Is SR Fatally Flawed? (Once more, with feeling)
Max Keon
other. They are directly comparable and are both identical. The
light beams are activated simultaneously, regardless of how this
might be achieved.
Light sources
v v
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
o o
Receivers
If the pair are in uniform motion and moving at .5 c relative to
each other, this is the only possible viewpoint according
to the observer stationed at the bottom right corner if c is
isotropic in that frame.
v-> v v
l l v------.-->
This l l results in that. . .
l l Which is the only . .
l l way the path lengths . .
l l can be made equal for . .
l l the observer-receiver(x) . .
l l ..
o-> x o------x-->
..
. .
And this is the only possible viewpoint according to the observer
stationed at the top right corner if the speed of light remains
isotropic in that frame (which is of course the same frame).
v-> x v------x-->
This l l results in that. . .
l l Which is also the . .
l l only way the path . .
l l lengths can be made . .
l l equal for the . .
l l observer-transmitter(x) ..
l l o------.-->
o-> o o.
. .
Both the top and bottom observer's note that the adjacent end of
the moving source-receiver passes exactly through where they each
reside. They are compelled to conclude that the two source-receiver
sets are still identical.
There are three options that will explain this anomaly.
(1) Length contraction is nothing more than an illusion, and being
such can be of no consequence whatever.
(2) A concealed negative dimension opens up to accommodate the
dimensional shortfall between the top and bottom observers
caused by relative motion.
(3) SR is just plain wrong (which gets the logical vote).
Show me length contraction and I'll show you a pseudo dimension.
Then the sky's the limit. Yeeeehaaaaa
------
I've stored a somewhat jerky (27 frame, 101664 byte)
animation, which also tells the above story, at
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~mkeon/srno.gif
--
Max Keon
Pmb
"Max Keon" <mk...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:3F5532A8...@ozemail.com.au...
See
http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/light_clock.htm
http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/sr/lorentz_contraction.htm
Pmb
Harry
> other. They are directly comparable and are both identical. The
> light beams are activated simultaneously, regardless of how this
> might be achieved.
> If the pair are in uniform motion and moving at .5 c relative to
> each other, this is the only possible viewpoint according
> to the observer stationed at the bottom right corner if c is
> isotropic in that frame.
>
> v-> v v
> l l v------.-->
> This l l results in that. . .
> l l Which is the only . .
> l l way the path lengths . .
> l l can be made equal for . .
> l l the observer-receiver(x) . .
> l l ..
> o-> x o------x-->
SNIP more of the same.
After pasting it in my text editor, I understood what you meant...
You mistakenly think that length contraction is supposed to happen
perpendicular to movement! But in this example, length contraction does not
play a role.
Instead, SRT and LET propose that clocks in the moving system tick slower,
so that the same time of flight is measured in both systems.
Harald
Paul Cardinale
[snip]
> There are three options that will explain this anomaly.
> (1) Length contraction is nothing more than an illusion, and being
> such can be of no consequence whatever.
> (2) A concealed negative dimension opens up to accommodate the
> dimensional shortfall between the top and bottom observers
> caused by relative motion.
> (3) SR is just plain wrong (which gets the logical vote).
>
You forgot one:
(4) Max Keon is a dim-witted, willfully ignorant dolt.
Paul Cardinale
Arfur Dogfrey
This is called "the fallacy of the excluded middle" I believe. You are
limiting the possible options to force things to a pre-determined
conclusion. Sit down, apply the Lorentz transform equations and see
exactly what SR predicts that each observer will actually measure.
SR is not "just plain wrong" but your understanding of it seems to be.
Arf!
Arfur
Dirk Van de moortel
> other. They are directly comparable and are both identical. The
> light beams are activated simultaneously, regardless of how this
> might be achieved.
Yes, and they stop being "activated simultaneously according to
the both of them" as soon as you set one source in motion w.r.t.
the other.
>
> Light sources
> v v
> l l
> l l
> l l
> l l
> l l
> l l
> l l
> o o
> Receivers
>
> If the pair are in uniform motion and moving at .5 c relative to
> each other,
then the remainder of your "analysis" instantly dies.
Congratulations.
Dirk Vdm
Paul B. Andersen
"Max Keon" <mk...@ozemail.com.au> skrev i melding news:3F5532A8...@ozemail.com.au...
> The two light source-receiver sets are stationary relative to each
> other. They are directly comparable and are both identical. The
> light beams are activated simultaneously, regardless of how this
> might be achieved.
>
> Light sources
> v v
> l l
> l l
> l l
> l l
> l l
> l l
> l l
> o o
> Receivers
>
> If the pair are in uniform motion and moving at .5 c relative to
> each other,
Then there is no way the the lightbeams can be activated
simultaneously in both frames of reference.
Max, can you spot the fallacy below?
1. Assume - or insist - that Galilean relativity applies.
(absolute time - absolute simultaneity)
2. Show that this is not in accordance with SR.
3. Insist that this proves SR inconsistent.
[snip]
Paul
Max Keon
Alright, alright, I'll do it your way. I don't want to awaken any
more of those ugly, one line posters.
Light sources
v v v-------v-->
According l l . .
to SR, this l l results in that . .
l l for observer(x) . .
l l because the speed . .
l l of light is slower . .
l l in the relatively . .
l l moving frame. ..
o x o-------x-->
Receivers _._
Whatever the relative velocity between the two source-receiver sets,
if the angled path length from v to x is exactly the same as the
vertical path length from v to _._ the two light beams were switched
on **simultaneously** regardless of who is observing what. That
applies in SR's universe, whether you agree or not.
Observers in either frame naturally see the same thing.
The two sets of (pulsed)source-receivers, initially at rest relative
to each other, are both equally accelerated in opposite directions
until they are traveling at .5 times the speed of light relative
to each other, after which they freely cruise along for a set time,
according to their own clocks. They then each accelerate according
to specific instruction and return to the start point. Clocks are
then compared and they show exactly the same elapsed time.
But during the flat part of the journey, after doppler effect is
accounted for, each notes of the other that the relatively moving
beams travel only .866 of the distance between source and receiver
as traveled by the onboard beams in the same time span. They are
falling short at the rate of 40,165 km/sec.
After traveling for 10 years, each notes that the total beam
path traveled by the other had fallen short by 1.27E+13 km.
Observers in each (pulsed)source-receiver set have a sound
understanding of SR and thus know well that the true path lengths
have in fact been equally negotiated in each frame. So, they ponder,
where is the missing light path data stored? It has already been
played out, so it is still somewhere in the universe. So where is
it? Is it rapidly played out as the frames come back to rest? Could
it perhaps be stored in a pseudo dimension where the laws of nature
no longer apply?
Could SR be wrong?
HEY, GIVE THAT MAN AN APPLE.
--
Max Keon
Max Keon
I was attempting to demonstrate that the geometry of SR cannot
possibly fit into any logical universe (not implying that a Galilean
Universe is logical). The length contraction was essential to
accommodate SR's geometry in a logical universe. I was picturing the
universe through two different eyes at once.
If SR's geometry can't be accommodated in a logical universe, it
won't be accommodated in an illogical one either.
----
Your concern for my well being is appreciated.
--
Max Keon
Paul B. Andersen
"Max Keon" <mk...@ozemail.com.au> skrev i melding news:3F593712...@ozemail.com.au...
Sure.
What you are sayng is that if the light is emitted simultaneously
in the x observer's frame, the x observer will see the light from
the right source first, and the light from the left source some time
later - when the two observers are co-located.
No dispute about that.
> Observers in either frame naturally see the same thing.
Indeed.
So the o observer and the x observer must, when they are
co-located, agree that they at that instant both see the light from
the left source, and they must agree that they both have seen
the light from the right source some time earlier.
That means that in the o observers frame, the light from the right
source was emitted before the light from the left source.
I suspect this wasn't what you meant, though.
You probably meant that their observations would be
mutually symmetric.
But this scenario is obviously NOT symmetric.
How do you imagine that they - when they are co-located,
can disagree about which light beam they are seeing now,
and which light beam has already passed?
The following scenario is different from the above.
It IS symmetric.
> The two sets of (pulsed)source-receivers, initially at rest relative
> to each other, are both equally accelerated in opposite directions
> until they are traveling at .5 times the speed of light relative
> to each other, after which they freely cruise along for a set time,
> according to their own clocks. They then each accelerate according
> to specific instruction and return to the start point. Clocks are
> then compared and they show exactly the same elapsed time.
So when the approaching clocks meet each other,
they will show the same.
OK.
> But during the flat part of the journey, after doppler effect is
> accounted for, each notes of the other that the relatively moving
> beams travel only .866 of the distance between source and receiver
> as traveled by the onboard beams in the same time span. They are
> falling short at the rate of 40,165 km/sec.
Very poorly described.
But I will assume that your point above with the clocks is
that each beam is emitted when the respective clocks
show the same.
Then each observer will see the other clock to be ahead
of his own, and thus the beam from the other source to
be emitted before his own.
It is not "falling short" at all.
> After traveling for 10 years, each notes that the total beam
> path traveled by the other had fallen short by 1.27E+13 km.
Nope.
The fact is that each observer - if they still haven't
met each other when they receive their own beam - will see
the other beam reach the other detector _before_ their own
beam reaches their own detector.
If, OTOH, the observers are adjacent when they each receive
their respective beams, they will receive them simultaneously.
None is "falling short".
> Observers in each (pulsed)source-receiver set have a sound
> understanding of SR and thus know well that the true path lengths
> have in fact been equally negotiated in each frame.
Indeed.
The observers with the sound understanding of SR knows
of course of the relativity of simultaneity, and know that
the other beam was emitted before their own.
But since the other path is longer, both beams arrive
simultaneously when they meet each other.
No beam is lost in space.
No mystery.
> So, they ponder,
> where is the missing light path data stored? It has already been
> played out, so it is still somewhere in the universe. So where is
> it? Is it rapidly played out as the frames come back to rest? Could
> it perhaps be stored in a pseudo dimension where the laws of nature
> no longer apply?
I think it's YOU that's lost somewhere in the universe. :-)
You did it again:
1. Assume - or insist - absolute time and absolute simultaneity
2. Show that this is not in accordance with SR.
3. Insist that this proves SR inconsistent.
Still not spotted the fallacy?
> Could SR be wrong?
Of course it could.
But it sure is consistent.
And a vast number of experiments have confirmed it.
And no experiment has yet falsified it.
So I doubt it.
Paul
Titan Point
*ahem* I believe I had already predicted this poster...
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Gems/RelSub.html
I must win some sort of prize...
Dirk Van de moortel
"Titan Point" <titanpoi...@myrealbox.com> wrote in message news:pan.2003.09.06....@myrealbox.com...
You already have :-)
Dirk Vdm
Ken S. Tucker
Hi Max
[snipped stuff available in initial post]
>There are three options that will explain this anomaly.
>(1) Length contraction is nothing more than an illusion, and being
> such can be of no consequence whatever.
Max, what you call an illusion is commonly regarded as
the basis of magnetism. If you had your way with us, all
the gnerators would stop working, and we would have no
electricity, is that what you want?
Of course not, a fine upstanding fellow like you would
likely prefer TV over chanting Abdul is great.
Ok, you need to understand how two parallel wires
interact magnetically, (mentors in this NG can recommend
books or web-sites on this subject).
Basically, two parallel wires carrying DC current in the same
direction attract, but two wires carrying DC current in
opposite directions repel. At the current time, the accepted
explanation for this effect is due to the illusion of the length
contraction you refer to.
Regards Ken S. Tucker
Max Keon
No. I'm saying that if one backtracks in time in the "x" frame, to
the moment when the two light sources are triggered, they will be
triggered at the same instant in that frame, and they will also be
triggered at the same instant which is the present throughout the
entire universe. Taking the view from the "o" based observer of
the simultaneously triggered in the present beams, the picture is
the exact mirror of that for the "x" based observer. Regardless of
how long it takes for the beams to reach the observers, or whatever
happens along the way, they were still triggered simultaneously in
what was the present everywhere. If I push this key / I did it in
the present. Can anyone in the universe claim otherwise?
How many other postulates have been quietly squeezed in under the
guise of logical consequence to help prop up SR?
>> Observers in either frame naturally see the same thing.
> Indeed.
> So the o observer and the x observer must, when they are
> co-located, agree that they at that instant both see the light from
> the left source, and they must agree that they both have seen
> the light from the right source some time earlier.
> That means that in the o observers frame, the light from the right
> source was emitted before the light from the left source.
>
> I suspect this wasn't what you meant, though.
> You probably meant that their observations would be
> mutually symmetric.
> But this scenario is obviously NOT symmetric.
Only according to some damn postulate.
> How do you imagine that they - when they are co-located,
> can disagree about which light beam they are seeing now,
> and which light beam has already passed?
>
> The following scenario is different from the above.
> It IS symmetric.
>> The two sets of (pulsed)source-receivers, initially at rest relative
>> to each other, are both equally accelerated in opposite directions
>> until they are traveling at .5 times the speed of light relative
>> to each other, after which they freely cruise along for a set time,
>> according to their own clocks. They then each accelerate according
>> to specific instruction and return to the start point. Clocks are
>> then compared and they show exactly the same elapsed time.
> So when the approaching clocks meet each other,
> they will show the same.
> OK.
>> But during the flat part of the journey, after doppler effect is
>> accounted for, each notes of the other that the relatively moving
>> beams travel only .866 of the distance between source and receiver
>> as traveled by the onboard beams in the same time span. They are
>> falling short at the rate of 40,165 km/sec.
> Very poorly described.
I can't disagree with that.
The pulse in the (pulsed)source was only added so that the beam
velocities could be monitored. The beams can be assumed to be
continuous.
Doppler effect accounted for, the speed of light in the .5 c
relatively moving frame is .866 * c. The pulsed markers will confirm
this. So throughout the flat part of the journey, each observer will
note that the light path distance traveled in the other frame is
less than in their own frame by 3E+5 - (3E+5 * .866) = 40,200 km/sec.
And that shortfall relentlessly builds at the same rate every second.
So what determines what portion of path length is deemed missing when
they realign? The missing light path lengths have been traversed, so
the image of that action must reside somewhere.
If the duration of the flat section journey is 1 second, the missing
path length is 40,200 km. For a 10 year flat journey, the missing
path length is 12,700,000,000,000 km. How does one accommodate every
scenario?
------
------
>> So, they ponder,
>> where is the missing light path data stored? It has already been
>> played out, so it is still somewhere in the universe. So where is
>> it? Is it rapidly played out as the frames come back to rest? Could
>> it perhaps be stored in a pseudo dimension where the laws of nature
>> no longer apply?
> I think it's YOU that's lost somewhere in the universe. :-)
>
> You did it again:
>
> 1. Assume - or insist - absolute time and absolute simultaneity
Absolute time; definitely not. But a simultaneous present
acting throughout the entire universe; most certainly!
Do you postulate that this is not so? Where do you think
the present is?
> 2. Show that this is not in accordance with SR.
> 3. Insist that this proves SR inconsistent.
>
> Still not spotted the fallacy?
>> Could SR be wrong?
> Of course it could.
> But it sure is consistent.
> And a vast number of experiments have confirmed it.
> And no experiment has yet falsified it.
> So I doubt it.
So it's right then? How can a bunch of postulates be "right"?
Wildly speculating until the evidence has been thoroughly satisfied
and then declaring that the theory has not yet been falsified is
not exactly the stuff of genius.
Who authorized Einstein to postulate on behalf of the physics
community anyway? When do I get a go?
--
Max Keon
Dirk Van de moortel
"Max Keon" <mk...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:3F5C4FDC...@ozemail.com.au...
> Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >
[snip]
> > Sure.
> > What you are sayng is that if the light is emitted simultaneously
> > in the x observer's frame, the x observer will see the light from
> > the right source first, and the light from the left source some time
> > later - when the two observers are co-located.
> > No dispute about that.
>
> No. I'm saying that if one backtracks in time in the "x" frame, to
> the moment when the two light sources are triggered, they will be
> triggered at the same instant in that frame, and they will also be
> triggered at the same instant which is the present throughout the
> entire universe. Taking the view from the "o" based observer of
> the simultaneously triggered in the present beams, the picture is
> the exact mirror of that for the "x" based observer. Regardless of
> how long it takes for the beams to reach the observers, or whatever
> happens along the way, they were still triggered simultaneously in
> what was the present everywhere. If I push this key / I did it in
> the present. Can anyone in the universe claim otherwise?
Can you translate this into an example with events?
What happens when (t), where (x,y), according to whom?
Just give a list of the relevant events and we will help you
check it.
Dirk Vdm
Martin Hogbin
> community anyway? When do I get a go?
When you come up with some better postulates than Einstein
did.
Martin Hogbin
Paul B. Andersen
"Max Keon" <mk...@ozemail.com.au> skrev i melding news:3F5C4FDC...@ozemail.com.au...
This doesn't make sense to me.
> How many other postulates have been quietly squeezed in under the
> guise of logical consequence to help prop up SR?
>
> >> Observers in either frame naturally see the same thing.
>
> > Indeed.
> > So the o observer and the x observer must, when they are
> > co-located, agree that they at that instant both see the light from
> > the left source, and they must agree that they both have seen
> > the light from the right source some time earlier.
> > That means that in the o observers frame, the light from the right
> > source was emitted before the light from the left source.
> >
> > I suspect this wasn't what you meant, though.
> > You probably meant that their observations would be
> > mutually symmetric.
> > But this scenario is obviously NOT symmetric.
>
> Only according to some damn postulate.
See below:
> > How do you imagine that they - when they are co-located,
> > can disagree about which light beam they are seeing now,
> > and which light beam has already passed?
There is no way your scenario can be symmetric.
> > The following scenario is different from the above.
> > It IS symmetric.
>
> >> The two sets of (pulsed)source-receivers, initially at rest relative
> >> to each other, are both equally accelerated in opposite directions
> >> until they are traveling at .5 times the speed of light relative
> >> to each other, after which they freely cruise along for a set time,
> >> according to their own clocks. They then each accelerate according
> >> to specific instruction and return to the start point. Clocks are
> >> then compared and they show exactly the same elapsed time.
>
> > So when the approaching clocks meet each other,
> > they will show the same.
> > OK.
>
> >> But during the flat part of the journey, after doppler effect is
> >> accounted for, each notes of the other that the relatively moving
> >> beams travel only .866 of the distance between source and receiver
> >> as traveled by the onboard beams in the same time span. They are
> >> falling short at the rate of 40,165 km/sec.
>
> > Very poorly described.
>
> I can't disagree with that.
So you snipped everything I wrote without comment.
If you want a monologue, there is no point for me to respond.
Is it?
Paul
Max Keon
>
>> the moment when the two light sources are triggered, they will be
>> triggered at the same instant in that frame, and they will also be
>> triggered at the same instant which is the present throughout the
>> entire universe. Taking the view from the "o" based observer of
>> the simultaneously triggered in the present beams, the picture is
>> the exact mirror of that for the "x" based observer. Regardless of
>> how long it takes for the beams to reach the observers, or whatever
>> happens along the way, they were still triggered simultaneously in
>> what was the present everywhere. If I push this key / I did it in
>> the present. Can anyone in the universe claim otherwise?
> Can you translate this into an example with events?
> What happens when (t), where (x,y), according to whom?
> Just give a list of the relevant events and we will help you
> check it.
"t", "x", "y" and "z" have nothing whatever to do with the present.
They are all factors relating to the past.
There is not one event in this universe that directly links the
present beyond point size. The relationship between everything can
only be realized in time. I'm just as much in your past as I am in
your future. You are just as much in my past as you are in my
future. But we are absolutely unrelated in the present.
**ABSOLUTELY**.
The present is an instantaneous event throughout the entire universe.
How could it possibly be otherwise? How can "now" not be "now"?
According to the rules of the big bang theory, if I wave my hand
about now, eventually I will see myself in the past waving my hand
about exactly as I'm doing now. The scenario is of course a fairy
tale, but not so the absolute character of now.
The whole concept of simultaneity is postulated, apparently as a
prop for SR. It, along with SR, are clearly falsified by the fact
that the present is an ongoing instantaneous event. Do you perhaps
have some strange notion that the present is static?
I would suggest a visit to the home of the zero origin concept. But
I don't think it would do much good while you persist in picturing
the universe from the rather weird astral plane that physics seems
to be using as a launch-pad to reality. That base was once
justifiable. But not any more.
--
Max Keon
Dirk Van de moortel
"Max Keon" <mk...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:3F5F1F04...@ozemail.com.au...
> Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> >
> >"Max Keon" <mk...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:3F5C4FDC...@ozemail.com.au...
> >> No. I'm saying that if one backtracks in time in the "x" frame, to
> >> the moment when the two light sources are triggered, they will be
> >> triggered at the same instant in that frame, and they will also be
> >> triggered at the same instant which is the present throughout the
> >> entire universe. Taking the view from the "o" based observer of
> >> the simultaneously triggered in the present beams, the picture is
> >> the exact mirror of that for the "x" based observer. Regardless of
> >> how long it takes for the beams to reach the observers, or whatever
> >> happens along the way, they were still triggered simultaneously in
> >> what was the present everywhere. If I push this key / I did it in
> >> the present. Can anyone in the universe claim otherwise?
>
> > Can you translate this into an example with events?
> > What happens when (t), where (x,y), according to whom?
> > Just give a list of the relevant events and we will help you
> > check it.
>
> "t", "x", "y" and "z" have nothing whatever to do with the present.
> They are all factors relating to the past.
If your clock says t = 10, then all events with t <10 are
in your past and all events with t > 10 are in your future.
Didn't you know that?
Dirk Vdm
Paul B. Andersen
"Max Keon" <mk...@ozemail.com.au> skrev i melding news:3F5F1F04...@ozemail.com.au...
So what are your answer to Dirk's question?
Is it:
"No, I can not translate this into an example with events,
because then I would have to describe the scenario unambiguously,
and I don't even know what an event is."
Paul
Dirk Van de moortel
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message
news:bjo2gn$avr$1...@dolly.uninett.no...
I think he doesn't even know what "unambiguously" means.
Anyways, he just made his entrance
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NoICant.html
Dirk Vdm
Max Keon
Can I play too?
My three legged camel is walking toward me and can only arrive in
the future.
My three legged camel is walking away from me, so it was perhaps
with me some time in the past.
Conclusion: The present is wherever the camel happens to be. The
camel's time slot is always somewhere in my past or my future, but
never simultaneously with mine. Unless of course the camel stands
still with one of its three legs on my foot. And even then there's
no immediate relationship in the present.
I can't possibly know what the camel is doing at any instant in
the present. But I do know that whatever he's doing, he's doing it
right **now**.
Now go and have another read of the first paragraph.
SR is just like the camel. It doesn't have a leg to stand on.
--
Max Keon
Dirk Van de moortel
"Max Keon" <mk...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:3F61D44B...@ozemail.com.au...
I was not talking about SR. Were you?
I was asking you to explain what you were talking
about so that you could be helped with your problem.
Explaining what you mean can be done with events,
you know, things that happen at some place at some
time. By specifying the place and the time, you can
very clearly explain what you have in mind.
That has nothing to do with SR.
O.t.o.h. you have a very elaborate, but nevertheless
entertaining way of answering "no" to questions.
Nice :-)
Dirk Vdm
Bill Hobba
> SR is just like the camel. It doesn't have a leg to stand on.
>
And please cite the experiments that have disproved SR? They do not exist.
Thanks
Bill
ghytrfvbnmju7654
in special relativity. There aren't any. How do I know?
All of the geometric implications of SR are equivalent to
adding a fourth dimension to space and setting c=i. So if
there's an internal inconsistency in SR, there's an equivalent
fatal flaw in ordinary geometry. Which is _very_ doubtful.
Robert J. Kolker
ghytrfvbnmju7654 wrote:
As a mathematical system GTR is a special case of Reimannian Geometry
which is at least as consistent as the real number system. Absolute
proofs of consistency for systems with no finite instances is difficult
to come by.
We know group theory is consistent because there are finite groups. So
the axioms cannot lead to contradictions. But there are no finite
instances of topological metric completion of the rational numbers which
constitute an infinite dense set.
Bob Kolker
AndroclesInEngland
"ghytrfvbnmju7654" <ghytrfvb...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:cb623e6.03091...@posting.google.com...
Give up the Copernican system and return to the Ptolemanic - the Earth is
at the centre of the Universe. The planets move in epicycles, which, once
refined into elliptical orbits as Kepler did with the Copernican system,
there are absolutely no inconsistencies in the Ptolemaic system.
Right?
Just because you have a theory that appears to work (you can easily predict
eclipses using the Ptolemaic system) doesn't mean you have an accurate model
of the Universe.
There ARE internal inconsistensies in Relativity, burying your head in the
sand and refusing to look at them doesn't make them go away for the rest of
us.
Robert J. Kolker
AndroclesInEngland wrote:
>
> Just because you have a theory that appears to work (you can easily predict
> eclipses using the Ptolemaic system) doesn't mean you have an accurate model
> of the Universe.
Ptoley's system (and Copericus' initial system) both failed to handle
the orbit of Mars properly. Furthermore there was nothing in either
theory that connected the motion of the planets with physical processes
known on Earth. Both theories were conceived to "save the appearances",
which is a scheme of describing what is observed into totally
phenomenological terms. No kind of causes are given at all.
Kepler was the first mathematician to correctly describe the observed
orbits of planets (to a first order of approximation) and Newton
provided a dynamic (or causal) theory.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
>
> Ptoley's system
Make that Ptolemy's.
Bob Kolker
ghytrfvbnmju7654
> "ghytrfvbnmju7654" <ghytrfvb...@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:cb623e6.03091...@posting.google.com...
> > For heaven's sake, stop looking for internal inconsistencies
> > in special relativity. There aren't any. How do I know?
> > All of the geometric implications of SR are equivalent to
> > adding a fourth dimension to space and setting c=i. So if
> > there's an internal inconsistency in SR, there's an equivalent
> > fatal flaw in ordinary geometry. Which is _very_ doubtful.
>
> Give up the Copernican system and return to the Ptolemanic - the Earth is
> at the centre of the Universe. The planets move in epicycles, which, once
> refined into elliptical orbits as Kepler did with the Copernican system,
> there are absolutely no inconsistencies in the Ptolemaic system.
> Right?
Do you understand the difference between an internal inconsistency
and an inconsistency with the real world? I don't claim to be
an expert in Ptolemy's system, but I doubt there were internal
inconsistencies in it, either. We know it is wrong because of
our observations of the real world.
The misguided thought experiments that keep showing up on this
newsgroup can only find an internal inconsistency in the theory
-- a place where it contradicts itself, and there aren't any.
In order to find something wrong with SR, you need to do an
actual experiment.
Speaking of Ptolemy, I'm not the one suggesting we give up a
more beautiful, simple theory that agrees with experiment to
go back to an older theory that you'd have to add a whole
lot of complexities to in order to make it agree with the
real world.
> Just because you have a theory that appears to work (you can easily predict
> eclipses using the Ptolemaic system) doesn't mean you have an accurate model
> of the Universe.
How else would you know?
By the way, SR has been tested quite a bit more accurately than
Ptolemy's system ever was.
> There ARE internal inconsistensies in Relativity, burying your head in the
> sand and refusing to look at them doesn't make them go away for the rest of
> us.
Wow. That's quite a moving argument. You must have thought for
quite a while to come up with that one. I say there aren't, so ...
you'll say there ARE, and use capitalization instead of reasoning
to show how strong your point is.
Why don't you tell us what they are, and why all geometry isn't
internally inconsistent.
You have to understand SR before you can know whether it is
internally inconsistent or not. I have no doubt in my mind
that there are internal inconsistencies in what you think
SR says.