom immediately cut out the following (here I
added "inertial" to "observers" for a bit more clarity):
"Actually, there is one experiment (that I am aware of) that truly
violates the principle of relativity, but it would be really hard to do,
and take a really long time. Physicists believe that if you travel in a
straight line long enough (as in, follow a beam of light), you will
eventually return to your starting point. In theory, therefore, we could
send out radar pulses (or the output from a supernova, whatever) in all
directions, and they also would eventually return to their starting
point. Assume that observer A does so, and that everything returns in 10
billion years (as a side note, I know of nothing in GR that says that
this could not possibly occur, at least in a "GR-legitimate thought
experiment," but if you know differently, please let me know, as I plan
to incorporate this in a paper). If observer B moves 1 million
light-years "to the right," and then synchronizes his clocks with A,
both A and B will expect one radar pulse to reach B 1 million years
before it reaches A, and another pulse to reach B 1 million years after
it reaches A; a perfectly normal and expected result under GR. However,
if inertial observer C just happens to be next to A when the radar
pulses are sent out, and just happens to have a velocity that will put
him next to B when the first radar pulse reaches B, then NO ONE (except
C) will expect all the radar pulses to return to C simultaneously, and
in fact, C can use the difference in return times, plus the total time,
to deduce his absolute velocity. Now, both A and C are inertial
observers, and they *should* have the same results, but they won't, even
if it is C who sends out the radar pulses when he is next to A, nor will
A *predict* that C will have the same results, although that also is a
violation of the principle of relativity (inertial observers should both
predict and see that experiments by other inertial observers have the
same results as the inertial observer's own experiments). Of course, if
light traveled at a constant velocity, c, relative to the *source*, then
if C sent out the radar pulses, he would see himself as motionless, but
this has been proven false by the observations of binary stars, and is
in fact contrary to Einstein's second postulate (as an interesting side
note, the second postulate cannot simply state that "the measured value
of c is the same for all observers" -- that would not tell us whether
time slows down, mass increases, etc. -- but must *specifically* state,
either directly or indirectly (as was done by Einstein), whether c is an
absolute law).
I have heard every nut-ball response to this you can imagine! The Earth
A more engulfing statement, that applies to all observers, is that
"Nature permits our experiments to reveal only that information about
our absolute velocity that we could deduce on our own, prior to running
the experiments." If our absolute velocity changes by 0.5c, our clocks
and other things will confirm that fact. If we travel along a closed
path at 0.866c relative to an inertial observer [(as in the clock
paradox)], simple geometry shows that our absolute velocity must have an
average value of at least 0.866c, so our clocks *must* run half as fast,
on the average, relative to the inertial observer, and in fact our
experiments will confirm this geometric deduction. The PoR is a subset
of this statement, which tells us what the experiments of inertial
observers can reveal about their absolute velocity.
>
> >It is a
> >philosophical difference, based on Mach's idea of the characterisitcs
> >that physical theories should and should not have, and Mach was NOT the
> >world's greatest thinker! David Bohm, a good friend of Einstein's, came
> >up with an alternative to quantum mechanics that (last I heard) does
> >everything that QM does, but without the weirdness.
>
> Bohm's interpretation of quantum mechanics has a great deal _more_
> weirdness (and if you are referring to what goes by the name ``bohmian
> mechanics,'' which is weirder still and doesn't even have a self-consistent
> ontology, be aware that david bohm did not agree with that peculiar
> variation of his interpretation. The term ``bohmian mechanics'' was,
> to the est of my knowledge, coined by sheldon goldstein to represent
> sheldon goldstein's interpretation of quantum mechanics which has
> a resemblence to bohm's interpretation.) Bohm, in fact, stated that
> quantum mechanics was a misnomer in that it should have been called
> quantum nonmechanics and he meant that in reference to his own
> interpretation as well. Bohm clearly did not see his interpretation
> as a means of giving quantum mechanics a basis in classical concepts.
I have to apologize here, because you have obviously taken a lot of time
with this, but I am going to take your word for it about Bohm's
alternative. The point remains, however, that you do *not* "saddle" the
rest of physics with the requirement of *complete* relativity when, in
fact, our universe is only *partially* relativistic. Laws that vary as a
function of absolute velocity do exist, but their *initial* effect on
experimental results always cancels out. Actually, this leads to two
very interesting insights, which are really just restatements of the PoR.
(1) It is impossible to *isolate* just one absolute law in an experiment
for examination. All experiments contain either two or more absolute
velocity laws, or no absolute velocity [laws] at all (doesn't that just
Phil
>
Euclid Uranium
> consistent at the level of about 500-600 gibberish posts per month.
1. I'm not a bot.
2. It's not gibberish, just because you can't understand it.
3. I haven't made 500 posts ever, never mind per month.
Phil
their theories are flawed, because they know that those proofs will
enable them to obtain a better, more accurate understanding of the world
around them. They are not like the "scientists" of Galileo's day, whi
put him under house arrest for showing that the current beliefs of that
time were flawed, defective. Instead of merely defending the current
theories, today's scientists, and their followers, meaning the people on
these lists, follow the "scientific method," which requires them to
honestly examine any apparent flaw with the current theories, without
merely or mindlessly defending them as the "Great Beliefs," ala
Galileo's jailers, who run away from insight, truth, honesty,
intellectual integrity.
But on these lists, I have only seen the two kinds of responses you have
seen here to my *proofs* that certain characteristics of our universe
are indeed functions of absolute velocity. You have wacko, emotional,
almost rabid defensiveness of not just the laws of relativity (which are
correct), but of the *philosophy* of relativity, the belief that laws of
absolute velocity are meaningless, just delusions or crutches of
inferior minds, or you have the response I got from you; not one word.
In other words, eventhing I said in the first paragraph is pure shit. No
one today is willing to be a true scientist, in the mold of Einstein,
who looked not only at what was right about the physics of his day, but
also at what was wrong. I maintain that he would have been appalled at
the response I have gotten from every single person, with no exception
whatsoever (whomsoever?), to my insights, perceptions, logical analyses,
and proofs. The thirst for true knowledge? The ruthless determination to
*honestly* test our theories against the shores (or cliffs) of reality?
What a bunch of arrogant, egotistical, crap. We're no different from
Galileo's jailers. We're just as stupid, and just as uninterested in the
truth.
I'm not disappointed in you in particular. Hell, at least you didn't go
rabid on me! I'm just pointing out to you how little we have changed
from Galileo's day. An important insight in itself, as it means that
there are almost certainly many other areas out there with obvious
errors, which you could uncover and publish, if you are just willing to
admit that you are just as capable of finding those errors as the great,
open-minded, so-called "scientists" out there.
Phil