Is a Prefered Frame still possible??
Des
All the laws of physics is SR compliant. What if physicists finally
found a privileged frame. Does this mean the laws of physics
have to be rewritten? If not. How are they compatible. What I
mean to say is. Scientists are still searching for lorentz violations.
But isn't it that the laws of physics have already SR built within,
for example.. dirac's equation has the spins and antimatter
came out when SR in included. And yet scientists still search
for lorentz violations. If they found one. How does it affect say
the Dirac equations, etc.?
This may be a dumb question, but if I don't ask. I won't know.
So may as well ask :)
Des
Don Stockbauer
Of course a preferred frame is possible. This is America! You can
buy whatever bed frame you want!
God bless America,
Land that I love,
Stand beside her,
Even though you're really just the Universe (GOD = UNIVERSE)
blah, blah, blah....
Shubee
> mean the laws of physics have to be rewritten? If not. How are
> they compatible.
Compatibility is not an issue. The only thing that physicists would
have to do is accept my simple tautology. There are laws of physics
that are the same in all frames of reference and there may be laws of
physics that aren't.
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Jeckyl
news:1185418000.2...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> Hi,
>
> All the laws of physics is SR compliant. What if physicists finally
> found a privileged frame.
That depends .. what are its priveleges?
Eric Gisse
> On Jul 25, 7:46 pm, Des <descartesne...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
>
> > What if physicists finally found a privileged frame. Does this
> > mean the laws of physics have to be rewritten? If not. How are
> > they compatible.
>
> Compatibility is not an issue. The only thing that physicists would
> have to do is accept my simple tautology. There are laws of physics
> that are the same in all frames of reference and there may be laws of
> physics that aren't.
Which laws aren't the same, shooby?
>
> Shubeehttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
YBM
> On Jul 25, 7:46 pm, Des <descartesne...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> What if physicists finally found a privileged frame. Does this
>> mean the laws of physics have to be rewritten? If not. How are
>> they compatible.
>
> Compatibility is not an issue. The only thing that physicists would
> have to do is accept my simple tautology. There are laws of physics
> that are the same in all frames of reference and there may be laws of
> physics that aren't.
``What borders truth is not falseness but insignificantness.''
René Thom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Thom), a real
mathematician, what you'll never be.
Jeckyl
news:1185419525....@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 25, 7:02 pm, Shubee <e.shu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 25, 7:46 pm, Des <descartesne...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi,
>>
>> > What if physicists finally found a privileged frame. Does this
>> > mean the laws of physics have to be rewritten? If not. How are
>> > they compatible.
>>
>> Compatibility is not an issue. The only thing that physicists would
>> have to do is accept my simple tautology. There are laws of physics
>> that are the same in all frames of reference and there may be laws of
>> physics that aren't.
>
> Which laws aren't the same, shooby?
He did say "may" .. so that is compatible with there being one :)
I guess it depends on how you define what it means for something to be a
'law' of physics. Is it circularly defined as being some (mathematical)
generalization of empirical observations that holds universally in all
(inertial) frames of reference (so if it doesn't hold in every frame of
reference, it is not a law?). In that case it would then be impossible for
there to be a law of physics that does not apply in all frames .. because if
it didn't apply it wouldn't be a law :) Similarly, as to whether a
privileged (or preferred) frame exists really depends on what you actually
mean by a 'privileged frame' or 'preferred frame'.
YBM
> Shubee a écrit :
>> On Jul 25, 7:46 pm, Des <descartesne...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> What if physicists finally found a privileged frame. Does this
>>> mean the laws of physics have to be rewritten? If not. How are
>>> they compatible.
>>
>> Compatibility is not an issue. The only thing that physicists would
>> have to do is accept my simple tautology. There are laws of physics
>> that are the same in all frames of reference and there may be laws of
>> physics that aren't.
>
> ``What borders truth is not falseness but insignificantness.''
"insignificantness" being a likely neologism, one could translate
as well :
"What borders truth is not falseness but inconsequentiality"
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"Des" <descart...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1185418000.2...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> Hi,
>
> All the laws of physics is SR compliant. What if
> physicists finally found a privileged frame.
Then the laws of physics are not the same for all inertial
observers, in a mass-free environment.
> Does this mean the laws of physics have to be
> rewritten?
Yes.
> If not. How are they compatible. What I mean to
> say is. Scientists are still searching for lorentz
> violations.
More like they are spending a lot of time trying to reconcile GR
and QM. There may be a few looking for unexplored "patches" near
SR.
> But isn't it that the laws of physics have already
> SR built within, for example.. dirac's equation
> has the spins and antimatter came out when
> SR in included.
Vice-versa. SR posits that the laws of physics are the same, so
SR "contains" the laws of physics... not the way you have it.
That they found "mile marker 10" on a particular road, and used
SR to backtrack to "mile marker 5", doesn't mean that is the way
it usually happens.
David A. Smith
Sam Wormley
When talking of inertial reference frames, a fundamental principle of
all physics is the equivalence of inertial reference frame. No experiment
of any kind can, say in an enclosed box, can detect whether uniform motion
exist for the inertial reference frame... and the question is even silly
in that a reference is required to detect motion... motion with respect
to the reference.
Being practical, a "preferred" inertial reference frame has no properties
different than any other inertial reference frame other than its convenience.
"Lorentz Invariance on Trial"
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether
If you don't have access to Physics Today at a library or online, email
me.
Sam Wormley
.
>
> Compatibility is not an issue. The only thing that physicists would
> have to do is accept my simple tautology. There are laws of physics
> that are the same in all frames of reference and there may be laws of
> physics that aren't.
>
Which laws are you referring to, Eugene?
Tom Roberts
> All the laws of physics is SR compliant. What if physicists finally
> found a privileged frame. Does this mean the laws of physics
> have to be rewritten?
This depends on the details of how and why that frame is "privileged",
and what the experimental manifestations are. If I assume the
experimental indicators are all compatible with the experiments that
have been done so far, they must be EXTREMELY subtle, and it would take
multiple observations by multiple observers before anybody would accept
them (well, anybody but the crackpots who revel in such stuff).
If such observations became accepted, then what has happened many times
before would happen again: physicists would search for new theories to
describe the observations, and the domain of applicability of existing
theories would become more limited than previously thought. That is a
rather different process than "rewriting the laws of physics"....
> If not. How are they compatible. What I
> mean to say is. Scientists are still searching for lorentz violations.
There is no way to incorporate a preferred frame (in which the laws of
physics are somehow special) into the current fundamental theories of
physics. Note that a "preferred frame" that merely reflects some
symmetry of the manifold poses no problem at all -- for instance, modern
cosmological models have such a frame (all discussions of "preferred
frames" recently in other threads of this newsgroup are of this sort).
Scientists search for violations of current theories as a matter of
course -- that is a major part of what science is. Limits on the effects
of a preferred frame are quite small (see the FAQ for references). The
standard technique is to generalize the current theory (e.g. with the
test theory of Mansouri and Sexl, or Kostelecky's standard model
extension), and then fit the parameters of the test theory to the
experimental data. Current theories will predict definite values for
those parameters, and this provides a quantitative way to test their
predictions.
> But isn't it that the laws of physics have already SR built within,
> for example.. dirac's equation has the spins and antimatter
> came out when SR in included. And yet scientists still search
> for lorentz violations. If they found one. How does it affect say
> the Dirac equations, etc.?
It would depend on precisely what aspects of current theories are
refuted by these new observations. And on how the "preferred frame'
manifests itself in the observations.
Tom Roberts
Des
> "Eric Gisse" <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
By preferred frame is meant that superluminal signalling is possible
where it uses that preferred frame and all inertial frames followed
that preferred frame as reference for the superluminal signal, hence
causality is not violated in all inertial frames. What do you think.
des
Des
> Des wrote:
> > All the laws of physics is SR compliant. What if physicists finally
> > found a privileged frame. Does this mean the laws of physics
> > have to be rewritten?
>
> This depends on the details of how and why that frame is "privileged",
> and what the experimental manifestations are. If I assume the
Well. Supposing bohm non-local hidden variables is true and in
quantum entanglement. Superluminal signalling is used between
the entangled particles (note very carefully that bohm theory is
opposite to the contextual copenhagen interpretation). Then there
must be a privileged frame for this quantum non-local superluminal
signalling which can prevent causality violations when seen in
different inertial frames. Something like that. If such a privileged
frame exists, this means bohm non-local signal won't cause
causality violations? Without a priveleged frame. What is
simulatneous is one inertial frame would not be in another
frame and if superluminal signalling is used without a priveleged
frame, then it can appear to move backward in time to some
inertial observers. Do you think a privileged frame can solve it?
des
Des
I'll be more exact on what I mean by the 'privileged' frame. It
has somethng to do with Bell's inequility and attempt to
explain it. See this paper by an experimentalist:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/quant-ph/papers/0503/0503007.pdf
(I can't understand very well how his preferred reference
frame for the superluminal information exchange work,
any ideas?)
"Consequently, either space-time is an illusion, or free
will is an illusion, or there is some communication. We
call this hypothetical "message" quantum information. It
is important to note that quantum information is not
under our control, hence this sort of communication can
not be used to send classical messages. There is thus no
straightforward conflict with relativity.
In the following we shall mainly concentrate on the
third alternative (i.e. assume that space-time is real -
and free will not an illusion - but that there is some
communication), motivated by the possibility to
experimentally test some of its predictions.
If space is real, then quantum information can be said
to have a velocity, denoted vQI [1].
If vQI =< c (c=speed of light), then one would not
observe correlations due to entanglement between
space-like separated locations, because the information
would not get there on time. This is refuted by
experiments. ·
But vQI > c makes sense only if there is a preferred
reference frame. This frame could be either a universal
preferred frame, like, for instance, the one determined
by the cosmic microwave background radiation, or it
could be determined case by case by the very condition
of the experiment. In the first case the Correlations
are universal, only limited by the speed vQI: locations
inside a radius get the quantum information on time,
outside locations don't; hence the latter show no
Correlations (at least none due to entanglement). In the
second case, the presence or absence of Correlations
depends on the precise experimental condition. Both
cases can be experimentally investigated. We shall
develop this further below.
If vQI is infinite, then quantum information is
simultaneously everywhere, in all reference frames. In
this case space-time is not really out there, but seems
to be part of the quantum state of the Universe. One
would have to explain why there is apparent space-time?
And apparent locality? And why do we sense free will?
Indeed, we would also be part of the Universal quantum
state, obeying some sort of Schrödinger equation. In
order to test the assumption that vQI is finite but
larger than the speed of light, we performed several
experiments in Geneva. The results can be found in a
series of papers [2-6]. Here we simply and very briefly
present the general idea and results. "
Jeckyl
I think that's a strange definition of what a preferred frame is.
Des
> "Des" <descartesne...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well. I got the term from a experimentalist in Geneva. See:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/quant-ph/papers/0503/0503007.pdf
(I can't understand very well how his preferred reference
frame for the superluminal information exchange work,
any ideas?)
"Consequently, either space-time is an illusion, or free
will is an illusion, or there is some communication. We
call this hypothetical "message" quantum information. It
is important to note that quantum information is not
under our control, hence this sort of communication can
not be used to send classical messages. There is thus no
straightforward conflict with relativity.
In the following we shall mainly concentrate on the
third alternative (i.e. assume that space-time is real -
and free will not an illusion - but that there is some
communication), motivated by the possibility to
experimentally test some of its predictions.
If space is real, then quantum information can be said
to have a velocity, denoted vQI.
Jeckyl
>On Jul 26, 1:06 pm, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> "Des" <descartesne...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> > where it uses that preferred frame and all inertial frames followed
>> > that preferred frame as reference for the superluminal signal, hence
>> > causality is not violated in all inertial frames. What do you think.
>> I think that's a strange definition of what a preferred frame is.
A physics paper that talks about "free will" doesn't sound like a good
scientific basis
Des
> "Des" <descartesne...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1185430268.9...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> >On Jul 26, 1:06 pm, "Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >> "Des" <descartesne...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> > By preferred frame is meant that superluminal signalling is possible
> >> > where it uses that preferred frame and all inertial frames followed
> >> > that preferred frame as reference for the superluminal signal, hence
> >> > causality is not violated in all inertial frames. What do you think.
> >> I think that's a strange definition of what a preferred frame is.
> >Well. I got the term from a experimentalist in Geneva. See:
>
> A physics paper that talks about "free will" doesn't sound like a good
> scientific basis
Well. Solving for the explanations for the correlations in Quantum
entanglement is one of the most important things in physics. Some
physicists shy away from this like its some kind of religion. But
note quantum entangelment can give us a clue about what
really is space, time and matter and can give us strong
hints of what quantum gravity will take. Therefore don't be so
ashamed about quantum entanglement. About free will, what
the author is simply saying is that the correlations in both
ends of the entangled pair can only be apparent if there is
no free wil.. that is... if all the events from the start to finish
it already determined then the quantum entanglement
correlations could simply be coincidents.
Anyway. What is your thought about quantum entanglement,
why the correlations?? Don't be ashamed of it. It's not
religion but science. It may not give you more citations
or money in the university or places you work but it can
give more insight about spacetime and matter. Ponder on
it.
des
vps...@gmail.com
Des:
The previleged frame will never can be found. It comes from
the 4D model of matter I proposed. There seems to be many
universes and they moves with different speeds into the 4D
space. Therefore one can't choose absolute frame. Even to
choose the frame in our universe, the velocity of the medium
the matter consists from is not constant. One can choose
only the local frame of reference connected e.g. with
a planet, a star or a galaxy. But noone might guarantee
the accuracy of the measurements in the global scale.
The red shift is the one example of its violation.
Look at my site http://vps137.narod.ru/physics.html/ for
details.
Valery S.
Bob Cain
> Well. Supposing bohm non-local hidden variables is true and in
> quantum entanglement. Superluminal signalling is used between
> the entangled particles (note very carefully that bohm theory is
> opposite to the contextual copenhagen interpretation). Then there
> must be a privileged frame for this quantum non-local superluminal
> signalling which can prevent causality violations when seen in
> different inertial frames.
You are trying to rationalize God's frame of reference, right? Something
wherein the universal instantaneous signaling can occur that your concept of God
requires.
Perhaps you should put new requirements on God rather than on the universe. :-)
Bob
--
"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."
A. Einstein
Des
No. Only naive ignorant people think about God.
I'm simply interested in the explanations of the correlations in
entanglement. You see. If quantum is contextual and there
is no communication between the entangled particles, you know
what this means.. you know the consequences of this? It means
there is a central processing core where the correlations
are stored. This would require new physics and complete
overhauling of space time and matter. However if quantum
is deterministic, it means there is a hidden variable or
a subquantum nature where superluminal correlations
occur aka Bohm Theory. All these are valid scientitic
explorations that you see in arxiv. Now I'm just exploring
what if there is superluminal correlations? How would
it bypass Special Reality and avoid causality violations
(where cause can precede effect in some inertial frames).
Come on. Let's ponder on this.
des
harry
"Jeckyl" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:f89g41$4al$1...@aioe.org...
At first sight it does sound strange: :-)
However, free choice by an experimenter is an important starting hypothesis
for things like the Bell paradox and, as Gisin explained, for his
experiments he used the assumption that he can freely change a detector
position.
Regards,
Harald
harry
"Bob Cain" <arc...@arcanemethods.com> wrote in message
news:1P-dncQ9VIAgxzXb...@giganews.com...
Or: "God doesn't play dice" - A. Einstein :-)
Shubee
> You are trying to rationalize God's frame of reference, right? Something
> wherein the universal instantaneous signaling can occur that your concept
> of God requires.
Please understand that the question 'what could be' and 'what is the
ultimate truth about all the laws of physics and the universe' is
outside the purview of physicists. To understand the universe with
greater clarity, you would have to become a mathematician and, if
possible, learn humility from the King of the universe.
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
YBM
> On Jul 26, 1:26 am, Bob Cain <arc...@arcanemethods.com> wrote:
>
>> You are trying to rationalize God's frame of reference, right? Something
>> wherein the universal instantaneous signaling can occur that your concept
>> of God requires.
>
> Please understand that the question 'what could be' and 'what is the
> ultimate truth about all the laws of physics and the universe' is
> outside the purview of physicists. To understand the universe with
> greater clarity, you would have to become a mathematician and, if
> possible, learn humility from the King of the universe.
No one here care about your religious fanatism, Mr "new William Miller",
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Miller_(preacher) )
as you like to present your fatuity on your disgusting site
(everythingimportant.org).
Shubee
Me being the David Hilbert of theology is irrelevant. As a
mathematician, I know more than any physicist on the planet regarding
the logical implications of an absolute frame of reference.
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Sam Wormley
>
> Me being the David Hilbert of theology is irrelevant. As a
> mathematician, I know more than any physicist on the planet regarding
> the logical implications of an absolute frame of reference.
>
But, here, what is important are the physical implications of an absolute
frame of reference.
When talking of inertial reference frames, a fundamental principle of
YBM
> ... As a mathematician, ...
You're not a mathematician, you are a crank with a loosy culture in math,
a religious agenda and a deep mental disease.
Dono
But he doesn't know that, he cannot read what we show him :-)
mathematician
> Des wrote:
> > All the laws of physics is SR compliant. What if physicists finally
> > found a privileged frame. Does this mean the laws of physics
> > have to be rewritten?
>
> This depends on the details of how and why that frame is "privileged",
> and what the experimental manifestations are. If I assume the
I'am not sure do I have enough competence to comment this but
I will try with my poor knowledge:
Why "priviledged frame" ?
I think that if creation of time-dimension happens along this
"priviledged frame" (I'am not sure do I have understood
this "priviledged frame" term right?) why it should not exist ?
Maybe this is like trying to detect existence of "free quarks"
which is forbidden in principle of QCD ?
A very crude model (due "contracting parts of the Universe" and
the "great neutrino star" in center of the space which is in the
"bottom of bag" are not included in this very crude model):
I would try to describe a finite long 3D pseudosphere model here where
one space dimension is shrinken due we cannot properly
visualize 4D objects. The symmetry axis of this model is the time
dimension
and other two dimensions are space dimensions. Intersection at certain
point
of time is a circle (really this disk corresponds to 3D sphere due one
space dimension is shrinken in this model).
(I have decribed this more presicely in my Thesis of Master of
Science:
"Geodesic Algebras. 2006. University of Oulu. Finland.)
Hannu
Yua...@gmail.com
> Shubee wrote:
>
> > Me being the David Hilbert of theology is irrelevant. As a
> > mathematician, I know more than any physicist on the planet regarding
> > the logical implications of an absolute frame of reference.
>
> But, here, what is important are the physical implications of an absolute
> frame of reference.
>
> When talking of inertial reference frames, a fundamental principle of
> all physics is the equivalence of inertial reference frame.
>
Why when the one poster talks of "an absolute frame of reference" are
most all of the responses couched, explicitly or implicitly, in terms
of "inertial reference frames"?
Surely, if one considers that inertial reference frames are
indistinguishable, one's first thought must be that a preferred frame
cannot be inertial - not that a preferred frame cannot exist.
There seems to some faulty logic involved.
The statement that inertial frames are equivalent certainly implies
that there is no preferred inertial frame, but does not imply that
there is no preferred (non-inertial) frame.
Love,
Jenny
Bill Hobba
> Hi,
>
> All the laws of physics is SR compliant.
Only in inertial frames
> What if physicists finally
> found a privileged frame.
What if the tooth fairy exists?
> Does this mean the laws of physics
> have to be rewritten? If not. How are they compatible. What I
> mean to say is. Scientists are still searching for lorentz violations.
> But isn't it that the laws of physics have already SR built within,
> for example.. dirac's equation has the spins and antimatter
> came out when SR in included. And yet scientists still search
> for lorentz violations. If they found one. How does it affect say
> the Dirac equations, etc.?
>
> This may be a dumb question,
It has the same standing as what if the tooth fairy exists. You can judge
if it is dumb question or not.
Bill
Shubee
> "Des" <descartesne...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
What you are saying is that you can't derive any equations assuming an
absolute frame of reference which are consistent with empirical
observations any more than assuming the existence of the tooth fairy.
And you are very proud of declaring your ignorance.
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Bob Cain
> No. Only naive ignorant people think about God.
Sorry, I confused you with someone else who was making arguments similar to
yours for that purpose.
Your opinion about people who think about God makes precarious your attempts to
open people's minds to your particular notions which could also be called naive
and ignorant by some. Careful; ya get whatcha give. :-)
Shubee
Of course you don't have any logical argument to prove your very
bigoted and purely religious conviction. In that sense you're just as
blind and religious as Einstein who blindly followed his own misguided
feelings and was always mouthing his ignorant platitude, "God does not
play dice." Logically then, you should be reproved, just as I approve
of Bohr telling Einstein to shut up. "Einstein, stop telling God what
to do."
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Sam Wormley
Eugene--the deciding experiments weren't performed until well after
Einstein's death.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_inequality
But, that's really not the subject of this thread. The fact is that
the relativity is a self constant model relating matter space and time
that is tremendously successful far from being characterized by words
such as "blind" and "religious".
The fact is that *no* predictions of relativity that have been
contradicted by observations (including observations of dark matter).
Furthermore, relativity is a fruitful tool. Whatever replaces relativity
will have to do at least as well agreeing with nature.
I suspect you would do well to better educate yourself in both math and
physics to give yourself the "tools" you will need.
If I remember correctly you may have a mathematics degree. May I ask what
courses make up that degree? Thanks.
--Sam
kenseto
"Des" <descart...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1185418000.2...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> Hi,
>
> All the laws of physics is SR compliant. What if physicists finally
> found a privileged frame. Does this mean the laws of physics
> have to be rewritten? If not. How are they compatible. What I
> mean to say is. Scientists are still searching for lorentz violations.
> But isn't it that the laws of physics have already SR built within,
> for example.. dirac's equation has the spins and antimatter
> came out when SR in included. And yet scientists still search
> for lorentz violations. If they found one. How does it affect say
> the Dirac equations, etc.?
>
> So may as well ask :)
There is no preferred frame exists in the universe. All objects in the
universe are in a state of motion. However, that doesn't prevent every SR
observer to assert that he is at rest in a preferred frame. What leads to
this conclusion?
1. Every SR observer claims that all the clocks in the universe are running
slow compared to his clock.
2. Every SR observer claims that all the rulers moving wrt him are
contracted.
These claimed properties are the exclusive properties of an observer in a
preferred frame. That's the reason why SR and LET have the same math. Both
theories assume that the observer is at rest in a preferred frame
The proposed experiments in the following link are capable of detecting the
preferred frame:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Experiment.pdf
Also please visit my website for other interesting papers on my theory.
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
Ken Seto
Sam Wormley
>
> There is no preferred frame exists in the universe. All objects in the
> universe are in a state of motion. However, that doesn't prevent every SR
> observer to assert that he is at rest in a preferred frame.
You are correct in that there are no "preferred" frames in the sense that
it has unique properties.... and it is ok to note that "all objects in the
universe are in a state of motion". But one must keep in mind that a "state
of motion" is observer dependent.
Special relativity make no assetion than an observer "at rest in a preferred
frame". Seto made that up. SR make no assertion of the kind.
Shubee
> I suspect you would do well to better educate yourself ...
And you need to learn how to read. Des asked what the implications
would be if someone discovered a physical law that violated Lorentz
invariance. The smug and pompous bigot Bill Hobba replied that the
question is like asking, "what if the tooth fairy exists".
His ignorant response is insulting and stupid because there is no
logical reason to conclude that all the laws of universe except
gravity are Lorentz invariant just because it's a very popular opinion
among physicists. Plus, physicists aren't looking for the tooth fairy
as far as I know but they do have their eyes open to violations of
Lorentz invariance.
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Eric Gisse
Gravitation is locally Lorentz invariant, shooby.
Go back to whatever you have been doing for the past 20 years, because
obviously physics isn't something you can do.
>
> Shubeehttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Sam Wormley
OK say that Lorentz invariance is wrong... then almost everything
else would be wrong too... and that's not the universe we live in.
So the "tooth fairy" response is not bad IMHO.
Shubee
> OK say that Lorentz invariance is wrong... then almost everything
> else would be wrong too... and that's not the universe we live in.
> So the "tooth fairy" response is not bad IMHO.
That's only because you've been programmed to automatically jump to
the most ignorant conclusion possible. Wouldn't it be more rational to
surmise that all the laws of physics may be divided into two distinct
types? There are physical laws that are Lorentz invariant and there
may be physical laws that aren't.
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Eric Gisse
> On Jul 27, 2:47 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
> > OK say that Lorentz invariance is wrong... then almost everything
> > else would be wrong too... and that's not the universe we live in.
> > So the "tooth fairy" response is not bad IMHO.
>
> That's only because you've been programmed to automatically jump to
> the most ignorant conclusion possible. Wouldn't it be more rational to
> surmise that all the laws of physics may be divided into two distinct
> types? There are physical laws that are Lorentz invariant and there
> may be physical laws that aren't.
What laws might those be, shooby?
>
> Shubeehttp://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Sam Wormley
Did you miss my inference that if Lorentz invariance fails, then
so must other aspects of physical law? We are not seeing that
happen.
Shubee
> Did you miss my inference that if Lorentz invariance fails, then
> so must other aspects of physical law? We are not seeing that
> happen.
Lorentz invariance already fails and therefore can't be universal
because Einstein's theory of gravity is not Lorentz invariant. Lorentz
invariance is only applicable in flat Minkowski spacetime.
Everyone knows that general relativity is not Lorentz invariant.
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0304038
http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=79
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0503070
http://cornell.mirror.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v8/i6/p1662_1
http://physics.ucr.edu/Active/Abs/abstract-13-NOV-97.html
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRA/v63/i4/e044104
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0143-0807/23/3/306
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0606559
http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=605
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/simultaneity.htm
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Eric Gisse
> On Jul 27, 3:52 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
> > Did you miss my inference that if Lorentz invariance fails, then
> > so must other aspects of physical law? We are not seeing that
> > happen.
>
> Lorentz invariance already fails and therefore can't be universal
> because Einstein's theory of gravity is not Lorentz invariant. Lorentz
> invariance is only applicable in flat Minkowski spacetime.
>
> Everyone knows that general relativity is not Lorentz invariant.
Idiot. General relativity is locally Lorentz invariant, and completely
irrelevant to discussions about Lorentz invariant.
[...]
Sam Wormley
Special relativity postulates that all laws of physics are invariant
under Lorentz transformations, which include ordinary rotations and
changes in the velocity of a reference frame. Subsequently, quantum
field theories all incorporated Lorentz invariance in their basic
structure. General relativity includes the invariance through Einstein's
equivalence principle, which implies that any experiment conducted in
a small, freely falling laboratory is invariant under Lorentz
transformations. That result is known as local Lorentz invariance.
Pmb
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:46AA37DB...@mchsi.com...
I agree. But when it comes to cosmology there is a frame in which the total
momentum density of the average smeared out matter of the universe is at
rest. I believe that is the best you can do regarding speaking about special
frames. However the laws of SR are not altered by experiments which are
contained in a closed room (i.e. information and matter does not cross the
boundary). In such a case there are no preferred frames. The difference
being that in cosmology you're looking outside the room.
All that said - I disagree with Shubee- There are no preferred frames which
by definition, are frames in which the laws of physics will be different
there than eslewhere. However I think Schubee is merely saying that whatever
inertial reference frame that he's in can be called a rest frame. I have no
problem with that language. Its easier to think that ways sometimes and much
easier to talk about the physics. SR texts do this often as I recall.
Pete
Pmb
> Shubee wrote:
>> On Jul 27, 9:15 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I suspect you would do well to better educate yourself ...
>>
>> And you need to learn how to read. Des asked what the implications
>> would be if someone discovered a physical law that violated Lorentz
>> invariance. The smug and pompous bigot Bill Hobba replied that the
>> question is like asking, "what if the tooth fairy exists".
Hmmm .... Bill has never seemed that way to me. Especially the part about
being a bigot. Where's your proof that Bill is a bigot (as far as the rest
goes, I know Bill fairley well and that is not his MO)
>>
>> His ignorant response is insulting and stupid because there is no
>> logical reason to conclude that all the laws of universe except
>> gravity are Lorentz invariant just because it's a very popular opinion
>> among physicists.
Do you know what the term "Law of Physics" means Shubee? It refers to a
postulate that is based on observation and experience. The more
demonstrations which are in agreement with what the law predicts the more
weight is given to a theory. In science there are no proofs and when stating
a postulate the logic comes from following the scientific method - Observer,
experiment - theorize - predict - back to the lab - observe etc.
>> Plus, physicists aren't looking for the tooth fairy
Well .... if she's cute then not so fast! :)
>> as far as I know but they do have their eyes open to violations of
>> Lorentz invariance.
Please prove that Lorentz invariance has failed just once.
> OK say that Lorentz invariance is wrong...
Sam sam sam! Please tell me you're joking? I'll assume you are. I think the
universe would disappear due to a paradox it can't handle if you actually
agree with Schubee! :)
> then almost everything
> else would be wrong too... and that's not the universe we live in.
> So the "tooth fairy" response is not bad IMHO.
Ummmm .... Sam, do you have her telephone number? LOL!
Pete
Pmb
"Shubee" <e.Sh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1185575308.1...@e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 27, 2:47 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
>> OK say that Lorentz invariance is wrong... then almost everything
>> else would be wrong too... and that's not the universe we live in.
>> So the "tooth fairy" response is not bad IMHO.
>
Really? I didn't know Sam was digital! I thought he was analog.
> to automatically jump to the most ignorant conclusion possible.
I have to ask at this point; what is your experience in any field of
science? Have you either read a book on or taken a course on the philosophy
of physics??
> Wouldn't it be more rational to
> surmise that all the laws of physics may be divided into two distinct
> types? There are physical laws that are Lorentz invariant and there
> may be physical laws that aren't.
That's why we call it a "Law" of physics and not something which would
indicate that its supposed to be a proof of anything. This happens alot on
physics. Sometimes what we thought were laws actually turn out to be mere
approximations of reality. We then modify the law to include new
observations or we do away with the law. From your comments above it appears
to me that you have no understanding of the philosophy of science or the
scientific method.
I'd be glad to teach you all this if you'd like?
Pete
Pmb
Yeah yeah yeah. And _if_ I was Jennifer Love Hewitts lover then I'd be the
happiest man alive. But I really don't see it happening....
sniff....sniff.... awe, now see what you've done! :)
Pete
Pmb
> On Jul 27, 3:52 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
>> Did you miss my inference that if Lorentz invariance fails, then
>> so must other aspects of physical law? We are not seeing that
>> happen.
>
> Lorentz invariance already fails and therefore can't be universal
> because Einstein's theory of gravity is not Lorentz invariant. Lorentz
> invariance is only applicable in flat Minkowski spacetime.
The correct statement of the laws of physics is that they are the same (in
form and in constants) in all inertial frames. When go start talking about
gravity you're going outside SR. But in GR there is something similar. All
the laws of physics are covariant, which means they are correct in all
coordinate systems and frames of reference. And that even works for SR too.
>
> Everyone knows that general relativity is not Lorentz invariant.
Nobody that I've ever know has said differently. So why do you worry about
it?
Pete
Pmb
> On Jul 27, 9:15 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
>> I suspect you would do well to better educate yourself ...
>
> And you need to learn how to read.
Seems to me that Sam knows how to read just fine. BTW - what is it that he
supposedly didn't understand when he read it?
Pete
Shubee
> "Shubee" <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1185575308.1...@e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Jul 27, 2:47 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
> >> OK say that Lorentz invariance is wrong... then almost everything
> >> else would be wrong too... and that's not the universe we live in.
> >> So the "tooth fairy" response is not bad IMHO.
>
> > That's only because you've been programmed ....
>
> Really? I didn't know Sam was digital! I thought he was analog.
>
> > to automatically jump to the most ignorant conclusion possible.
>
> I have to ask at this point; what is your experience in any field of
> science?
I am a mathematician.
> Have you either read a book on or taken a course on the philosophy
> of physics??
I've read:
David Hilbert and the Axiomatization of Physics (1898-1918)
>From Grundlagen der Geometrie to Grundlagen der Physik
http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?p=4295#4295
> > Wouldn't it be more rational to
> > surmise that all the laws of physics may be divided into two distinct
> > types? There are physical laws that are Lorentz invariant and there
> > may be physical laws that aren't.
>
> That's why we call it a "Law" of physics and not something which would
> indicate that its supposed to be a proof of anything. This happens alot on
> physics. Sometimes what we thought were laws actually turn out to be mere
> approximations of reality. We then modify the law to include new
> observations or we do away with the law. From your comments above it appears
> to me that you have no understanding of the philosophy of science or the
> scientific method.
>
> I'd be glad to teach you all this if you'd like?
>
> Pete
I already subscribe to David Hilbert's philosophy of physics:
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
(Section 2) and http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9811050
(Sections 1.1 & 1.2)
Shubee
YBM
> I am a mathematician.
You are lying. You've been proven numerous time here as unable
to grasp even the simpliest math.
>> Have you either read a book on or taken a course on the philosophy
>> of physics??
>
> I've read:
> David Hilbert and the Axiomatization of Physics (1898-1918)
>>From Grundlagen der Geometrie to Grundlagen der Physik
> http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?p=4295#4295
Where you don't understand a word.
> I already subscribe to David Hilbert's philosophy of physics:
> http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
> (Section 2) and http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9811050
> (Sections 1.1 & 1.2)
You're only hijacking something you don't understand in order
to support you personnal religious agenda.
Pmb
> On Jul 27, 5:41 pm, "Pmb" <some...@somewhere.net> wrote:
>> "Shubee" <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1185575308.1...@e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Jul 27, 2:47 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> OK say that Lorentz invariance is wrong... then almost everything
>> >> else would be wrong too... and that's not the universe we live in.
>> >> So the "tooth fairy" response is not bad IMHO.
>>
>> > That's only because you've been programmed ....
>>
>> Really? I didn't know Sam was digital! I thought he was analog.
>>
>> > to automatically jump to the most ignorant conclusion possible.
>>
>> I have to ask at this point; what is your experience in any field of
>> science?
>
> I am a mathematician.
Mathematicians are not all that educated in the scientific method. Tell me
this: Name one thing that you believe that science has proved.
>> Have you either read a book on or taken a course on the philosophy
>> of physics??
>
> I've read:
> David Hilbert and the Axiomatization of Physics (1898-1918)
>>From Grundlagen der Geometrie to Grundlagen der Physik
> http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?p=4295#4295
That's not the kind of philosophy I was refering to. I could scan and e-mail
you a good example of an article on this subject. Its out of the text that
was required reading in my "Philosophy of Science" course I took. Good
stuff. I'm anxious to read it again someday but unfortunately there is a ton
of stuff I have on my "List of things to read" before I can do that. But
perhaps I'll cheat and read it earlier. Right now I'm studying evolution.
>> I'd be glad to teach you all this if you'd like?
>>
>> Pete
>
> I already subscribe to David Hilbert's philosophy of physics:
You do understand that I was being a wise ass right? I'm trying not to do
that due personal beliefs but I'm a long way from being perfect. :)
> http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
> (Section 2) and http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9811050
> (Sections 1.1 & 1.2)
>
> Shubee
Best regards
Pete
Shubee
> "Shubee" <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1185577974....@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Jul 27, 3:52 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
> >> Did you miss my inference that if Lorentz invariance fails, then
> >> so must other aspects of physical law? We are not seeing that
> >> happen.
>
> > Lorentz invariance already fails and therefore can't be universal
> > because Einstein's theory of gravity is not Lorentz invariant. Lorentz
> > invariance is only applicable in flat Minkowski spacetime.
>
> The correct statement of the laws of physics is that they are the same (in
> form and in constants) in all inertial frames. When go start talking about
> gravity you're going outside SR. But in GR there is something similar. All
> the laws of physics are covariant, which means they are correct in all
> coordinate systems and frames of reference. And that even works for SR too.
That's fine with me. However, if you allow me to go that route I then
insist that general relativity already permits an absolute frame of
reference:
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0304038
http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=79
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0503070
http://cornell.mirror.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v8/i6/p1662_1
http://physics.ucr.edu/Active/Abs/abstract-13-NOV-97.html
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRA/v63/i4/e044104
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0143-0807/23/3/306
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0606559
http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=605
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/simultaneity.htm
Shubee
> > Everyone knows that general relativity is not Lorentz invariant.
Pmb
"YBM" <ybm...@nooos.fr> wrote in message
news:46aa9c66$0$18825$426a...@news.free.fr...
> Shubee a écrit :
>> I am a mathematician.
>
> You are lying. You've been proven numerous time here as unable
> to grasp even the simpliest math.
Shubee - For what reason do you call yourself a mathematician? Do you have a
degree in math such as a BA?
Pete
Pmb
> On Jul 27, 5:46 pm, "Pmb" <some...@somewhere.net> wrote:
>> "Shubee" <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1185577974....@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Jul 27, 3:52 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> Did you miss my inference that if Lorentz invariance fails, then
>> >> so must other aspects of physical law? We are not seeing that
>> >> happen.
>>
>> > Lorentz invariance already fails and therefore can't be universal
>> > because Einstein's theory of gravity is not Lorentz invariant. Lorentz
>> > invariance is only applicable in flat Minkowski spacetime.
>>
>> The correct statement of the laws of physics is that they are the same
>> (in
>> form and in constants) in all inertial frames. When go start talking
>> about
>> gravity you're going outside SR. But in GR there is something similar.
>> All
>> the laws of physics are covariant, which means they are correct in all
>> coordinate systems and frames of reference. And that even works for SR
>> too.
>
> That's fine with me. However, if you allow me to go that route I then
> insist that general relativity already permits an absolute frame of
> reference:
Why? What is this special frame?
Pete
Eric Gisse
Shooby calls himself a mathematician because he got a BS in
mathematics 20 years ago.
>From what I have pieced together from what he has shared, he took a
few graduate courses in physics. Not for credit, but auditing. Either
he dropped out of graduate school, or never entered.
Since then, he has lead his little crusade against physicists for
varying reasons - most stupider than the next.
Personally, I am still waiting for his promised framework for energy
and momentum for his "derivation" of special relativity.
>
> Pete
Shubee
> "Shubee" <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1185585875....@e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Jul 27, 5:41 pm, "Pmb" <some...@somewhere.net> wrote:
> >> "Shubee" <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:1185575308.1...@e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > On Jul 27, 2:47 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> OK say that Lorentz invariance is wrong... then almost everything
> >> >> else would be wrong too... and that's not the universe we live in.
> >> >> So the "tooth fairy" response is not bad IMHO.
>
> >> > That's only because you've been programmed ....
>
> >> Really? I didn't know Sam was digital! I thought he was analog.
>
> >> > to automatically jump to the most ignorant conclusion possible.
>
> >> I have to ask at this point; what is your experience in any field of
> >> science?
>
> > I am a mathematician.
>
> Mathematicians are not all that educated in the scientific method. Tell me
> this: Name one thing that you believe that science has proved.
Relevant to physics, science has proved that special relativity could
be a mathematical fantasy. That's because the logic that applies to
math applies to physics also if you follow Hilbert.
Kurt Gödel showed in 1940 that the Continuum Hypothesis is consistent
with the standard Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory, even if the axiom of
choice is adopted. Then in 1963 Paul Cohen proved that the negation of
the Continuum Hypothesis is also consistent with those same axioms.
Hence, the Continuum Hypothesis is independent of ZFC. Both of these
results assume that the Zermelo-Fraenkel axioms themselves do not
contain a contradiction; this assumption is widely believed to be
true.
Therefore, it's reasonable to conclude that either (ZFC with CH) or
(ZFC with the negation of the CH) is a consistent mathematical
fantasy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_Hypothesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZFC
> >> Have you either read a book on or taken a course on the philosophy
> >> of physics??
>
> > I've read:
> > David Hilbert and the Axiomatization of Physics (1898-1918)
> > From Grundlagen der Geometrie to Grundlagen der Physik
> > http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?p=4295#4295
>
> That's not the kind of philosophy I was refering to.
Physicists have nothing that can match Hilbert's philosophy of
physics. In contrast, mainstream physicists practice cargo cult
science.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=967
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
(Section 2) http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9811050
(Sections 1.1 & 1.2)
> I could scan and e-mail
> you a good example of an article on this subject. Its out of the text that
> was required reading in my "Philosophy of Science" course I took. Good
> stuff. I'm anxious to read it again someday but unfortunately there is a ton
> of stuff I have on my "List of things to read" before I can do that. But
> perhaps I'll cheat and read it earlier. Right now I'm studying evolution.
I think that all physicists at sci.physics.relativity should study
their roots, starting with the primordial slime and including the
behavior of their distant cousins, the shit-throwing chimpanzees.
Shubee
I graduated summa cum laude from the Univ. of Calif, San Diego with a
BA in math. One reason I wanted to go there is because Ted Frankel was
a professor there and he wrote a book titled Gravitational Curvature.
I wanted to study relativity from a mathematician.
I call myself a mathematician because of my thoughtful approach and
original research in special relativity.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Shubee
Pmb
On Jul 27, 6:33 pm, "Pmb" <some...@somewhere.net> wrote:
> "Shubee" <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1185585875....@e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Jul 27, 5:41 pm, "Pmb" <some...@somewhere.net> wrote:
> >> "Shubee" <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:1185575308.1...@e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > On Jul 27, 2:47 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> OK say that Lorentz invariance is wrong... then almost everything
> >> >> else would be wrong too... and that's not the universe we live
> >> >> in.
> >> >> So the "tooth fairy" response is not bad IMHO.
>
> >> > That's only because you've been programmed ....
>
> >> Really? I didn't know Sam was digital! I thought he was analog.
>
> >> > to automatically jump to the most ignorant conclusion possible.
>
> >> I have to ask at this point; what is your experience in any field of
> >> science?
>
> > I am a mathematician.
>
> Mathematicians are not all that educated in the scientific method. Tell me
> this: Name one thing that you believe that science has proved.
>Relevant to physics, science has proved that special relativity could
>be a mathematical fantasy. That's because the logic that applies to
>math applies to physics also if you follow Hilbert.
And why do you believe that science has proved that SR could be a fantasy.
By the way, when you use the term "could" then its not really a proof.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_Hypothesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZFC
> >> Have you either read a book on or taken a course on the philosophy
> >> of physics??
>
> > I've read:
> > David Hilbert and the Axiomatization of Physics (1898-1918)
> > From Grundlagen der Geometrie to Grundlagen der Physik
> > http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?p=4295#4295
>
> That's not the kind of philosophy I was refering to.
Physicists have nothing that can match Hilbert's philosophy of
physics. In contrast, mainstream physicists practice cargo cult
science.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=967
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
(Section 2) http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9811050
(Sections 1.1 & 1.2)
> I could scan and e-mail
> you a good example of an article on this subject.
Shubee - You didn't respond to this so I will assume that you don't wish to
read it.
>Its out of the text that
> was required reading in my "Philosophy of Science" course I took. Good
> stuff. I'm anxious to read it again someday but unfortunately there is a
> ton
> of stuff I have on my "List of things to read" before I can do that. But
> perhaps I'll cheat and read it earlier. Right now I'm studying evolution.
>I think that all physicists at sci.physics.relativity should study
>their roots, starting with the primordial slime and including the
>behavior of their distant cousins, the shit-throwing chimpanzees.
Its tough to work as a physicist all day and then learn other sciences at
night. Its possible and I have plenty of time to do it so I do. But I can't
say I'd be doing that if I was working full time.
Pete
Pmb
On Jul 27, 6:41 pm, "Pmb" <some...@somewhere.net> wrote:
> "YBM" <ybm...@nooos.fr> wrote in message
>
> news:46aa9c66$0$18825$426a...@news.free.fr...
>
> > Shubee a écrit :
> >> I am a mathematician.
>
> > You are lying. You've been proven numerous time here as unable
> > to grasp even the simpliest math.
>
> Shubee - For what reason do you call yourself a mathematician? Do you have
> a
> degree in math such as a BA?
>
> Pete
>I graduated summa cum laude from the Univ. of Calif, San Diego with a
>BA in math.
If true then that's good enough for me.
Pete
YBM
You'll be enlightened by what 't Hooft responded when he received
the cranky "shubertian" work :
> I regret to inform you that this paper did not pass my tests. I am not
> saying that it is wrong, but it is posed in a language that is too
> technical and demanding, and I do not want to expose my students to
> that.
> Cordially,
> G. 't Hooft
everyone but Shubee alias "Eugene Shubert" perceived the irony of the
response...
More on this here : http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/
especially here : http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/theoristbad.html
Shubee
> "Shubee" <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > That's fine with me. However, if you allow me to go that route I then
> > insist that general relativity already permits an absolute frame of
> > reference:
>
> Why? What is this special frame?
>
> Pete
And why did you snip all those great links? Do you want me to copy and
paste all their content for you? Here's a short introduction from
http://physics.ucr.edu/Active/Abs/abstract-13-NOV-97.html that I like
a lot:
Colloquium for 13-NOV-97 Abstract
Absolute Space and Time in Einstein's General Theory of Relativity
The Special Theory of Relativity, we teach our students, did away with
Absolute Space and Absolute Time, leaving us with no absolute motion
or rest, and also no absolute time order. General Relativity is viewed
as extending the "relativity of motion" applicable to curved
spacetimes, and General Relativity's most probable models of our
actual spacetimes (the big-bang models) appear to re-introduce a
privileged "cosmic" time order, and a definite sense of absolute rest.
In particular, some of the same kinds of effects whose *absence* led
to rejection of Newtonian absolute space are present in these models
of GTR.
Shubee
YBM
> On Jul 27, 6:42 pm, "Pmb" <some...@somewhere.net> wrote:
>> "Shubee" <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
>>> That's fine with me. However, if you allow me to go that route I then
>>> insist that general relativity already permits an absolute frame of
>>> reference:
>> Why? What is this special frame?
>>
>> Pete
>
> And why did you snip all those great links? Do you want me to copy and
> paste all their content for you? Here's a short introduction from
> http://physics.ucr.edu/Active/Abs/abstract-13-NOV-97.html that I like
> a lot:
Because it fullfill your "seven days adventist" (how ridiculous...)
agenda ?
Shubee
Shubee wrote:
> >Relevant to physics, science has proved that special relativity could
> >be a mathematical fantasy. That's because the logic that applies to
> >math applies to physics also if you follow Hilbert.
>
> And why do you believe that science has proved that SR could be a fantasy.
Either the Continuum Hypothesis or its negation is a mathematical
fantasy. Both axioms are consistent with all the other axioms of set
theory. You will never observe a contradiction but only one of those
two axioms is really true. The same can be said for SR. You can
believe that length is observer dependent and never find a
contradiction but it could actually be a mathematical fantasy. It
could very well be that such a phantasm can't be constructed in
reality and that Einstein's model universe doesn't even appear in
God's atlas of all conceivable universes.
It is possible that the real alternative to Einstein's consistent
fantasy is an absolute frame of reference.
> By the way, when you use the term "could" then its not really a proof.
True, but it is worthy of being mentioned when I get around to
updating http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
> > I could scan and e-mail
> > you a good example of an article on this subject.
>
> Shubee - You didn't respond to this so I will assume that you don't wish to
> read it.
As I said, I believe in Hilbert's philosophy.
YBM
> On Jul 27, 7:24 pm, "Pmb" <some...@somewhere.net> wrote:
> Shubee wrote:
>>> Relevant to physics, science has proved that special relativity could
>>> be a mathematical fantasy. That's because the logic that applies to
>>> math applies to physics also if you follow Hilbert.
>> And why do you believe that science has proved that SR could be a fantasy.
>
> Either the Continuum Hypothesis or its negation is a mathematical
> fantasy. Both axioms are consistent with all the other axioms of set
> theory. You will never observe a contradiction but only one of those
> two axioms is really true.
This very paragraph prove how a loosy "mathematician" you are. Did
you ever heard of (not so) recent work in this field?
> The same can be said for SR. You can
> believe that length is observer dependent and never find a
> contradiction but it could actually be a mathematical fantasy. It
> could very well be that such a phantasm can't be constructed in
> reality and that Einstein's model universe doesn't even appear in
> God's atlas of all conceivable universes.
Such a loosy metaphor proves you as unable to give any significant
word on any subject related to physics and mathematics.
> It is possible that the real alternative to Einstein's consistent
> fantasy is an absolute frame of reference.
>
>> By the way, when you use the term "could" then its not really a proof.
>
> True, but it is worthy of being mentioned when I get around to
> updating http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
>
>>> I could scan and e-mail
>>> you a good example of an article on this subject.
>> Shubee - You didn't respond to this so I will assume that you don't wish to
>> read it.
>
> As I said, I believe in Hilbert's philosophy.
You don't even know what it is about.
You deserve only pity.
Dono
he,he,he
"Make Outrageous claims of having solved long standing problems. ...
The Bad theoretical physicist, in anticipation, names his Own
equations and effects, and even his entire theories, after Himself
right away. The Impudence to attach your own name to whatever you
claim to have discovered is considered improper in science, and in
practice it betrays amateurism and Incompetence. "
Sam Wormley
> The Special Theory of Relativity, we teach our students, did away with
> Absolute Space and Absolute Time, leaving us with no absolute motion
> or rest, and also no absolute time order. General Relativity is viewed
> as extending the "relativity of motion" applicable to curved
> spacetimes, and General Relativity's most probable models of our
> actual spacetimes (the big-bang models) appear to re-introduce a
> privileged "cosmic" time order, and a definite sense of absolute rest.
Not true--This is your misunderstanding, Eugene.
Shubee
> On Jul 27, 7:24 pm, "Pmb" <some...@somewhere.net> wrote:
>
> Shubee wrote:
> > >Relevant to physics, science has proved that special relativity could
> > >be a mathematical fantasy. That's because the logic that applies to
> > >math applies to physics also if you follow Hilbert.
>
> > And why do you believe that science has proved that SR could be a fantasy.
>
> fantasy. Both axioms are consistent with all the other axioms of set
> theory. You will never observe a contradiction but only one of those
> believe that length is observer dependent and never find a
> contradiction but it could actually be a mathematical fantasy. It
> could very well be that such a phantasm can't be constructed in
> reality and that Einstein's model universe doesn't even appear in
> God's atlas of all conceivable universes.
>
> fantasy is an absolute frame of reference.
>
The important point that you're missing is that physicists should try
admitting the logical possibility that they believe in a mathematical
fantasy. Unfortunately we all know that physicists are incapable of
admitting that. I think that they reject an absolute frame of
reference for religious reasons. If physicists want to give up their
religious beliefs, then they should admit that Hilbert's philosophy of
physics is the most irreligious approach to physics possible.
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
> True, but it is worthy of being mentioned when I get around to
> updating http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
>
> > > I could scan and e-mail
> > > you a good example of an article on this subject.
>
> > Shubee - You didn't respond to this so I will assume that you don't wish to
> > read it.
>
> As I said, I believe in Hilbert's philosophy.
>
Sam Wormley
>
> Yeah yeah yeah. And _if_ I was Jennifer Love Hewitts lover then I'd be the
> happiest man alive. But I really don't see it happening....
> sniff....sniff.... awe, now see what you've done! :)
>
> Pete
>
>
Sorry Pete--Some of the discoveries of physics should give you
long term happiness... such as conservation of momentum, conservation
of energy, conservation of angular momentum and Lorentz invariance!
Sam Wormley
>> kenseto wrote:
>>
>>> There is no preferred frame exists in the universe. All objects in the
>>> universe are in a state of motion. However, that doesn't prevent every SR
>>> observer to assert that he is at rest in a preferred frame.
>> You are correct in that there are no "preferred" frames in the sense
>> that
>> it has unique properties.... and it is ok to note that "all objects in
>> the
>> universe are in a state of motion". But one must keep in mind that a
>> "state
>> of motion" is observer dependent.
>
>> Special relativity make no assetion than an observer "at rest in a
>> preferred
>> frame". Seto made that up. SR make no assertion of the kind.
>
> I agree. But when it comes to cosmology there is a frame in which the total
> momentum density of the average smeared out matter of the universe is at
> rest.
Even though it is expanding and there is no center!?
I believe that is the best you can do regarding speaking about special
> frames. However the laws of SR are not altered by experiments which are
> contained in a closed room (i.e. information and matter does not cross the
> boundary). In such a case there are no preferred frames. The difference
> being that in cosmology you're looking outside the room.
>
> All that said - I disagree with Shubee- There are no preferred frames which
> by definition, are frames in which the laws of physics will be different
> there than eslewhere. However I think Schubee is merely saying that whatever
> inertial reference frame that he's in can be called a rest frame. I have no
> problem with that language. Its easier to think that ways sometimes and much
> easier to talk about the physics. SR texts do this often as I recall.
>
> Pete
>
>
Sam Wormley
> "Shubee" <e.Sh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
>> I graduated summa cum laude from the Univ. of Calif, San Diego with a
>> BA in math.
>
> If true then that's good enough for me.
>
> Pete
>
>
Pete--You should be judging postings, not claims of degrees. I've
know plenty of stooopid PhDs... Some are/were crackpots!
Sam Wormley
>
> You'll be enlightened by what 't Hooft responded when he received
> the cranky "shubertian" work :
>
>> I regret to inform you that this paper did not pass my tests. I am not
>> saying that it is wrong, but it is posed in a language that is too
>> technical and demanding, and I do not want to expose my students to
>> that.
>> Cordially,
>> G. 't Hooft
>
> everyone but Shubee alias "Eugene Shubert" perceived the irony of the
> response...
>
> More on this here : http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/
> especially here : http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/theoristbad.html
Perhaps Eugene should water his "technical and demanding" work so
the man on the street can understand it... correctly.
Thanks
Shubee
> Do you know what the term "Law of Physics" means Shubee? It refers to a
> postulate that is based on observation and experience. The more
> demonstrations which are in agreement with what the law predicts the more
> weight is given to a theory. In science there are no proofs and when stating
> a postulate the logic comes from following the scientific method - Observer,
> experiment - theorize - predict - back to the lab - observe etc.
That's only what physicists say on one side of their mouth. On the
other side they say and pretend that they're on the verge of
discovering the theory of everything and mouth all sorts of religious
propaganda like that.
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Sam Wormley
>
> I graduated summa cum laude from the Univ. of Calif, San Diego with a
> BA in math. One reason I wanted to go there is because Ted Frankel was
> a professor there and he wrote a book titled Gravitational Curvature.
> I wanted to study relativity from a mathematician.
>
> I call myself a mathematician because of my thoughtful approach and
> original research in special relativity.
> http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
>
> Shubee
>
Why a BA instead of a BS in mathematics?
Sam Wormley
> "Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
>
>> OK say that Lorentz invariance is wrong...
>
> Sam sam sam! Please tell me you're joking? I'll assume you are. I think the
> universe would disappear due to a paradox it can't handle if you actually
> agree with Schubee! :)
>
>> then almost everything
>> else would be wrong too... and that's not the universe we live in.
>> So the "tooth fairy" response is not bad IMHO.
>
> Ummmm .... Sam, do you have her telephone number? LOL!
>
> Pete
>
>
Don't worry Pete--Let's let the Lorentz invariance be correct. In fact,
special relativity postulates that all laws of physics are invariant
under Lorentz transformations, which include ordinary rotations and
changes in the velocity of a reference frame. Subsequently, quantum
field theories all incorporated Lorentz invariance in their basic
structure. General relativity includes the invariance through Einstein's
equivalence principle, which implies that any experiment conducted in
a small, freely falling laboratory is invariant under Lorentz
transformations. That result is known as local Lorentz invariance.
Sam Wormley
>
> But when it comes to cosmology there is a frame in which the total
> momentum density of the average smeared out matter of the universe is at
> rest.
At rest with respect to what? Itself? Everything is a rest with itself.
Des
> "Des" <descartesne...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1185418000.2...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Hi,
>
> > All the laws of physics is SR compliant.
>
> Only in inertial frames
>
> > What if physicists finally
> > found a privileged frame.
>
> What if the tooth fairy exists?
You are a mathematician.
Nicolas Gisin is full fledged physicist and experimentalist.
Gisin said in http://arxiv.org/ftp/quant-ph/papers/0503/0503007.pdf
(why else would he said it if there is no possibility for
a preferred frame still to be found?)
(note: vQI is velocity of quantum information supposing
hidden variables exist)
"But vQI > c makes sense only if there is a preferred
reference frame. This frame could be either a universal
preferred frame, like, for instance, the one determined
by the cosmic microwave background radiation, or it
could be determined case by case by the very condition
of the experiment. In the first case the Correlations
are universal, only limited by the speed vQI: locations
inside a radius get the quantum information on time,
outside locations don't; hence the latter show no
Correlations (at least none due to entanglement). In the
second case, the presence or absence of Correlations
depends on the precise experimental condition. Both
cases can be experimentally investigated. We shall
develop this further below."
Again Mr. mathematician Hobba.
why else would Gisin mentions about "preferred frame"
if there is no possibility for a preferred frame still to be found
or if the Standard Model had totally invalidated a preferred frame??
des
>
> > Does this mean the laws of physics
> > have to be rewritten? If not. How are they compatible. What I
> > mean to say is. Scientists are still searching for lorentz violations.
> > But isn't it that the laws of physics have already SR built within,
> > for example.. dirac's equation has the spins and antimatter
> > came out when SR in included. And yet scientists still search
> > for lorentz violations. If they found one. How does it affect say
> > the Dirac equations, etc.?
>
> > This may be a dumb question,
>
> It has the same standing as what if the tooth fairy exists. You can judge
> if it is dumb question or not.
>
> Bill
>
>
>
> > but if I don't ask. I won't know.
> > So may as well ask :)
>
> > Des- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
mathematician
> On Jul 26, 7:37 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > Des wrote:
> > > All the laws of physics is SR compliant. What if physicists finally
> > > found a privileged frame. Does this mean the laws of physics
> > > have to be rewritten?
>
> > This depends on the details of how and why that frame is "privileged",
> > and what the experimental manifestations are. If I assume the
>
> I'am not sure do I have enough competence to comment this but
> I will try with my poor knowledge:
>
> Why "priviledged frame" ?
>
> I think that if creation of time-dimension happens along this
> "priviledged frame" (I'am not sure do I have understood
> this "priviledged frame" term right?) why it should not exist ?
>
I forget to give name for this "priviledged frame".
I think that good name would be "God's frame".
The Model which I refer here is explained in more
details in my Thesis of Master of Science.
(Geodesic Algebras, 2006. University of Oulu.)
There is explained a model of a galaxy but
in case of the Universe the model would
be same (now the "great neutrino star" in center
of the space is in place of "neutrino star")
I refer also for more accurate decripitions
to those old H-M's drawings and my writings
about them.
Hannu
> Maybe this is like trying to detect existence of "free quarks"
> which is forbidden in principle of QCD ?
>
> A very crude model (due "contracting parts of the Universe" and
> the "great neutrino star" in center of the space which is in the
> "bottom of bag" are not included in this very crude model):
>
> I would try to describe a finite long 3D pseudosphere model here where
> one space dimension is shrinken due we cannot properly
> visualize 4D objects. The symmetry axis of this model is the time
> dimension
> and other two dimensions are space dimensions. Intersection at certain
> point
> of time is a circle (really this disk corresponds to 3D sphere due one
> space dimension is shrinken in this model).
>
> (I have decribed this more presicely in my Thesis of Master of
> Science:
> "Geodesic Algebras. 2006. University of Oulu. Finland.)
>
> Hannu
>
> > experimental indicators are all compatible with the experiments that
> > have been done so far, they must be EXTREMELY subtle, and it would take
> > multiple observations by multiple observers before anybody would accept
> > them (well, anybody but the crackpots who revel in such stuff).
>
> > If such observations became accepted, then what has happened many times
> > before would happen again: physicists would search for new theories to
> > describe the observations, and the domain of applicability of existing
> > theories would become more limited than previously thought. That is a
> > rather different process than "rewriting the laws of physics"....
>
> > > If not. How are they compatible. What I
> > > mean to say is. Scientists are still searching for lorentz violations.
>
> > There is no way to incorporate a preferred frame (in which the laws of
> > physics are somehow special) into the current fundamental theories of
> > physics. Note that a "preferred frame" that merely reflects some
> > symmetry of the manifold poses no problem at all -- for instance, modern
> > cosmological models have such a frame (all discussions of "preferred
> > frames" recently in other threads of this newsgroup are of this sort).
>
> > Scientists search for violations of current theories as a matter of
> > course -- that is a major part of what science is. Limits on the effects
> > of a preferred frame are quite small (see the FAQ for references). The
> > standard technique is to generalize the current theory (e.g. with the
> > test theory of Mansouri and Sexl, or Kostelecky's standard model
> > extension), and then fit the parameters of the test theory to the
> > experimental data. Current theories will predict definite values for
> > those parameters, and this provides a quantitative way to test their
> > predictions.
>
> > > But isn't it that the laws of physics have already SR built within,
> > > for example.. dirac's equation has the spins and antimatter
> > > came out when SR in included. And yet scientists still search
> > > for lorentz violations. If they found one. How does it affect say
> > > the Dirac equations, etc.?
>
> > It would depend on precisely what aspects of current theories are
> > refuted by these new observations. And on how the "preferred frame'
> > manifests itself in the observations.
>
> > Tom Roberts
Shubee
> "Sam Wormley" <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
>
> news:46AA37DB...@mchsi.com...
>
>
>
> > kenseto wrote:
>
> >> There is no preferred frame exists in the universe. All objects in the
> >> universe are in a state of motion. However, that doesn't prevent every SR
> >> observer to assert that he is at rest in a preferred frame.
>
> > You are correct in that there are no "preferred" frames in the sense
> > that
> > it has unique properties.... and it is ok to note that "all objects in
> > the
> > universe are in a state of motion". But one must keep in mind that a
> > "state
> > of motion" is observer dependent.
>
> > Special relativity make no assetion than an observer "at rest in a
> > preferred
> > frame". Seto made that up. SR make no assertion of the kind.
>
> momentum density of the average smeared out matter of the universe is at
> frames. However the laws of SR are not altered by experiments which are
> contained in a closed room (i.e. information and matter does not cross the
> boundary). In such a case there are no preferred frames. The difference
> being that in cosmology you're looking outside the room.
>
> All that said - I disagree with Shubee- There are no preferred frames which
> by definition, are frames in which the laws of physics will be different
> there than eslewhere. However I think Schubee is merely saying that whatever
> inertial reference frame that he's in can be called a rest frame. I have no
> problem with that language. Its easier to think that ways sometimes and much
> easier to talk about the physics. SR texts do this often as I recall.
>
> Pete
On Jul 27, 5:27 pm, "Pmb" <some...@somewhere.net> wrote:
> "Sam Wormley" <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
>
> news:46AA37DB...@mchsi.com...
>
>
>
> > kenseto wrote:
>
> >> There is no preferred frame exists in the universe. All objects in the
> >> universe are in a state of motion. However, that doesn't prevent every SR
> >> observer to assert that he is at rest in a preferred frame.
>
> > You are correct in that there are no "preferred" frames in the sense
> > that
> > it has unique properties.... and it is ok to note that "all objects in
> > the
> > universe are in a state of motion". But one must keep in mind that a
> > "state
> > of motion" is observer dependent.
>
> > Special relativity make no assetion than an observer "at rest in a
> > preferred
> > frame". Seto made that up. SR make no assertion of the kind.
>
> I agree. But when it comes to cosmology there is a frame in which the total
> momentum density of the average smeared out matter of the universe is at
> rest. I believe that is the best you can do regarding speaking about special
> frames. However the laws of SR are not altered by experiments which are
> contained in a closed room (i.e. information and matter does not cross the
> boundary). In such a case there are no preferred frames. The difference
> being that in cosmology you're looking outside the room.
>
> All that said - I disagree with Shubee- There are no preferred frames which
> by definition, are frames in which the laws of physics will be different
> there than eslewhere. However I think Schubee is merely saying that whatever
> inertial reference frame that he's in can be called a rest frame. I have no
> problem with that language. Its easier to think that ways sometimes and much
> easier to talk about the physics. SR texts do this often as I recall.
>
> Pete
No, you have it wrong. I teach that the physics of relativity in a
simple circular universe SxR proves that all of modern relativistic
cosmology can be phrased as an absolute frame of reference theory.
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0304038
http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=79
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0503070
http://cornell.mirror.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v8/i6/p1662_1
http://physics.ucr.edu/Active/Abs/abstract-13-NOV-97.html
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRA/v63/i4/e044104
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0143-0807/23/3/306
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0606559
http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=605
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/simultaneity.htm
The problem with mainstream physicists is that they don't appreciate
Hilbert's dream of the axiomatization of physics. They don't even know
that it is appropriate to ask of any current theory "which ideas are
truly fundamental and which are 'excess baggage'"? J.B. Hartle,
Classical physics and Hamiltonian quantum mechanics as relics of the
Big Bang, Physica Scripta T 36 (1991), 228-236.
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Eric Gisse
> On Jul 27, 8:09 pm, Shubee <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 27, 7:24 pm, "Pmb" <some...@somewhere.net> wrote:
>
> > Shubee wrote:
> > > >Relevant to physics, science has proved that special relativity could
> > > >be a mathematical fantasy. That's because the logic that applies to
> > > >math applies to physics also if you follow Hilbert.
>
> > > And why do you believe that science has proved that SR could be a fantasy.
>
> > Either the Continuum Hypothesis or its negation is a mathematical
> > fantasy. Both axioms are consistent with all the other axioms of set
> > theory. You will never observe a contradiction but only one of those
> > two axioms is really true. The same can be said for SR. You can
> > believe that length is observer dependent and never find a
> > contradiction but it could actually be a mathematical fantasy. It
> > could very well be that such a phantasm can't be constructed in
> > reality and that Einstein's model universe doesn't even appear in
> > God's atlas of all conceivable universes.
>
> > It is possible that the real alternative to Einstein's consistent
> > fantasy is an absolute frame of reference.
>
> > > By the way, when you use the term "could" then its not really a proof.
>
> The important point that you're missing is that physicists should
Who are you tell physicists what they should do? You had your chance
to show physics how it is done, and you blew it by dropping out of
graduate school.
Nobody cares what a never-was mathematician thinks about physics. If
you have experimental evidence, bring it on. Otherwise, shut the hell
up and crawl back to your self-moderated and unpopulated forum.
[...]
Shubee
against the shit-throwing chimpanzee Dono:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/3cc498e991b20d41
Shubee
Shubee wrote:
>> The important point that you're missing is that physicists should try
>> admitting the logical possibility that they believe in a mathematical
>> fantasy. Unfortunately we all know that physicists are incapable of
>> admitting that. I think that they reject an absolute frame of
>> reference for religious reasons. If physicists want to give up their
>> religious beliefs, then they should admit that Hilbert's philosophy of
>> physics is the most irreligious approach to physics possible.
>
> Shubee
> http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
>
I am the David Hilbert of theology. And I can smell the religious
dogma in physics and I don't like it one bit.
> You had your chance to show physics how it is done,
The genius David Hilbert has already done that.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
(Section 2) http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9811050
(Sections 1.1 & 1.2)
Shubee
Eric Gisse
[snip idiocy]
The only reason you continually attach Hilbert's name to your spew is
because you _know_ your work is incapable of standing on its' own
merits.
Speaking of, when are you going to provide the promised energy/
momentum framework for your theory? God forbid you do something
relevant to physics.
kenseto
"Pmb" <som...@somewhere.net> wrote in message
news:RbidnTHuAe0JEDfb...@comcast.com...
>
> "Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
> news:46AA37DB...@mchsi.com...
> > kenseto wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> There is no preferred frame exists in the universe. All objects in the
> >> universe are in a state of motion. However, that doesn't prevent every
SR
> >> observer to assert that he is at rest in a preferred frame.
> >
> > You are correct in that there are no "preferred" frames in the sense
> > that
> > it has unique properties.... and it is ok to note that "all objects in
> > the
> > universe are in a state of motion". But one must keep in mind that a
> > "state
> > of motion" is observer dependent.
The unique properties of the preferred frame are as follows:
1. A clock in the preferred frame is the fastest running clock in the
universe.
2. A ruler in the preferred frame is the longest ruler in the universe.
Every SR observer and LET observer claim these unique properties. That's why
SR and LET have the same math. That's why SR and LET are ether theories.
>
> > Special relativity make no assetion than an observer "at rest in a
> > preferred
> > frame". Seto made that up. SR make no assertion of the kind.
>
> I agree.
You agree on the wrong thing. An SR observer claims that his clock is the
fastest running clock and his ruler is the longest ruler in the universe.
This automatically makes him at rest in the preferred frame.
Ken Seto
bz
news:1185473736.6...@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
....
> Why when the one poster talks of "an absolute frame of reference" are
> most all of the responses couched, explicitly or implicitly, in terms
> of "inertial reference frames"?
>
> Surely, if one considers that inertial reference frames are
> indistinguishable, one's first thought must be that a preferred frame
> cannot be inertial - not that a preferred frame cannot exist.
>
> There seems to some faulty logic involved.
>
> The statement that inertial frames are equivalent certainly implies
> that there is no preferred inertial frame, but does not imply that
> there is no preferred (non-inertial) frame.
>
The question itself implies inertial.
That is because there are non inertial frames that are clearly prefered.
For example:
Rotation is absolute, therefore a non rotating frame is prefered.
Acceleration is absolute, therefore a non accelerated frame is prefered.
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
bz+...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
Shubee
> "Sam Wormley" <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
>
>
> > Shubee wrote:
> >> On Jul 27, 9:15 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
> >>> I suspect you would do well to better educate yourself ...
>
> >> And you need to learn how to read. Des asked what the implications
> >> would be if someone discovered a physical law that violated Lorentz
> >> invariance. The smug and pompous bigot Bill Hobba replied that the
> >> question is like asking, "what if the tooth fairy exists".
>
> Hmmm .... Bill has never seemed that way to me. Especially the part about
> being a bigot. Where's your proof that Bill is a bigot (as far as the rest
> goes, I know Bill fairley well and that is not his MO)
The proof is in the quote that I just quoted. It's easy to believe
that superluminal motion is possible. Superluminality can be inferred
from near instantaneous transit times for motion at great distances
(Da 9:21-23). There are 10,100 scientific papers on google scholar
that use the word superluminal. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=superluminal
There are 600 papers on the arXiv server that refer to superluminality
or superluminal something in their abstracts. Superluminality without
causality violations requires an absolute frame of reference.
> >> His ignorant response is insulting and stupid because there is no
> >> logical reason to conclude that all the laws of universe except
> >> gravity are Lorentz invariant just because it's a very popular opinion
> >> among physicists.
>
> Do you know what the term "Law of Physics" means Shubee? It refers to a
> postulate that is based on observation and experience. The more
> demonstrations which are in agreement with what the law predicts the more
> weight is given to a theory. In science there are no proofs and when stating
> a postulate the logic comes from following the scientific method - Observer,
> experiment - theorize - predict - back to the lab - observe etc.
That's only true for experimental science. There are proofs in David
Hilbert's reconstruction of physics.
Shubee
> Shubee a écrit :
>
> > I am a mathematician.
>
> You are lying. You've been proven numerous time here as unable
> to grasp even the simpliest math.
If you are referring to proofs by the demented, shit-throwing
chimpanzee dono, his most recent mathematical proof against
mathematical competence has been deconstructed by Jeckyl and refuted
throughly.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/3cc498e991b20d41
> >> Have you either read a book on or taken a course on the philosophy
> >> of physics??
>
> > I've read:
> > David Hilbert and the Axiomatization of Physics (1898-1918)
> > From Grundlagen der Geometrie to Grundlagen der Physik
> > http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?p=4295#4295
>
> Where you don't understand a word.
I'm waiting for you to demonstrate that you can reason and cite
relevant evidence or do anything besides being a shit-throwing
chimpanzee.
> > I already subscribe to David Hilbert's philosophy of physics:
> > http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
> > (Section 2) andhttp://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9811050
> > (Sections 1.1 & 1.2)
>
> You're only hijacking something you don't understand in order
> to support you personnal religious agenda.
If you think that you understand Hilbert's philosophy of physics
better than I do, you're certainly not showing it.
Shubee
Pmb
> On Jul 27, 6:42 pm, "Pmb" <some...@somewhere.net> wrote:
>> "Shubee" <e.Shu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
>> > That's fine with me. However, if you allow me to go that route I then
>> > insist that general relativity already permits an absolute frame of
>> > reference:
>>
>> Why? What is this special frame?
>>
>> Pete
>
> And why did you snip all those great links? Do you want me to copy and
> paste all their content for you? Here's a short introduction from
> http://physics.ucr.edu/Active/Abs/abstract-13-NOV-97.html that I like
> a lot:
I had already agreed that I understood you on that. Do you recall my
comments on the rest frame of the average smeared out matter of the
universe? Well if there is a clock attached to one of these rest frames then
it will read the proper time of the universe. I.e. when we speak of the age
of the universe we are really talking about the time as read on a
hypothetical clock which was set to zero at the Big Bang and started
running. This clock is special in that all clocks anywhere else in the
universe which is at rest in the rest frame of the matter of the universe
will keep this time. In that sense there is no other frame like that.
However this goes far outside the domain of special relativity which you
said it pertained to.
Best regards
Pete
Pmb
Hi Sam
I disagree with your statment. I wouldn't call it a perferred frame in the
sense that you can't tell from within closed box if you're at rest or moving
with respect to the motion of the rest frame of the universe. But I would
call it special because it is unique. And that seems to be what Shubee is
speaking about. But he never should have said this was within the scope of
SR.
Best regards
Pete
Pete
Pmb
I'd rather have Jennifer Love Hewitt. :)
Pete
Pmb
I asked what his specialty was (or if he was a scientist or something like
that). He came back and told me that he was a mathematician and wet to
college and got a BA in math. If that is true then he answered my question.
That doesn't mean that I believe that he's good at it. For example: if he
didn't work in mathematics and graduated a decade or two ago then its likely
he forgot most of it. So whether he's a mathematician is a seperate question
to whether he is good at it and at understanding the scientific principle
and the philosophy of science. Most physicists, even the very good ones,
don't usually care about philosophy so that's not a biggy.
Pete
Pmb
Colleges are weird like that. I didn't even get a BS and I graduated in
Physics! I got a BA in Physics instead. Weird!
Pete
Pmb
"YBM" <ybm...@nooos.fr> wrote in message
news:46aab506$0$30505$426a...@news.free.fr...
> Shubee a écrit :
>> On Jul 27, 7:24 pm, "Pmb" <some...@somewhere.net> wrote:
>> Shubee wrote:
>>>> Relevant to physics, science has proved that special relativity could
>>>> be a mathematical fantasy. That's because the logic that applies to
>>>> math applies to physics also if you follow Hilbert.
>>> And why do you believe that science has proved that SR could be a
>>> fantasy.
>>
>> Either the Continuum Hypothesis or its negation is a mathematical
>> fantasy. Both axioms are consistent with all the other axioms of set
>> theory. You will never observe a contradiction but only one of those
>> two axioms is really true.
>
> you ever heard of (not so) recent work in this field?
>
>> The same can be said for SR. You can
>> believe that length is observer dependent and never find a
>> contradiction but it could actually be a mathematical fantasy. It
>> could very well be that such a phantasm can't be constructed in
>> reality and that Einstein's model universe doesn't even appear in
>> God's atlas of all conceivable universes.
>
> word on any subject related to physics and mathematics.
>
>> It is possible that the real alternative to Einstein's consistent
>> fantasy is an absolute frame of reference.
>>
>>> By the way, when you use the term "could" then its not really a proof.
>>
>> updating http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
>>
>>>> I could scan and e-mail
>>>> you a good example of an article on this subject.
>>> Shubee - You didn't respond to this so I will assume that you don't wish
>>> to
>>> read it.
>>
>> As I said, I believe in Hilbert's philosophy.
>
> You don't even know what it is about.
>
> You deserve only pity.
Perhaps we can speek to Schubee without demeaning him. I don't think he's
lying about what he thinks and he seems to honest as to his beliefs.
Demeaning someone only works to the negative as I've experienced this.
Although I know what I'm talking about people who think I'm wrong and they
are right (which is usually the case) will then term from the subject at
hand to start making personal remarks. I never could see why going after the
person rather than what the person is claiming should make him a target for
this kind of thing can help anybody. This, of course, is my personal opinion
having been the target myself on many occasions, evn though I've never
strayed from textbook physics.
That said, I saw your web site YBM and downloaded your GR notes/book. I look
forward to reading it. I wanted to thank you for placing it online for
people like me to read. I wanted to tell you I appreciate you sharing your
work.
Best regards
Pete
Shubee
UCSD is a great school. When I was there, UCSD was composed of 5
colleges on that one campus. I believe that they now have 6. Each
college had their own graduation requirements. John Muir College had
the minimum number of requirements for courses in the humanities and
junk like that. But they offered no BS degrees. The official
explanation was that John Muir College wanted their students to be
humble. The positive side was that I was able to take all the math
classes I wanted. And I took plenty. While still an undergraduate, I
even took several graduate level courses in math, including Frankel's
geometry of physics. I even took a graduate level class in GR in the
physics department.
Shubee
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf