A question to anti-relativists
punk floyd
This is a question to the posters that feel that special relativity
theory is not correct and has to be abandoned in favour of ,say,
aether theories or some other hypothesis. I am not really depating
validity or invalidity of these, it's something that really has to be
examined on a case-by-case basis. What I am wondering about is what
exactly you think is wrong with Special Relativity?
I imagine that ther could be at least four kinds of objections:
1. Experimental evidence
Are there any good repeatable experiments that unambiguously
contradict relativity? That is relativity predicts one thing and the
experiment yields another. I am not aware of any such results.
If your theory fully agrees with SR as far as experiments are
concerned, then which one is better is more a matter of taste. If they
give different predictions, then what should we do to resolve the
issue?
2. Relativity is overly complicated mathematically.
This is , naturally, a matter of opinion. Laws of nature are what they
are, our aestetical concerns are none of its business. If they are
indeed complex, so be it.
In any case I'd not really call things like aether mechanics all that
much easier. Maxwell equations (2 of them) in relativistic form are
certainly prettier than in their classic form (4 equations)
3. Relativity is counter-intuitive.
That I think is only to be expected. We are dealing here with things
that are far removed from our everyday experiences. In our livs we
rarely see objects moving with velocities close to the speed of light.
In fact it's quite amazing that we could figure it at all.
On other hand, the assumptions that go into the foundations of
relativity seem (to me) to be quite natural. The postulate that
natural laws should look the same for all inertial observers is almost
a tautology - they are laws after all. The postulate about the
constancy of the speed of light - well, this one is less obvious.
However it seems to be very well verified experimentally.
If we assume these two things then the rest of the theory more or less
follows. So where do you think lies the problem? Why do you think the
assumptions that go into the foundations of your theory are more
natural?
4. Relativists.
In other words, it's the supporters of Einstein and Co. who bother
you. Well, that's more of a sociological problem, rather than
physical. Is there anything wrong with the physics itself?
Are there any other sort of objections?
I want to add that I'd mainly like to hear from the anti-relativist
camp. I believe I know what do the relativists think :)
best,
Punk Floyd
Joe Fischer
: This is a question to the posters that feel that special relativity
: theory is not correct and has to be abandoned in favour of ,say,
: aether theories or some other hypothesis. I am not really depating
: validity or invalidity of these, it's something that really has to be
: examined on a case-by-case basis. What I am wondering about is what
: exactly you think is wrong with Special Relativity?
Well, punk (used only as your posted name, and not
a derogatory pronoun), you obviously know about google,
and surely you know about http://groups.google.com
so you could read both the legitimate objections and
the mistaken delusions posted here since the group formed.
Instead, you request more of the same nonsense.
The only reason these poor deluded souls waste
their time and aberybody's time with ether nonsense
is they want to show they are smarter than Einstein,
but;
Einstein covered _every_ legitimate point
raised by anyone here, in ___O_N_E___ paper
published in 1910.
Every experiment ever done produced some
factor that showed the idea of an ether to be
inadequate. An ether simply does not work
to explain the physics.
Anyone with any other hypothesis should
reject that hypothesis, unless it is very close
to General Relativity in the core concepts.
Princeton University Press and Hewbrew University
could help these poor deluded etherists by publishing
just a few of the papers by Einstein where he shows
by argument, physics, and mathematics, why an ether
is not able to provide all aspects of nature, and
why the simple positions and motions of matter cover
all aspects without an ether.
Obviously they are now willing to spend the
$120 US for 3 volumes to get those particular papers,
but maybe they would be willing to pay $20 US to
learn why they are so wrong.
Joe Fischer
--
3
ade a ade
news:6168dc4a.01092...@posting.google.com...
>
>[snip]
> I imagine that ther could be at least four kinds of objections:
> 1. Experimental evidence
>
> Are there any good repeatable experiments that unambiguously
>
I'd think that this depends on who you asked, and you are not very likey to
get an agreement b/w relativists and antirelativists. The former would point
to this and that experiment as supporting their point of view. But the
latter (whose knowledge of almost everything is almost certainly right, at
least according to them) would disagree. No, this question'd produce more
noise than signal. Let's try the next one.
> 2. Relativity is overly complicated mathematically.
>
> This is , naturally, a matter of opinion. [snip]
>
Quite right. I think many (if not most) relativists and antirelativists
would agree on this, so let's move on.
>[snip]
> 3. Relativity is counter-intuitive.
> That I think is only to be expected. We are dealing here with things
> that are far removed from our everyday experiences. [snip]
>
Many antirelativists might disagree with your (snipped) comments, but I
think you are right, so let's move on again.
> 4. Relativists.
> In other words, it's the supporters of Einstein and Co. who bother
> you. [snip]
>
Well, that's certainly a part of the problem: the idea that if you disagree
with the theory, then you either don't understand it, or you are a complete
moron, or you trying to outsmart the venerable Albert Einstein. But I think
most antirelativists have learnt to ignore such attitudes, so I don't think
this is a big deal.
> Are there any other sort of objections?
>
This, I think, is the million dollar question. Einstein (IIRC) was motivated
more by epistemological considerations than by a desire to overthrow Newton.
Today, some people are motivated by similar considerations (even though this
has now become sooo unfashionable) rather than by a desire to overthrow
Einstein. The question, really, is not whether relativity is right or wrong,
but whether there are other ways of looking at the world which are more
intuitive and yet (this is very important) are no less useful or productive
than relativity. To say that such ways are not existent might be forgiven,
but to say that they cannot possibly exist (unless they reduce to relativity
in some limit) is, I think, nuts. Relativists will of course think the exact
opposite. So you see, relativists and antirelativists are nuts of different
kinds :-).
PS: I don't know if I'm an antirelativist, but I'm certainly not a
relativist.
ade a. ade
--
First know that thy principles are just, and then be thou --- Akhenaton
Ken Seto
>
> This is a question to the posters that feel that special relativity
> theory is not correct and has to be abandoned in favour of ,say,
> aether theories or some other hypothesis. I am not really depating
> validity or invalidity of these, it's something that really has to be
> examined on a case-by-case basis. What I am wondering about is what
> exactly you think is wrong with Special Relativity?
Nothing is wrong with SR within its domain of applicability. However, SR is
incomplete and at the fundamental level SR is an aether theory. Why? The
speed of light is not a universal constant as claimed by SR. But rather it
is a constant math ratio of:
The light path length in any frame /the absolute time content of
a clock second co-moving with the rod.
Once you accept this definition for light speed all the differences between
SR and the viable aether theories disappear.
As a result of this definition for light speed I was able to come up with a
new aether theory of motion ---called Doppler Relativity Theory (DRT)---that
includes SR as a subset. The equations of DRT are valid in all
environments---including gravity. A full description of DRT is in my website
http://www.erinet.com/kenseto/book.html
BTW, DRT is scheduled to be published (Nov/Dec 2001 issue) in the
peer-review journal "Galilean Electrodynamics"
Ken Seto
Eric Prebys
punk floyd wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> This is a question to the posters that feel that special relativity
> theory is not correct and has to be abandoned in favour of ,say,
> aether theories or some other hypothesis. I am not really depating
> validity or invalidity of these, it's something that really has to be
> examined on a case-by-case basis. What I am wondering about is what
> exactly you think is wrong with Special Relativity?
>
> I imagine that ther could be at least four kinds of objections:
> 1. Experimental evidence
>
> Are there any good repeatable experiments that unambiguously
> contradict relativity? That is relativity predicts one thing and the
> experiment yields another. I am not aware of any such results.
> If your theory fully agrees with SR as far as experiments are
> concerned, then which one is better is more a matter of taste. If they
> give different predictions, then what should we do to resolve the
> issue?
>
I have yet to see an anti-relativity argument that cites
*anything* other than a "gedanken" experiment. It's like
arguing with creationists. Proponents of evolution point to
experimental evidence for evolution, while opponents point to
(supposed) problems with that evidence - NOT to evidence for
creation, since such evidence would undermine the imporance
of "faith".
In extreme cases, people have said that
any experimental evidence for SR *must* be wrong, because it
contradicts their gedanken experiments. If that isn't
faith, I don't know what is. It certainly isn't science.
> 2. Relativity is overly complicated mathematically.
>
> This is , naturally, a matter of opinion. Laws of nature are what they
> are, our aestetical concerns are none of its business. If they are
> indeed complex, so be it.
>
SR depends on algebra, linear algebra and (if you get into deriving
kinematics) a *tiny* bit of calculus. As physics goes, it's one of
the least mathematically complicated theories.
True, GR gets a little more complicated.
> In any case I'd not really call things like aether mechanics all that
> much easier. Maxwell equations (2 of them) in relativistic form are
> certainly prettier than in their classic form (4 equations)
>
Slight nit-pick here. The "classic" form of Maxwell's equation
is perfectly Lorentz invariant. The covariant form, while
more elegant, is mathematically equivalent.
> 3. Relativity is counter-intuitive.
> That I think is only to be expected. We are dealing here with things
> that are far removed from our everyday experiences. In our livs we
> rarely see objects moving with velocities close to the speed of light.
> In fact it's quite amazing that we could figure it at all.
> On other hand, the assumptions that go into the foundations of
> relativity seem (to me) to be quite natural. The postulate that
> natural laws should look the same for all inertial observers is almost
> a tautology - they are laws after all. The postulate about the
> constancy of the speed of light - well, this one is less obvious.
> However it seems to be very well verified experimentally.
> If we assume these two things then the rest of the theory more or less
> follows. So where do you think lies the problem? Why do you think the
> assumptions that go into the foundations of your theory are more
> natural?
>
This is a very good point. Since Lorentz
transformation and Galilean transformations are totally equivalent
in out day-to-day life, personal experience is of very little
value in evuating SR for most people, with the exception of
people who work in that regime.
I think part of the problem is the whimsical nature of gedanken
experiments. Everyone knows that trains don't go at .9c. While
things like that are a useful teaching tool, I think educators
should quickly move on to things like particle decay, etc, and
focus on experimental evidence.
> 4. Relativists.
> In other words, it's the supporters of Einstein and Co. who bother
> you. Well, that's more of a sociological problem, rather than
> physical. Is there anything wrong with the physics itself?
>
This is, of course, the MAJOR motivation, next to which all others
pale. You can judge this by how many posts essentially start out
with the goal of "proving Einstein wrong", rather than as a
reaction to any actual problem with the theory.
I think the most amusing thing is to identify one of the most
radical, revolutionary ideas of all time with the "establishment".
> Are there any other sort of objections?
>
No.
> I want to add that I'd mainly like to hear from the anti-relativist
> camp. I believe I know what do the relativists think :)
>
You might also want to check out the following article
http://www.salon.com/people/feature/2000/07/06/einstein/index.html
which has some insight into these "movements"
-Eric
> best,
> Punk Floyd
Stephen Speicher
> "punk floyd" <punk...@rambler.ru> wrote in message
> news:6168dc4a.01092...@posting.google.com...
>
> > 4. Relativists. In other words, it's the supporters of
> > Einstein and Co. who bother you. [snip]
> >
> Well, that's certainly a part of the problem: the idea that if
> you disagree with the theory, then you either don't understand
> it, or you are a complete moron, or you trying to outsmart the
> venerable Albert Einstein.
If your premise were correct, how do you account for the
(generally) high level of respect accorded to someone like Ilja
Schmeltzer here on this group? Ilja most certainly stands apart
from the standard theories, having developed his own which
incorporates an ether as a fundmental premise. However, his
disagreements with the standard theory are certainly not
characterized as evidence of him being ignorant, nor is he
referred to as a moron, nor is he thought of as trying to
"outsmart the venerable Albert Einstein."
The fact of the matter is, though most standard relativists
consider Ilja to be mistaken, Ilja is _not_ ignorant of the
standard theory, nor is he a 'moron," nor is he pretentious by
trying to "outsmart the venerable Albert Einstein." The truth is,
most of the anti-relativists here _are_ ignorant, many _do_ act
and think like morons, and many are pretentious fools trying to
"outsmart the venerable Albert Einstein."
> But I think most antirelativists have learnt to ignore such
> attitudes, so I don't think this is a big deal.
>
Translation: Many of the anti-relativists are impervious to
reason and fact, and therefore ignore the valid criticism they
are offerred.
Stephen
s...@compbio.caltech.edu
Welcome to California. Bring your own batteries.
Printed using 100% recycled electrons.
--------------------------------------------------------
Androcles
>
> This is a question to the posters that feel that special relativity
> theory is not correct and has to be abandoned in favour of ,say,
> aether theories or some other hypothesis. I am not really depating
> validity or invalidity of these, it's something that really has to be
> examined on a case-by-case basis. What I am wondering about is what
> exactly you think is wrong with Special Relativity?
>
> I imagine that ther could be at least four kinds of objections:
> 1. Experimental evidence
>
> Are there any good repeatable experiments that unambiguously
> contradict relativity? That is relativity predicts one thing and the
> experiment yields another. I am not aware of any such results.
> If your theory fully agrees with SR as far as experiments are
> concerned, then which one is better is more a matter of taste. If they
> give different predictions, then what should we do to resolve the
> issue?
>
> 2. Relativity is overly complicated mathematically.
>
> This is , naturally, a matter of opinion. Laws of nature are what they
> are, our aestetical concerns are none of its business. If they are
> indeed complex, so be it.
>
> In any case I'd not really call things like aether mechanics all that
> much easier. Maxwell equations (2 of them) in relativistic form are
> certainly prettier than in their classic form (4 equations)
See http://members.home.net/androcles/fumble2
> 3. Relativity is counter-intuitive.
> That I think is only to be expected. We are dealing here with things
> that are far removed from our everyday experiences. In our livs we
> rarely see objects moving with velocities close to the speed of light.
> In fact it's quite amazing that we could figure it at all.
> On other hand, the assumptions that go into the foundations of
> relativity seem (to me) to be quite natural. The postulate that
> natural laws should look the same for all inertial observers is almost
> a tautology - they are laws after all. The postulate about the
> constancy of the speed of light - well, this one is less obvious.
> However it seems to be very well verified experimentally.
> If we assume these two things then the rest of the theory more or less
> follows. So where do you think lies the problem? Why do you think the
> assumptions that go into the foundations of your theory are more
> natural?
There are two opposing intuitions. One is that we believe what we see
(subjective) and the other is that we have learned velocities add
(objective).
Relativists are subjective.
>
> 4. Relativists.
> In other words, it's the supporters of Einstein and Co. who bother
> you. Well, that's more of a sociological problem, rather than
> physical. Is there anything wrong with the physics itself?
>
Yes. Science is the observation, investigation and explanation of the
phenomena in Nature. Relativity is "Let's see if we can make Nature fit our
theory, and ignore anything that doesn't work". Relativity is a religion.
The scientist doesn't deny empirical data, but he does put a different
interpretation on it to that of the relativist.
For example, one of the "proofs" that light speed is source independent is
the evidence from double stars. However, this evidence can be interpreted
with c+v.. download http://members.home.net/androcles/Copernicus.exe
> Are there any other sort of objections?
Yes. Relativity is halting the progress of science, particularly astronomy
and cosmology.
Androcles
"> This is a question to the posters that feel that special relativity
> > theory is not correct "
Eric Prebys <pre...@fnal.gov> wrote in message
news:3BB09B7F...@fnal.gov...
Glird
punk...@rambler.ru (punk floyd) writes:
>I imagine that there could be at least four kinds of objections:
>1. Experimental evidence
> Are there any good repeatable experiments that unambiguously
>contradict relativity?
>
In that Special Rrelativity is a different physical-theory than LET,
but both have the very same mathematical equations, the fact that
our experiments fit the predictions of the equations neither proves
nor disproves Relativity.
>Are there any other sort of objections?
>
Yes.
1. That the equations rest on and impose the physical length
and clock-rate changes which the relativists claim don't happen.
2. That the relativists avoid such meaningful arguments by myriad
semantic subterfuges.
Examples: Faced with the absurdity of their old claim that
the quantity of matter in an object (its "mass") depends on
the states of motion of various observers, the relativists fairly recently
changed their collective language rather than admit that their theory
had been as false as the anti-relativists previously proclaimed.
Faced with insurmountable mathematical objections to the concepts
set forth in the germinal papers of Einstein and Minkowski, some relativistics
recently announced that newcomers should avoid studying those papers lest
they be "misled" and should instead study the (absurd) spacetime books;
such as the one by their new gurus, Taylor and Wheeler.
glird
Patrick Reany
ade a ade wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > 2. Relativity is overly complicated mathematically.
> >
> > This is , naturally, a matter of opinion. [snip]
> >
> Quite right. I think many (if not most) relativists and antirelativists
> would agree on this, so let's move on.
Let's not move so quickly. The primary ether competitor to SR
on this NG is LET, which is just as complicated mathematically.
Besides, I think that Newtonian physics and Lagrangian and
Hamiltonian formalisms are also overly mathematical. Hell, all
of physics is too damn mathematical. ;-) That's why I changed
my major to mathematics.
> [snip]
>
> > Are there any other sort of objections?
> >
> This, I think, is the million dollar question. Einstein (IIRC) was motivated
> more by epistemological considerations than by a desire to overthrow Newton.
In fact quite contrary to overthrowing Newton, Einstein wanted science
to get back to the anti-absolute velocity program of research that
Newton enjoyed but that the ether theories were destroying.
> Today, some people are motivated by similar considerations (even though this
> has now become sooo unfashionable) rather than by a desire to overthrow
> Einstein. The question, really, is not whether relativity is right or wrong,
> but whether there are other ways of looking at the world which are more
> intuitive and yet (this is very important) are no less useful or productive
> than relativity.
There are potentially an infinite number of research programs that
can be chosen to investigate the physical world. Einstein and his
followers chose a program in SR which disallowed the modeling of any
physical thing for the purpose of using it to assign "absolute velocities"
in any way, shape, or form. This is perfectly allowable and it makes
heavy enough constraints on physical theories to give them focus.
What Einstein found as a replacement to absolute velocity on some
ghostly ether was an equivalent DESCRIPTION in terms of Lorentz
covariant laws of physics -- that is to say, ALL the laws of physics.
> To say that such ways are not existent might be forgiven,
> but to say that they cannot possibly exist (unless they reduce to relativity
> in some limit) is, I think, nuts.
It is indeed nuts. Please tell us one relativist that has made such
a claim. A direct quote would be useful to back it up.
> Relativists will of course think the exact
> opposite. So you see, relativists and antirelativists are nuts of different
> kinds :-).
Neither are nuts. Please stop using such silly inflammatory
rhetoric. Physical theories are free creations of the human mind.
> PS: I don't know if I'm an antirelativist, but I'm certainly not a
> relativist.
>
> ade a. ade
>
Then you are certainly an antirelativist. One either allows or
disallows the use of an absolute space to determine absolute
velocities or one does not. There really is no in between
on this.
Patrick
Patrick Reany
punk floyd wrote:
> [snip]
>
> 3. Relativity is counter-intuitive.
> That I think is only to be expected. We are dealing here with things
> that are far removed from our everyday experiences. In our livs we
> rarely see objects moving with velocities close to the speed of light.
> In fact it's quite amazing that we could figure it at all.
SR is counter-intuitive. But it works and I like its philosophy of
how to formulate physics theories.
> On other hand, the assumptions that go into the foundations of
> relativity seem (to me) to be quite natural. The postulate that
> natural laws should look the same for all inertial observers is almost
> a tautology - they are laws after all.
True. The P of R as originally stated was part of the implicit
definition of what a physical law is in SR. Very good!
> The postulate about the
> constancy of the speed of light - well, this one is less obvious.
But experiment supports it anyway.
> However it seems to be very well verified experimentally.
> If we assume these two things then the rest of the theory more or less
> follows. So where do you think lies the problem? Why do you think the
> assumptions that go into the foundations of your theory are more
> natural?
Antirelativists suffer from a form of cosmic vertigo. They need the
mental crutch of having a solid, fixed foundation for space or they
get dizzy. ;-)
Patrick
http://www.ajnpx.com/html/Relativity.html
punk floyd
> punk floyd <punk...@rambler.ru> wrote:
> : This is a question to the posters that feel that special relativity
> : theory is not correct and has to be abandoned in favour of ,say,
> : aether theories or some other hypothesis. I am not really depating
> : validity or invalidity of these, it's something that really has to be
> : examined on a case-by-case basis. What I am wondering about is what
> : exactly you think is wrong with Special Relativity?
>
> Well, punk (used only as your posted name, and not
> a derogatory pronoun), you obviously know about google,
> and surely you know about http://groups.google.com
> so you could read both the legitimate objections and
> the mistaken delusions posted here since the group formed.
>
> Instead, you request more of the same nonsense.
Ok, I'll explain myself a bit.
The reason I have asked this question is that most anti-relativist
expositions I encounter mostly talk about the alternative theories
themselves, not about what was wrong with SR in the first place. I
mean there must be *some* reason(s) why so many people decide to spend
so much effort on anti-relativistic theories. I want to know what is
it.
Another, more broad goal, is to find out just why it is relativity
that attracts so much disagreement. Naturally, all subjects have their
dissenters, but it seems to me that relativity has a disporportionate
number of them. I am quite curious about the cause of this phenomenon.
It is physics itself? Is it culture? Or maybe it's even the way
relativity is usually taught in schools?
Best,
punk floyd
Martin Hogbin
"Androcles" <Androcles...@home.com> wrote in message news:Z_2s7.47785$kK3.1...@news1.rdc1.fl.home.com....> >
> > Are there any good repeatable experiments that unambiguously
> > contradict relativity? That is relativity predicts one thing and the
> > experiment yields another. I am not aware of any such results.
> Moving clocks run faster, not slower ... As in the GPS system.
>
Which of these two irrefutable facts are you disagreeing with?
1) Relativity (SR and GR) were used by the designers of the GPS
system.
2) The system works in exactly the way its designers intended.
Martin Hogbin
Martin Hogbin
>
> This is a question to the posters that feel that special relativity
> theory is not correct and has to be abandoned in favour of ,say,
> aether theories or some other hypothesis. I am not really depating
> validity or invalidity of these, it's something that really has to be
> examined on a case-by-case basis. What I am wondering about is what
> exactly you think is wrong with Special Relativity?
>
> I imagine that ther could be at least four kinds of objections:
> 1. Experimental evidence
<snip>
> 2. Relativity is overly complicated mathematically.
<snip>
> 3. Relativity is counter-intuitive.
<snip>
In my experience this is the basis of most objections to SR, in
particular, the fact that SR messes around with time is too much
for some people to take.
I am happy with Einstein's statement that time is what a clock
measures, but some people 'know' that time is universal. Once
this conviction is firmly established, the only way out is to reject
SR.
> 4. Relativists.
<snip>
I do not think that this is the prime motivation for most of the
objectors to SR but they do become irritated by the fact that
all the physicists agree with one another. Their answer to this
is to quite absurdly liken SR to a religion.
Martin Hogbin
Eric Prebys
Androcles wrote:
>
> Obviously you cant read, Eric..
Perhaps not, but I do know where apostrophes go.
> "> This is a question to the posters that feel that special relativity
> > > theory is not correct "
>
Call it payback for all the times that people come here with legitimate
questions, only to be set upon by a pack of mathematically illiterate
nutcases.
Newsgroups are an open forum. Whatever people ask for, they have
to live with what they get.
-Eric
ade a ade
news:Pine.LNX.4.10.101092...@photon.compbio.caltech.edu...
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2001, ade a ade wrote:
>
> > "punk floyd" <punk...@rambler.ru> wrote in message
> > news:6168dc4a.01092...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > > 4. Relativists. In other words, it's the supporters of
> > > Einstein and Co. who bother you. [snip]
> > >
> > Well, that's certainly a part of the problem: the idea that if
> > you disagree with the theory, then you either don't understand
> > it, or you are a complete moron, or you trying to outsmart the
> > venerable Albert Einstein.
>
> If your premise were correct, how do you account for the
> (generally) high level of respect accorded to someone like Ilja
> Schmeltzer here on this group? Ilja most certainly stands apart
> from the standard theories, having developed his own which
> incorporates an ether as a fundmental premise. However, his
> disagreements with the standard theory are certainly not
> characterized as evidence of him being ignorant, nor is he
> referred to as a moron, nor is he thought of as trying to
> "outsmart the venerable Albert Einstein."
>
every relativist here or elsewhere entertain this idea. Unfortunately, among
both the opponents and the proponents of relativity, there are those who
have no real understanding of the theory. But it is pretty easy to tell when
an opponent of relativity doesn't understand relativity. The problem, in my
view, is getting a proponent of relativity to realize that he or she does
not understand a competing theory.
>[snip]
> > But I think most antirelativists have learnt to ignore such
> > attitudes, so I don't think this is a big deal.
> >
> Translation: Many of the anti-relativists are impervious to
> reason and fact, and therefore ignore the valid criticism they
> are offerred.
>
Again, this is true to a great extent. As I stated above, I think it is true
to a comparable extent in the other direction. But, of course, in either
direction, it is not true for everyone.
Joe Fischer
: You most certainly have a point. Perhaps I should have made clearer that not
: every relativist here or elsewhere entertain this idea. Unfortunately, among
: both the opponents and the proponents of relativity, there are those who
: have no real understanding of the theory. But it is pretty easy to tell when
: an opponent of relativity doesn't understand relativity. The problem, in my
: view, is getting a proponent of relativity to realize that he or she does
: not understand a competing theory.
The point is, there is no competing theory,
not in the labs, not in the classroom, not in nature.
The fact that a bunch of individuals imagine
they know something about physics and like the idea
of a medium exerting forces does not mean whatever
they imagine can be called a "competing theory".
Joe Fischer
--
3
ade a ade
news:3BB0C11F...@asu.edu...
>
> ade a ade wrote:
>
> > [snip]
> >
> > > 2. Relativity is overly complicated mathematically.
> > >
> > > This is , naturally, a matter of opinion. [snip]
> > >
> > Quite right. I think many (if not most) relativists and antirelativists
> > would agree on this, so let's move on.
>
> Let's not move so quickly. The primary ether competitor to SR
> on this NG is LET, which is just as complicated mathematically.
>
matter of opinion.
> Besides, I think that Newtonian physics and Lagrangian and
> Hamiltonian formalisms are also overly mathematical. Hell, all
> of physics is too damn mathematical. ;-) That's why I changed
> my major to mathematics.
>
I certainly don't have a problem with physics being mathematical. The more
mathematical it is, the more abstract it is; and the more abstract it is,
the easier it is to understand --- as long as it does not become so abstract
as to become pure mathematics instead of physics.
Having said that, I should add also that to the extent that mathematics is
only a language, it is pretty easy to say sensible as well as senseless
things with it, just like with every other language. If only sensible things
could be said in mathematics, I think the language would loose a huge part
of its expressive power, and physics would become trivially easy (because
it'd be easy to reach agreement on any given subject - just do the
calculation, you can't be wrong).
> > [snip]
> >
> > > Are there any other sort of objections?
> > >
> > This, I think, is the million dollar question. Einstein (IIRC) was
motivated
> > more by epistemological considerations than by a desire to overthrow
Newton.
>
> In fact quite contrary to overthrowing Newton, Einstein wanted science
> to get back to the anti-absolute velocity program of research that
> Newton enjoyed but that the ether theories were destroying.
>
I think we are saying the same thing here. Read your comments and read mine
again.
> > Today, some people are motivated by similar considerations (even though
this
> > has now become sooo unfashionable) rather than by a desire to overthrow
> > Einstein. The question, really, is not whether relativity is right or
wrong,
> > but whether there are other ways of looking at the world which are more
> > intuitive and yet (this is very important) are no less useful or
productive
> > than relativity.
>
> There are potentially an infinite number of research programs that
> can be chosen to investigate the physical world. Einstein and his
> followers chose a program in SR which disallowed the modeling of any
> physical thing for the purpose of using it to assign "absolute velocities"
> in any way, shape, or form. This is perfectly allowable and it makes
> heavy enough constraints on physical theories to give them focus.
> What Einstein found as a replacement to absolute velocity on some
> ghostly ether was an equivalent DESCRIPTION in terms of Lorentz
> covariant laws of physics -- that is to say, ALL the laws of physics.
>
I wouldn't want to argue any of these comments until I know whether or not
we mean the same thing by "absolute" space, velocity, etc. My understanding
of these things, an understanding to which I have only recently come to, is
likely to be very different from yours. If you want a discussion on this
point, I'd be glad to oblige you --- but we must first clarify our
terminology.
> > To say that such ways are not existent might be forgiven,
> > but to say that they cannot possibly exist (unless they reduce to
relativity
> > in some limit) is, I think, nuts.
>
> It is indeed nuts. Please tell us one relativist that has made such
> a claim. A direct quote would be useful to back it up.
>
I think a search through the Google archives will turn up some quotes. I'm
pretty sure I've come across them, so if you really must have them, then by
all means do the search. If none turns up and it'll make you happy, I'll
retract my statement.
> > Relativists will of course think the exact
> > opposite. So you see, relativists and antirelativists are nuts of
different
> > kinds :-).
>
> Neither are nuts. Please stop using such silly inflammatory
> rhetoric. Physical theories are free creations of the human mind.
>
My apologies for the inflammatory comment. It was meant to be an obvious
joke, but I think you are right nonetheless. As to physical theories being
free creations of the human mind, no one can possibly agree more with you
than I do.
> > PS: I don't know if I'm an antirelativist, but I'm certainly not a
> > relativist.
> >
>
> Then you are certainly an antirelativist. One either allows or
> disallows the use of an absolute space to determine absolute
> velocities or one does not. There really is no in between
> on this.
>
Again, all this depends on the meaning of "absolute". When you really
understand this word in the sense that Newton used it, then I think we'd be
ready for an interesting discussion. Until that time, any discussion of this
concept by both of us will almost certainly lead nowhere.
ade a ade
I stand corrected. Maybe I should have said "alternative" or "noncompeting"
instead of "competing". Frankly, I don't think this is worth an argument,
but if you tell me your preferred word for describing these theories, I'll
try to use it next time. Truce ?
Patrick Reany
ade a ade wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > Besides, I think that Newtonian physics and Lagrangian and
> > Hamiltonian formalisms are also overly mathematical. Hell, all
> > of physics is too damn mathematical. ;-) That's why I changed
> > my major to mathematics.
> >
> I certainly don't have a problem with physics being mathematical. The more
> mathematical it is, the more abstract it is; and the more abstract it is,
> the easier it is to understand --- as long as it does not become so abstract
> as to become pure mathematics instead of physics.
Are you saying that this is already a problem, especially with SR?
> [snip]
>
> > > PS: I don't know if I'm an antirelativist, but I'm certainly not a
> > > relativist.
> > >
> >
> > Then you are certainly an antirelativist. One either allows or
> > disallows the use of an absolute space to determine absolute
> > velocities or one does not. There really is no in between
> > on this.
> >
> Again, all this depends on the meaning of "absolute". When you really
> understand this word in the sense that Newton used it, then I think we'd be
> ready for an interesting discussion. Until that time, any discussion of this
> concept by both of us will almost certainly lead nowhere.
>
The meaning of "absolute" space has many aspects. We'll forgo any
connection to absolute acceleration and just stick to absolute rest space,
which amounts to absolute velocities as least.
Einstein treated this "absolute" space as having an interconnection
between a unique frame in which the laws of physics take their simplest
form and the unique frame in which light propagates truly at a speed c,
but in no other frame ("really"). The two concepts don't logically have to be
so connected, but because of the well-known undetectability of any such
space, there is no harm to link them for now. In any case, the relativistic
program of research has prohibitions against using any putative notion
of an absolute rest space. What this means is that SR prohibits the
postulation of any space that is used to assign absolute velocities,
whether this is a formal modeling tactic or if it is meant to correspond
to a "real" thing. It's outlawed either way. It's just part of the modeling
constraints built into SR.
Anyone who feels compelled to postulate the real or formal existence
of some absolute rest space is perfectly free to do so, but NOT
within SR. Einstein objected to having so many things having a
theoretical "real" status, such as the ether, yet are undetectable.
He much preferred to have as a founding principle the constancy
of the measured speed of light in vacuum by inertial observers,
which is manifestly either true or false to within experimental
error.
Patrick
Joe Fischer
:> ade a ade <adequest@-@home.com> wrote:
:> : both the opponents and the proponents of relativity, there are those who
:> : have no real understanding of the theory. But it is pretty easy to tell
:> : when an opponent of relativity doesn't understand relativity.
:> : The problem, in my view, is getting a proponent of relativity to
:> : realize that he or she does not understand a competing theory.
:>
:> The point is, there is no competing theory,
:> not in the labs, not in the classroom, not in nature.
:>
:> The fact that a bunch of individuals imagine
:> they know something about physics and like the idea
:> of a medium exerting forces does not mean whatever
:> they imagine can be called a "competing theory".
:
: I stand corrected. Maybe I should have said "alternative" or "noncompeting"
: instead of "competing". Frankly, I don't think this is worth an argument,
: but if you tell me your preferred word for describing these theories, I'll
: try to use it next time. Truce ?
: ade a. ade
Well, it isn't a war, it's just a discussion or
debate. Actually I would like to know if ether theory
is even discussed anyplace but here.
Prior to Usenet being a public forum, I had never
seen anybody mention ether as such, and only Bill Carnahan
promoted the LeSage type particle theory.
Fidonet was big, and I don't remember seeing ether
theory there, nor on GTnet or RIME.
And I had PCPursuit that allowed me to call any
BBS in the US at no extra charge (data line only).
As far as SR goes, which is very limited, the
math is an alternative, but that doesn't seem very
important, physics can't be all pencil and paper.
Joe Fischer
--
3
Stephen Speicher
I think this last statement of yours to be somewhat disingenuous.
I think you are intelligent enough to be able to quickly rattle
off a dozen names of anti-relativists here for whom having "no
real understanding of the theory" would be a nicety. I strongly
doubt that you would even attempt to do the same for proponents
of relativity. Though there certainly are people who have some
confusions, who amongst the proponents are on the level of a
Winn, a Ryker, a Wilson, a Seto, an Orton, an Eleaticus, etc.?
ade a ade
> ade a ade <adequest@-@home.com> wrote:
> : "Joe Fischer" wrote:
> :> ade a ade <adequest@-@home.com> wrote:
> : I stand corrected. Maybe I should have said "alternative" or
"noncompeting"
> : instead of "competing". Frankly, I don't think this is worth an
argument,
> : but if you tell me your preferred word for describing these theories,
I'll
> : try to use it next time. Truce ?
> : ade a. ade
>
> Well, it isn't a war, it's just a discussion or
> debate. Actually I would like to know if ether theory
> is even discussed anyplace but here.
>
I'm glad we are at peace. Ether theories are not an area of research for me,
so I really don't know the current status of the field. But then, absolute
space and motion were of no interests to me until recently, so I may yet
dabble a little into these theories. At present, however, I have no clue
what's being done with these theories in the real world.
> As far as SR goes, which is very limited, the
> math is an alternative, but that doesn't seem very
> important, physics can't be all pencil and paper.
>
As Confucius would say, "The essence of knowledge is, having it, to apply
it...". Pencil & paper physics isn't that useful or useable, and so I agree
completely with you on that point.
ade a ade
news:Pine.LNX.4.10.101092...@photon.compbio.caltech.edu...
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2001, ade a ade wrote:
>
> > "Stephen Speicher" <s...@compbio.caltech.edu> wrote in message
> >
news:Pine.LNX.4.10.101092...@photon.compbio.caltech.edu...
> > > On Tue, 25 Sep 2001, ade a ade wrote:
> > >
> > You most certainly have a point. Perhaps I should have made clearer that
not
> > every relativist here or elsewhere entertain this idea. Unfortunately,
among
> > both the opponents and the proponents of relativity, there are those who
> > have no real understanding of the theory.
>
> I think this last statement of yours to be somewhat disingenuous.
> I think you are intelligent enough to be able to quickly rattle
> off a dozen names of anti-relativists here for whom having "no
> real understanding of the theory" would be a nicety. I strongly
> doubt that you would even attempt to do the same for proponents
> of relativity. Though there certainly are people who have some
> confusions, who amongst the proponents are on the level of a
> Winn, a Ryker, a Wilson, a Seto, an Orton, an Eleaticus, etc.?
>
If you find my statement disingenuous, I assure you that it wasn't meant to
be. It is against my principles to drag people's names into a discussion
like this, so I hope you'll be content with general comments not directed at
anyone in particular.
There are, in my opinion, four aspects to relativity: the historical, the
philosophical, the mathematical and the physical. Opponents of relativity
tend to be more educated in the first two aspects than in the last two.
Proponents of relativity, however, tend to be a lot more educated in the
last two aspects than in the first two.
As a result, opponents of relativity tend to show ignorance of the
mathematical and the physical aspects of relativity, while proponents of
relativity tend to show ignorance of the historical and the philosophical
aspects of relativity.
Lest I be misuderstood, I should add here that my comments above are gross
generalizations and are most certainly not true for every opponent or
proponent of relativity. Moreover, I could be wildly wrong in my assessment
of the situation, but that is what the situation looks like to me at the
time of writing.
Joe Fischer
: generalizations and are most certainly not true for every opponent or
: proponent of relativity. Moreover, I could be wildly wrong in my assessment
: of the situation, but that is what the situation looks like to me at the
: time of writing.
Then you apparently have not read books like
"Was Einstein Right" by Will, "Dreams of a Final Theory"
by Weinberg, or "An Old Man's Toy" by Anthony Zee.
These books focus on results of experiments,
and almost all of the experiments mentioned are done
with General Relativity, not SR.
I am NOT one of the educated proponents, in
fact, I have a minor contempt for SR, but only because
it doesn't include gravity (which means evey case in
the real world), and because it seems to act like a
magnet to all the egotists that think freshman algebra
is the pinnacle of achievement.
I am interested in any real world observation
and experiment, and any close fit modeling possible,
as the final model has not yet been found.
It is possible that General Relativity will
always be the way the math is done, because the final
model may not even subject itself to mathematics in
the same way General Relativity does, and because
General Relativity will be applicable to the final
theory, whatever it may turn out to be.
But thinking anything "special" will or can
be accomplished by Special Relativity at the present
or in the future only shows a lack of knowledge.
It is this, that makes any other theory in
the same class completely irrelevant and not a total
waste of time.
If you haven't read the above mentioned books,
I suggest you do, whomever you may be.
Joe Fischer
--
3
Patrick Reany
ade a ade wrote:
> [snip]
>
> There are, in my opinion, four aspects to relativity: the historical, the
> philosophical, the mathematical and the physical. Opponents of relativity
> tend to be more educated in the first two aspects than in the last two.
> Proponents of relativity, however, tend to be a lot more educated in the
> last two aspects than in the first two.
I wish you could demonstrated this knowledge of the historical
and philosophical aspects on the opponents's part.
> As a result, opponents of relativity tend to show ignorance of the
> mathematical and the physical aspects of relativity, while proponents of
> relativity tend to show ignorance of the historical and the philosophical
> aspects of relativity.
I agree with your assessment about there being these four aspects
to relativity, but it also applies to all physics as well. I agree with
your assessment that the historical and philosophical (H&P) aspects
of SR are not generally well known to physicists. I know this for a fact
due to my own formal studies in physics in university and from
the fact that I work with physicists and routinely converse with
them and with grad students about physics and physics education.
Just look at any graduate/undergraduate curriculum in physics.
Virtually nothing about the historical and philosophical grounding
to physics or SR in particular. It's just too bad. SR is so successful
that people find this H&P stuff as irrelevant. This is wrong, as
is proved by the massive confusion displayed by the opponents of
SR on this NG. It is NOT good to take for granted what
physicists have argued about for hundreds of years. There are
fundamental psychological and philosophical misconceptions that
people of every generation have to overcome to understand
Newtonian physics correctly. How much more this is true
of relativity and its justifications and ramifications.
I have long complained that the Establishment has not taught
the true nature of science to students. They seem to come
away from their public education believing in miracles -- that
science can determine what it TRUE. They simply CANNOT
accept that physical theories are free creations of the human
mind. They cannot accept that there can be more than one
"right" research program by which to invent physical theories.
They cannot accept that physical theories are inexorably
tainted by anthropomorphic prejudices and arbitrary choices.
However, I disagree with your assessment that the opponents
here are better educated on the H&P aspects of physics,
though the nature of their angst with SR tends to fall into this
area. I have not seen one opponent of SR on this NG in the
many years I've been on it, besides Schmelzer, that knows
even the barest minimum of the philosophy of physics. I
have recommended for years that posters read Einstein and
Infeld's book The Evolution of Physics to get the barest
minimum of knowledge about the H&P aspects of physics,
but not one has ever done so I'll bet. I have also recommended
that they read many of Einstein's essays on the philosophy of
physics. Probably no luck there either. The opponents
of SR have made up their minds prematurely and there is
no reaching them any more. That's their right, but it is a
commitment made in ignorance and I find it inexcusably
detestable on their part.
Patrick
Patrick Reany
Joe Fischer wrote:
> ade a ade <adequest@-@home.com> wrote:
> : Lest I be misuderstood, I should add here that my comments above are gross
> : generalizations and are most certainly not true for every opponent or
> : proponent of relativity. Moreover, I could be wildly wrong in my assessment
> : of the situation, but that is what the situation looks like to me at the
> : time of writing.
>
> Then you apparently have not read books like
> "Was Einstein Right" by Will, "Dreams of a Final Theory"
> by Weinberg, or "An Old Man's Toy" by Anthony Zee.
>
> These books focus on results of experiments,
> and almost all of the experiments mentioned are done
> with General Relativity, not SR.
>
> I am NOT one of the educated proponents, in
> fact, I have a minor contempt for SR, but only because
> it doesn't include gravity (which means evey case in
> the real world),
The real world of physics is one of approximation. SR has
a legitimate place of its own even in light of GR. With SR
Einstein dealt with the issue of absolute velocity. In GR he
dealt with the issue of absolute acceleration, from which
he invented a new theory of gravity. But this theory is
everywhere locally SR like. So we have the first instance
of a theoretical need for SR. And then there is the practical
need for it. Since for most experiments in which SR is
used rather than Newtonian mechanics, the time scales are
so small and the interacting forces so strong as to completely
relegate gravity to the realm of "within experimental error."
> [snip]
>
> But thinking anything "special" will or can
> be accomplished by Special Relativity at the present
> or in the future only shows a lack of knowledge.
I really don't know what you mean by this. Einstein said
that the "specialness" of SR lies in its restriction to inertial
frames of reference. The generalness of GR lies in its
complete generality of choice of reference frame to develop
the laws of physics. Could you explain further?
Patrick
Dirk Van de moortel
They just don't understand it. It demands too much from their
imagination. They find it counter-intuitive.
The fundamental mathematics is easy. So they can have a go at it.
Give them evidence and they reject it.
Give them logic and they reject it.
Give them anything and they reject it.
Attacking quantum physics is a bit tougher because the mathematics
is harder.
Another explanation could be that they are all virulent anti-Semites.
Dirk Vdm
Joe Fischer
: Joe Fischer wrote:
:> ade a ade <adequest@-@home.com> wrote:
:> : Lest I be misuderstood, I should add here that my comments above are gross
:> : generalizations and are most certainly not true for every opponent or
:> : proponent of relativity. Moreover, I could be wildly wrong in my assessment
:> : of the situation, but that is what the situation looks like to me at the
:> : time of writing.
:>
:> Then you apparently have not read books like
:> "Was Einstein Right" by Will, "Dreams of a Final Theory"
:> by Weinberg, or "An Old Man's Toy" by Anthony Zee.
:>
:> These books focus on results of experiments,
:> and almost all of the experiments mentioned are done
:> with General Relativity, not SR.
:>
:> I am NOT one of the educated proponents, in
:> fact, I have a minor contempt for SR, but only because
:> it doesn't include gravity (which means evey case in
:> the real world),
:
: The real world of physics is one of approximation. SR has
: a legitimate place of its own even in light of GR.
Of course, but a gravity man has little use
for it.
: With SR Einstein dealt with the issue of absolute velocity.
Done away with it, I hope.
: In GR he dealt with the issue of absolute acceleration,
That is not completely true when relativity of
motion in it's most basic and revealing nature is used,
acceleration is still a change in velocity, and change
in velocity can occur even without acceleration.
So there is a lot to discuss in this respect,
SR approaches an ideal because it can use reference
frames which can be indexed to any object in inertial
motion in Euclidean space (also acceleration).
GR also approaches an ideal because at the
same time an accelerated lab is postulated to be the
equivalent of a surface lab, freefall is also made
by the same concept to be inertial motion.
What is left to do is make geodesic deviation
also inertial motion, resolving all interactions
attributed to gravity as inertial effects.
I think the core General Relativity contains
the correct concepts to do this, but I don't think
Einstein would have dared to do so in his lifetime,
he changed too much to suit some people as it is.
: from which he invented a new theory of gravity.
A geometric theory, yes, and it is accurate.
: But this theory is everywhere locally SR like.
That is more to facilitate the use of the
mathematical tools rather than being an essential
part of gravity theory.
: So we have the first instance
: of a theoretical need for SR. And then there is the practical
: need for it. Since for most experiments in which SR is
: used rather than Newtonian mechanics, the time scales are
: so small and the interacting forces so strong as to completely
: relegate gravity to the realm of "within experimental error."
It seems to me that SR has been used long
enough that most new experiments that use it are
confined to accelerators and particle labs.
:> [snip]
:>
:> But thinking anything "special" will or can
:> be accomplished by Special Relativity at the present
:> or in the future only shows a lack of knowledge.
:
: I really don't know what you mean by this. Einstein said
: that the "specialness" of SR lies in its restriction to inertial
: frames of reference.
Right, to set the term apart from the full
theory. Actually, relativity of motion and position
applies at all velocities, not just relativistic,
and it may be easy to forget how important relativity is.
But SR has a very restricted area of application.
: The generalness of GR lies in its
: complete generality of choice of reference frame to develop
: the laws of physics. Could you explain further?
Sure, even in view of Minkowski, there still
can exist a concept of "space", but that space is not
Euclidean, and it is not identifiable by any attribute,
and no reference point in it can be assigned with any
meaning other than to other objects.
But the "space" exists, even if only the volume
of total emptiness that matter moves in and extends into.
And GR is needed to properly treat problems
involving the complex nature of this "space", which
is very complex even without the complication of
the concept of mapping using space-time.
What I mean is, if point particle markers
could be placed "really stationary" in this "space",
real material objects might be moving in directions
and speeds that are grossly different than perceived.
SR is no more capable in this regard than
the luminiferous ether was, or any other stationary
rigid space theory.
This is what is most aggravating about the
ether argument, if SR is "special" because it has
restricted application and capability, then any
ether theory is forthwith relegated to past history.
Yet people are saying some ether theory
is "special" because it can do everything that
SR can. A baby a certain age can crawl, and
all adults can crawl, but no adult would consider
it "really special" to be able to only crawl.
Joe Fischer
--
3
Stephen Speicher
The names are not important -- I could care less about them. The
point is that -- and I would be greatly surprised if you _really_
did not see this clearly yourself (hence my use of disingenuous)
-- this group is populated with a large number of
anti-relativists who are outright quacks and loonies, who are not
only ignorant of relativity, but lack thinking skills of a basic
order. I cannot think of any proponents of relativity on this
group who even remotely approach the level of inanity displayed
by these kooks.
> There are, in my opinion, four aspects to relativity: the historical, the
> philosophical, the mathematical and the physical. Opponents of relativity
> tend to be more educated in the first two aspects than in the last two.
> Proponents of relativity, however, tend to be a lot more educated in the
> last two aspects than in the first two.
> As a result, opponents of relativity tend to show ignorance of the
> mathematical and the physical aspects of relativity, while proponents of
> relativity tend to show ignorance of the historical and the philosophical
> aspects of relativity.
>
It is my observation that many of the anti-relativists here who
appeal to history, frequently distort the objective facts in
order to lend support to their views. As to philosophy, I have
found it rather rare for the anti-relativists here to express a
philosophical view worthy of consideration. Platitudes do no a
philosophy make.
> Lest I be misuderstood, I should add here that my comments above are gross
> generalizations and are most certainly not true for every opponent or
> proponent of relativity. Moreover, I could be wildly wrong in my assessment
> of the situation, but that is what the situation looks like to me at the
> time of writing.
>
Well, I do hope you keep looking.
Patrick Reany
Joe Fischer wrote:
> [snip]
>
> : With SR Einstein dealt with the issue of absolute velocity.
>
> Done away with it, I hope.
>
> : In GR he dealt with the issue of absolute acceleration,
>
> That is not completely true when relativity of
> motion in it's most basic and revealing nature is used,
> acceleration is still a change in velocity, and change
> in velocity can occur even without acceleration.
Yes, it is still a change in velocity with respect to some reference frame,
but there is not in GR any need to ever think that one needs some
invisible natural absolute frame of reference. Einstein says:
When by the special theory of relativity I had arrived
at the equivalence of all so-called inertial systems for
the formulation of natural laws (1905), the question
whether there was not a further equivalence of coordinate
systems followed naturally, to say the least of it. To put it
another way, if only a relative meaning can be attached to
the concept of velocity, ought we nevertheless to
persevere as treating acceleration as an absolute concept?
(Albert Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, Taubert, p48
also published in Ideas and Opinions)
Einstein likened the Minkowski spacetime manifold as a
flat, rigid generalization of the Lorentz ether. This is why
acceleration could be left as absolute in SR. But in GR
spacetime is not flat in any reference frame, so it seems
that this foils any reasonable attempt to assign any specific
"absolute acceleration'" to some object therein. And if
the concept cannot be made free of ambiguity it is meaningless.
> [snip]
> :
Patrick
eleaticus
Why I began inspecting Relativity from my signature viewpoint
"anything and everything that requires or encourages systemaic
examination of logic and premises" I was in the midst of an 18 month
period in which I wore an Albert Einstein picture button in plain view
everytime I left the house- right under the MLK Jr button.
There were two goals I set for myself.
One was to discover the facts as to whether Michelson-Morley did
indeed contradict velocity addition Galilean, although that wasn't
a descriptor I would have used then. It didn't seem likely.
When I posted the basic c+v model that fit MMX and KTX only one
Relativist managed to acknowledge that it fit, and all other positions
taken were completely non-responsive to the basic concept: that of
necessity in a Galilean c+v universe light speed would be c wrt not
to just an emitter but also reflecting and refracting bodies, and the
instant light of any velocity hit the apparatus, the v in the c+v involved
throughout the experiment would necessarily be that of the device,
not the light source.
I underwent a number of attacks, all just denying the validity of
the conclusion and asserting they knew better, and not one assailing
the math or the thesis.
Persons - yes, True Believer cretins - who do such a thing are
... well, cretins.
Strike One against Relativists. Like any other True Believers they
cannot entertain any thought process that contradicts their
belief system.
The semi-support came early, and then not a single Relativist saw
fit to suggest that the TB cretins should actually respond to what
was said rather than just ventilate.
Big Strike against Relativists.
The second goal I set was largely based on my extensive work both
in the data quality types that the social sciences (pardon!) must
endure and deal with, and with transformations.
Let me list them:
Nominal - can be a number, but the apparent size of the number
implies nothing about quantity or size.. Social Security numbers
would be an example, but you could roll dice or pick numbers out
of a hat to assign to however many cases or subjects you have.
Ordinal - provide an ordering on some dimension: line up tallest
in front to shortes in back, now count off, an the difference in the
dimension in question represented by the difference between #2
and #3 is not even remotely to be considered the same as between
#5 and #6.
Interval - The difference between, say, 2 and 3 is indeed the same
as between 10 and 11, but the data cannot properly be used in
multiplications becasue there is no true zero on the scale.
Ratio - same as interval but with a true zero so that all math operations
are valid.
That second goal was to determine how it could be that ANYTHING
could be non-invariant under a correct Galilean transformation.
I'd been handling essentially the same measurement tranformation
problem for decades.
Any x' = f(x-a) is the very definition of inferior interval scale data,
given that x is ratio scale.
And the solution had always been obvious and essential.
And when I presented it I was hit with a shit storm for two years
attacking it on a bewildering array of idiocies from supposed
'practicing professional physicists' which I have come to
abbreviate as PPs, for obvious reasons.
I have since discovered in Max Born's popularization that there
has been at least one Relativist that isn't trained in idiocy and
knew how to conduct a proper transform.
And not one Relativist has yet said one word in favor of the
obvious, the technique Born used and I had presented, the
obvious and only technique guaranteed to show the invariance in
invariant equations under the Galilean tranforms.
And, having just a week or so come to the obvious conclusion that
not one of you knows how to demonstrate on coordinate form equations
the well known fact that the laws of mechanics are invariant under
the Galilean transforms, I have now on several occasions pointed
out that y'all don't know how, and that if you did you wouldn't be
saying such stupid things as "Maxwell is not invariant under the
galilean tranforms".
I asked that some Relativist demonstrate the galilean invariance of
an equation he knows to be invariant,when the equation is expressed
in coordinate form. No one apparently can do it of the various TBSs
knownto have read one of the appeals.
And every one of the shit storm (the qualifier describes the source of
the storm] arguments has proved to be a clue to something else
really stupid in the basis and lore of Relativity.
(a) All derivations of SR contain at least one horrible idiocy;
(b) any relative velocity effect must lead to logical contradiction (oh,
sure, the reduction to the absurd technique has always said there must be
at least two sources of a contradiction, right?];
(c) the basic math of SR calls for contraction, not dilation;
(d) the pairing of dilation and contraction violates the necessity that the
two systems see the same relative velocity;
(e) the MMX does not contradict c+v;
(f) Maxwell and every other equation is invariant under the Galilean
transforms.
(g) the SR space,time transforms are never applied to Maxwell (the units
of measurement of the transformed quantities are volts/cm and websers/m^2,
not spatial units, and certainly not time units;
(h) if at gamma=2 a moving clock'srate is half that of a stationary clock,
the distance it covers is twice what the stationary system sees, for a net
no-show effect. X'=gX.
And there have been only a total of three newsgroup-prominent folk
who shown even an iota of intellectual honesty.
So, show that you - anyone - knows how to demonstrate the
galilean invariance of, well, I'll pick one and put it into coordinate
form since most of you apparently don't know how.
The area of a square is A = s^2. In coordinate form that is:
A = x^2.
Under the galilean transform that is obviously invariant. The area of
a square is equal to the square of one side,cone corner being at the
origin and both sides parallel to an axis.
Or, perhaps you'd prefer something that didn't have a squared term:
the area of a rectangle,same situation as above:
A = xy.
Oh, and not one Relativist will be able to do it,apparently, and will have
to declare the equations non-invariant.
Anyone that does know how has the onus of having to ask himself
how he/she could have sat by while so many shits dedicated themselves
to being shits about it, and how their discipline fails to apply the obvious
techniques to tMaxwell.
Oh. I didn't start the vulgar nomenclature wielding until I had been
shat on many times.
But to summarize: the Relativist denizens of this ng have exhibited
every characteristic of True Believer cultists. They will savagely attack
any contradiction to their belief system, and will not even for a moment
actually think about anything being said.
To actually imagine that such people can be trusted in any intellectual
matter is to exhibit insanity.
Eleaticus
>Hello,
>
>This is a question to the posters that feel that special relativity
>theory is not correct and has to be abandoned in favour of ,say,
>aether theories or some other hypothesis. I am not really depating
>validity or invalidity of these, it's something that really has to be
>examined on a case-by-case basis. What I am wondering about is what
>exactly you think is wrong with Special Relativity?
>
>I imagine that ther could be at least four kinds of objections:
>1. Experimental evidence
>
>Are there any good repeatable experiments that unambiguously
>contradict relativity? That is relativity predicts one thing and the
>experiment yields another. I am not aware of any such results.
>If your theory fully agrees with SR as far as experiments are
>concerned, then which one is better is more a matter of taste. If they
>give different predictions, then what should we do to resolve the
>issue?
>
>2. Relativity is overly complicated mathematically.
>
>This is , naturally, a matter of opinion. Laws of nature are what they
>are, our aestetical concerns are none of its business. If they are
>indeed complex, so be it.
>
>In any case I'd not really call things like aether mechanics all that
>much easier. Maxwell equations (2 of them) in relativistic form are
>certainly prettier than in their classic form (4 equations)
>
>3. Relativity is counter-intuitive.
>That I think is only to be expected. We are dealing here with things
>that are far removed from our everyday experiences. In our livs we
>rarely see objects moving with velocities close to the speed of light.
>In fact it's quite amazing that we could figure it at all.
>On other hand, the assumptions that go into the foundations of
>relativity seem (to me) to be quite natural. The postulate that
>natural laws should look the same for all inertial observers is almost
>a tautology - they are laws after all. The postulate about the
>constancy of the speed of light - well, this one is less obvious.
>However it seems to be very well verified experimentally.
>If we assume these two things then the rest of the theory more or less
>follows. So where do you think lies the problem? Why do you think the
>assumptions that go into the foundations of your theory are more
>natural?
>
>4. Relativists.
>In other words, it's the supporters of Einstein and Co. who bother
>you. Well, that's more of a sociological problem, rather than
>physical. Is there anything wrong with the physics itself?
>
>Are there any other sort of objections?
>
>I want to add that I'd mainly like to hear from the anti-relativist
>camp. I believe I know what do the relativists think :)
>
>best,
>Punk Floyd
"Anything and everything that requires or encourages
systematic examination of premises and logic."
eleaticus
<dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>They just don't understand it. It demands too much from their
>imagination. They find it counter-intuitive.
>The fundamental mathematics is easy. So they can have a go at it.
>
>Give them evidence and they reject it.
Evidence is evidence of fact, not your model of it.
>Give them logic and they reject it.
Supose you give me some simple logic:
A. Show, using the same process used to demonstrate Maxwell's
non-invariance under the Galilean transformations, that the area of a square
is invariant. That is, show A=s^2 posed as A=x^2 is invariant in form and
value.
B. Show how transforming some function Bx = n-webers/m^2 is either
a space (x'=g(x-vt)or time (t'=g(t-(vx)/(cc)) transform.
>Give them anything and they reject it.
Ah, the poor little True Believer.
Eleaticus
>
>Attacking quantum physics is a bit tougher because the mathematics
>is harder.
>
>Another explanation could be that they are all virulent anti-Semites.
>
>Dirk Vdm
>
>
"Anything and everything that requires or encourages
eleaticus
>There are, in my opinion, four aspects to relativity: the historical, the
>philosophical, the mathematical and the physical. Opponents of relativity
>tend to be more educated in the first two aspects than in the last two.
>Proponents of relativity, however, tend to be a lot more educated in the
>last two aspects than in the first two.
>As a result, opponents of relativity tend to show ignorance of the
>mathematical and the physical aspects of relativity, while proponents of
>relativity tend to show ignorance of the historical and the philosophical
>aspects of relativity.
The True Believers are abysmmally ignorant of their own mathematical basis.
For instance,what are the odds against a proponent being able to show,
using the transform equations, that v is the same for both systems?
Zilch.
If indeed T'=T/g and X'=gX (or vice versa] with the distances and times in
both cases being transit times and distances, then it must be true that
v=x/t and that v=X'/T'.
x/t = X'/T' = gX/(T/g) = ggX/T
and v = ggv.
By reduction to the absurd, there cannot be contraction of the one element
of space and time, and dilation of the other.
That the True Believer cretin to whom you respond is not able to answer
any of my positions except to deride, is not surprising.
How about you?
Eleaticus
>
>Lest I be misuderstood, I should add here that my comments above are gross
>generalizations and are most certainly not true for every opponent or
>proponent of relativity. Moreover, I could be wildly wrong in my assessment
>of the situation, but that is what the situation looks like to me at the
>time of writing.
>
>ade a. ade
>
>--
>First know that thy principles are just, and then be thou --- Akhenaton
>
>
>
"Anything and everything that requires or encourages
Joe Fischer
:> : With SR Einstein dealt with the issue of absolute velocity.
:>
:> Done away with it, I hope.
:>
:> : In GR he dealt with the issue of absolute acceleration,
:>
:> That is not completely true when relativity of
:> motion in it's most basic and revealing nature is used,
:> acceleration is still a change in velocity, and change
:> in velocity can occur even without acceleration.
:
: Yes, it is still a change in velocity with respect to some reference frame,
That may be the definition in some model, and
may be the accepted definition of acceleration, but
it is still only a definition in a model, and still
only a change of velocity in that model.
: but there is not in GR any need to ever think that one needs some
: invisible natural absolute frame of reference. Einstein says:
Right, and I didn't say anything about an
"absolute frame". What there is, what there always
is, is a connection between a point in "space" that
represents position and inertial motion "right now",
and position and inertial motion in each succeding
unit of time.
This provides a "temporary" absolute position,
which really doesn't have anything to do with "space",
but it must be accomodated in both dynamics and
kinematics.
: When by the special theory of relativity I had arrived
: at the equivalence of all so-called inertial systems for
: the formulation of natural laws (1905), the question
: whether there was not a further equivalence of coordinate
: systems followed naturally, to say the least of it. To put it
: another way, if only a relative meaning can be attached to
: the concept of velocity, ought we nevertheless to
: persevere as treating acceleration as an absolute concept?
So what was his opinion? :-)
: (Albert Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, Taubert, p48
: also published in Ideas and Opinions)
Actually, I like a definition for acceleration
that I think agrees with "proper acceleration" in GR,
and that is simply what an accelerometer reads,
I don't think you can get a more clear definition,
and I don't think you can get a definition more
useful to use in physical models.
: Einstein likened the Minkowski spacetime manifold as a
: flat, rigid generalization of the Lorentz ether. This is why
: acceleration could be left as absolute in SR. But in GR
: spacetime is not flat in any reference frame, so it seems
: that this foils any reasonable attempt to assign any specific
: "absolute acceleration'" to some object therein. And if
: the concept cannot be made free of ambiguity it is meaningless.
It is going to be ambiguous between models,
you can't use Newtonian acceleration without keeping
some of the baggage of Newtonian gravitation.
Early SR used the Newtonian acceleration
definition, and then later SR and GR provide a finer
resolution by having several definitions, each
with it's own usefulnness.
But this is even confusing to those who
know the definitions well.
I don't want to go too far astray, but there
is one model, and there may be more than one, that
can simply define acceleration as what an accelerometer
reads, and can explain geodesic deviation as inertial
motion.
This is the kind of thing to hope for in a
model if there ever is one that adds to General Relativity.
I certainly do not subscribe to absolute space or
accept a CMBR isotropy as meaning anything like "at rest".
Joe Fischer
--
3
Joe Fischer
: The True Believers are abysmmally ignorant of their own mathematical basis.
I feel another nasty response coming. :-)
: For instance,what are the odds against a proponent being able to show,
: using the transform equations, that v is the same for both systems?
:
: Zilch.
:
: If indeed T'=T/g and X'=gX (or vice versa] with the distances and times in
: both cases being transit times and distances, then it must be true that
: v=x/t and that v=X'/T'.
:
: x/t = X'/T' = gX/(T/g) = ggX/T
:
: and v = ggv.
While you have demonstrated that you have learned
some of the conventions and techniques of mathematical
treatment, you haven't impressed even dumb fishbrain me.
If you want me to to even read your articles
you will need to include trig in about half of the
simplistic exercises you seem impressed with.
: By reduction to the absurd, there cannot be contraction of the one element
: of space and time, and dilation of the other.
Especially not if you are fixated on the 1905
papers!
: That the True Believer cretin to whom you respond is not able to answer
: any of my positions except to deride, is not surprising.
:
: How about you?
This cretin fishbrain is waiting anxiously
for your presentation, hopefully it will contain
something more than high school algebra.
Joe Fischer who never knows when to keep his mouth shut.
--
3
Tom Roberts
> Moving clocks run faster, not slower ... As in the GPS system.
Your statement is FAR too general to be valid. All your example
shows is that _SOME_ moving clocks run faster. In the case of the
GPS satellites this "faster" is completely unrelated to their motion,
and is directly related to the fact that they are at a much higher
altitude than the earthbound clocks to which you are implicitly
comparing them.
> [nonsense deleted]
Tom Roberts tjro...@Lucent.com
ade a ade
gained by belabouring the obvious, nor by calling people names. Even when we
feel that we are justified or that we are speaking truthfully, the fact
remains that some things are better left unsaid. Of course, this is only an
opinion (which, by the way, I find hard to always adhere to, but still, one
must try).
>[snip]
> > There are, in my opinion, four aspects to relativity: the historical,
the
> > philosophical, the mathematical and the physical. Opponents of
relativity
> > tend to be more educated in the first two aspects than in the last two.
> > Proponents of relativity, however, tend to be a lot more educated in the
> > last two aspects than in the first two.
> > As a result, opponents of relativity tend to show ignorance of the
> > mathematical and the physical aspects of relativity, while proponents of
> > relativity tend to show ignorance of the historical and the
philosophical
> > aspects of relativity.
> >
>
> It is my observation that many of the anti-relativists here who
> appeal to history, frequently distort the objective facts in
> order to lend support to their views. As to philosophy, I have
> found it rather rare for the anti-relativists here to express a
> philosophical view worthy of consideration. Platitudes do no a
> philosophy make.
>
Well, my comments were meant to include people beyond this group. Moreover,
"intuitive" objections to relativity are, I think, basically philosophical
in nature. Whether or not they are worthy of consideration is another issue.
> > Lest I be misuderstood, I should add here that my comments above are
gross
> > generalizations and are most certainly not true for every opponent or
> > proponent of relativity. Moreover, I could be wildly wrong in my
assessment
> > of the situation, but that is what the situation looks like to me at the
> > time of writing.
> >
>
> Well, I do hope you keep looking.
>
Thank you.
ade a ade
news:3bb0ebb1...@news.concentric.net...
If I know or understand what you are talking about, and if it falls in one
of my research subject areas, then perhaps I can answer your question. But
I'm not sure my answer would be any better than what you must have been told
before.
ade a ade
> ade a ade <adequest@-@home.com> wrote:
> : Lest I be misuderstood, I should add here that my comments above are
gross
> : generalizations and are most certainly not true for every opponent or
> : proponent of relativity. Moreover, I could be wildly wrong in my
assessment
> : of the situation, but that is what the situation looks like to me at the
> : time of writing.
>
> Then you apparently have not read books like
> "Was Einstein Right" by Will, "Dreams of a Final Theory"
> by Weinberg, or "An Old Man's Toy" by Anthony Zee.
>
check it out.
> These books focus on results of experiments,
> and almost all of the experiments mentioned are done
> with General Relativity, not SR.
>
I'm familiar with (I think all) the optical GR experiments and somewhat less
familiar with the other ones. As far as the optical experiments (which are
the only ones that overlap my interests) go, I think it'd be easy to not
only explain them but to also predict new & interesting results that can be
checked by further experiments. They don't seem to be as difficult or as
overwhelming or as remarkable as one might think. But we'll see.
>[snip]
ade a ade
>
>
> ade a ade wrote:
>
> > [snip]
> >
> > There are, in my opinion, four aspects to relativity: the historical,
the
> > philosophical, the mathematical and the physical. Opponents of
relativity
> > tend to be more educated in the first two aspects than in the last two.
> > Proponents of relativity, however, tend to be a lot more educated in the
> > last two aspects than in the first two.
>
> I wish you could demonstrated this knowledge of the historical
> and philosophical aspects on the opponents's part.
>
> > As a result, opponents of relativity tend to show ignorance of the
> > mathematical and the physical aspects of relativity, while proponents of
> > relativity tend to show ignorance of the historical and the
philosophical
> > aspects of relativity.
>
> [snip]
> However, I disagree with your assessment that the opponents
> here are better educated on the H&P aspects of physics,
> though the nature of their angst with SR tends to fall into this
> area. [snip]
>
My comments were meant to include people outside this group (e.g. some
contributors to dissident journals).
Stephen Speicher
> "Stephen Speicher" <s...@compbio.caltech.edu> wrote in message
> news:Pine.LNX.4.10.101092...@photon.compbio.caltech.edu...
> > On Wed, 26 Sep 2001, ade a ade wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > If you find my statement disingenuous, I assure you that it
> > > wasn't meant to be. It is against my principles to drag
> > > people's names into a discussion like this, so I hope
> > > you'll be content with general comments not directed at
> > > anyone in particular.
> > >
> > The names are not important -- I could care less about them.
> > The point is that -- and I would be greatly surprised if you
> > _really_ did not see this clearly yourself (hence my use of
> > disingenuous) -- this group is populated with a large number
> > of anti-relativists who are outright quacks and loonies, who
> > are not only ignorant of relativity, but lack thinking skills
> > of a basic order.
> >
> You know (as well as I do) that you are right. But there is
> nothing to be gained by belabouring the obvious, nor by calling
> people names. Even when we feel that we are justified or that
> we are speaking truthfully, the fact remains that some things
> are better left unsaid. Of course, this is only an opinion
> (which, by the way, I find hard to always adhere to, but still,
> one must try).
>
The understanding which you now say is "obvious" did not appear
so before, at least not by your own words. If I have hammered
the point home too hard, it was only because I read your words as
applying fairly equally to both camps, and my sense of fairness
(not to mention my sensibilities) could not abide with that.
Perhaps you might consider that your own sense of diplomacy
might, at times, do injustice by not giving explicit credit, or
discredit, where it is deserved. And by this I do not mean it is
necessary to be "calling people names," as that is an issue of
personal choice and style. For myself, kooks are either to be
ignored, or ridiculed. But, that is my approach, and I respect
your more delicate sensibilities (as long as fairness and justice
do not get sacrfificed in the process).
> > > There are, in my opinion, four aspects to relativity: the
> > > historical, the philosophical, the mathematical and the
> > > physical. Opponents of relativity tend to be more educated
> > > in the first two aspects than in the last two. Proponents
> > > of relativity, however, tend to be a lot more educated in
> > > the last two aspects than in the first two. As a result,
> > > opponents of relativity tend to show ignorance of the
> > > mathematical and the physical aspects of relativity, while
> > > proponents of relativity tend to show ignorance of the
> > > historical and the philosophical aspects of relativity.
> > >
> >
> > It is my observation that many of the anti-relativists here
> > who appeal to history, frequently distort the objective facts
> > in order to lend support to their views. As to philosophy, I
> > have found it rather rare for the anti-relativists here to
> > express a philosophical view worthy of consideration.
> > Platitudes do no a philosophy make.
> >
> Well, my comments were meant to include people beyond this
> group.
I find that to be a very interesting comment, and wonder exactly
upon what it is based. I have a particular interest in the
historical and philosophical roots of relativity, and I have done
extensive reading on both subjects. My private library is quite
large, and through Caltech I supplement whatever I require.
It is my judgement that in these two areas you identified, with
relativity opponents being more educated -- in history and
philosophy of relativity -- that the exact reverse is true.
Clearly we do not find the sort of kooks on this group writing
books which are actually published, but I have found the vast
majority of real scholars in the history and philosophy of
relativity are indeed supporters of, not detractors towards, the
standard theory of relativity. And please, let me assure you, I
have gone out of my way to search out and read proper literature
from the anti-relativist camp, so I am not basing my judgement on
a poor sample.
Eugen Negut
speed 10 times bigger that c.
Nobody say now of this phenomenon that is contrary to findings of Einstein.
ade a ade
>[snip]
> The meaning of "absolute" space has many aspects. We'll forgo any
> connection to absolute acceleration and just stick to absolute rest space,
> which amounts to absolute velocities as least.
>
It appears that we have started the discussion already, so here we go.
You are no doubt aware of the debate between Newton and Leibnitz on the
nature of space. Although these men felt that their views were mutually
exclusive, it really needs not be so. Leibnitz was right to state that space
is a relationship among objects and not a "thing". Newton was right to state
that this relationship does not have to be one of distance or position. We
are free to study motion in any space we please. In configuration space we
can study how the position vector changes with time; in velocity space we
can study how the velocity changes with time; in acceleration space we can
study how the acceleration changes with time; in Newton's absolute space we
can study how the "spott vector" changes with time, etc.
A moving object does not "inhabit" any of these spaces but exists
independently of the spaces. In this sense the spaces are literally
different ways of perceiving (not merely describing) motion. Leibnitz argued
that our senses can perceive motion only in configuration space. But in
order for this argument to hold, one must show also that it is inconceivable
for any organism to perceive motion in other spaces. For if such an organism
is conceivable, then whether it actually exists or not, we must admit the
existence of other spaces into our philosophical disquisitions according to
Newton.
We know for example that by wearing certain headgears we can see through
darkness and also into the so-called virtual reality. Therefore, one may
argue that if the notion of absolute space is pushed to its conclusions, a
technology might be developed that will enable us to perceive motion in
absolute space. If such a technology is ever developed, then absolute will
be no more real and no less real than configuration space. For Leibnitz's
argument to hold, therefore, one must argue that such a technology cannot
possibly be developed.
> Einstein treated this "absolute" space as having an interconnection
> between a unique frame in which the laws of physics take their simplest
> form and the unique frame in which light propagates truly at a speed c,
> but in no other frame ("really"). The two concepts don't logically have to
be
> so connected, but because of the well-known undetectability of any such
> space, there is no harm to link them for now. In any case, the
relativistic
> program of research has prohibitions against using any putative notion
> of an absolute rest space. What this means is that SR prohibits the
> postulation of any space that is used to assign absolute velocities,
> whether this is a formal modeling tactic or if it is meant to correspond
> to a "real" thing. It's outlawed either way. It's just part of the
modeling
> constraints built into SR.
>
Motion is relative even in absolute space, in the sense that the motion of
one body must be referred to another body. Unless there is something in SR
that explicitly forbids a position vector from being written as the time
derivative of another vector, the question of whether or not the existence
of absolute space contradicts SR (which is what you seem to be addressing in
your comments) is a little subtle.
If we argue that "something doesn't exist unless it affects our
observations", then a demonstration that this something does in fact exist
would present a problem. But if "something doesn't exist unless it affects
our observations" is itself an incorrect claim, then the existence of this
something presents no difficult at all.
I am inclined to believe that the above claim is incorrect because "unless
it affects our observations" is an extremely weak condition: it depends
hopelessly on the state of our understanding, and if we do not understand
absolute space, then of course it will not affect our observations. IF,
after we have properly studied motion in absolute space, we discover that it
does have observational consequences, THEN we would have a difficulty with
SR.
Therefore the existence of absolute space per se does not present a problem
for SR. But it falsifies the claim that "absolute doesn't exist unless it
affects our observations" because absolute space is a "perspective" and not
a "thing" --- as such, its existence has more to do with understanding than
with observations.
> Anyone who feels compelled to postulate the real or formal existence
> of some absolute rest space is perfectly free to do so, but NOT
> within SR. Einstein objected to having so many things having a
> theoretical "real" status, such as the ether, yet are undetectable.
> He much preferred to have as a founding principle the constancy
> of the measured speed of light in vacuum by inertial observers,
> which is manifestly either true or false to within experimental
> error.
>
Again, a proper understanding of absolute space will answer most of the
points raised in your comments. Here, let me demystify absolute space
further for you.
Let's start with the space of the position vector R and define vectors Q_n
and S_m by the equations Q_n = d^n R / dt^n and R = d^m S_m / dt^m for n, m
= 1..oo. Let's also refer to the space of Q_n as the hodographic space of
order n and to the space of S_m as the absographic (or "absolute") space of
order m.
For examples, velocity space is hodographic space of order 1, acceleration
space is hodographic space of order 2, Newton's absolute space is
absographic space of order 1, etc. You can see clearly that Newton's
absolute space is only one out of an infinite number of absolute spaces and
is not in any way special.
There would be nothing interesting here if it wasn't for the fact that
although we perceive motion only in configuration space, other organisms (or
even us with some technological devices) might be able to perceive motion in
other spaces. An organism that perceives motion in hodographic space of
order 1 will call "position" what we call "velocity". Assuming that such an
organism can show us some response when it perceives a moving object, here
is how it would behave:
If you are at rest relative to the organism from our perspective, it will
show no response. If you start to move with some speed in any direction, it
will show a response. If you speed up, slow down, turn left or turn right,
it will show a response. BUT if you move with the same speed in a straight
line, THEN the organism will show no response because it will not perceive
you to be moving ! In his world or perspective, you would be at rest
(because your velocity is not changing) --- which is exactly the point being
made by Newton in his first scholium.
[Can you see why an absographic predator will be much more dangerous to the
human race than a hodographic predator ? Can you see the potential
applications of high-order absographic vision devices in the defense
industry ?]
ade a. ade
ade a ade
news:Pine.LNX.4.10.101092...@photon.compbio.caltech.edu...
> On Thu, 27 Sep 2001, ade a ade wrote:
>
> > "Stephen Speicher" <s...@compbio.caltech.edu> wrote in message
> >
news:Pine.LNX.4.10.101092...@photon.compbio.caltech.edu...
> > You know (as well as I do) that you are right. But there is
> > nothing to be gained by belabouring the obvious, nor by calling
> > people names. Even when we feel that we are justified or that
> > we are speaking truthfully, the fact remains that some things
> > are better left unsaid. Of course, this is only an opinion
> > (which, by the way, I find hard to always adhere to, but still,
> > one must try).
> >
>
> The understanding which you now say is "obvious" did not appear
> so before, at least not by your own words. If I have hammered
> the point home too hard, it was only because I read your words as
> applying fairly equally to both camps, and my sense of fairness
> (not to mention my sensibilities) could not abide with that.
>
quite vague and general). If you read my comments as implying that the level
of understanding shown by _some_ opponents of relativity in this group does
not leave much to be desired, then no, that is certainly not what I was
saying: it's rather easy to tell when an opponent of relativity doesn't
understand relativity, as I stated much earlier. Which is why there's
nothing to be gained by belabouring the obvious, as I stated above.
> Perhaps you might consider that your own sense of diplomacy
> might, at times, do injustice by not giving explicit credit, or
> discredit, where it is deserved. And by this I do not mean it is
> necessary to be "calling people names," as that is an issue of
> personal choice and style. For myself, kooks are either to be
> ignored, or ridiculed. But, that is my approach, and I respect
> your more delicate sensibilities (as long as fairness and justice
> do not get sacrfificed in the process).
>
Agreed.
> > >[snip]
> > > It is my observation that many of the anti-relativists here
> > > who appeal to history, frequently distort the objective facts
> > > in order to lend support to their views. As to philosophy, I
> > > have found it rather rare for the anti-relativists here to
> > > express a philosophical view worthy of consideration.
> > > Platitudes do no a philosophy make.
> > >
> > Well, my comments were meant to include people beyond this
> > group.
>
> I find that to be a very interesting comment, and wonder exactly
> upon what it is based.
>
I think we have a misunderstanding. I meant to say that antirelativists
beyond this group (e.g. contributors to dissident journals) do have "a
philosophical view worthy of consideration". But even on this group, I'd say
that some antirelativists have a similar philosophy, even if it is, as it
usually is, the old-fashioned common sense is always right kind of
philosophy.
> I have a particular interest in the
> historical and philosophical roots of relativity, and I have done
> extensive reading on both subjects. My private library is quite
> large, and through Caltech I supplement whatever I require.
>
Well, then, we have a common interest !
> It is my judgement that in these two areas you identified, with
> relativity opponents being more educated -- in history and
> philosophy of relativity -- that the exact reverse is true.
>
I'd disagree, that is, if we are comparing expert relativists with expert
antirelativists. My judgement is that expert relativists approach relativity
from a somewhat axiomatic level from the beginning, while expert
antirelativists approach it from a more historical/philosophical level.
> Clearly we do not find the sort of kooks on this group writing
> books which are actually published, but I have found the vast
> majority of real scholars in the history and philosophy of
> relativity are indeed supporters of, not detractors towards, the
> standard theory of relativity.
>
Perhaps these scholars are explaining relativity as is to their audience ?
> And please, let me assure you, I
> have gone out of my way to search out and read proper literature
> from the anti-relativist camp, so I am not basing my judgement on
> a poor sample.
>
I'd be interested in this literature. (Considering that I have read &
studied proper literature from the relativist camp, I don't think I am
basing my judgement on a poor sample either.)
eleaticus
wrote:
>eleaticus <thnk...@concentric.net> wrote:
>: For instance,what are the odds against a proponent being able to show,
>: using the transform equations, that v is the same for both systems?
>:
>: Zilch.
>:
>: If indeed T'=T/g and X'=gX (or vice versa] with the distances and times in
>: both cases being transit times and distances, then it must be true that
>: v=x/t and that v=X'/T'.
>:
>: x/t = X'/T' = gX/(T/g) = ggX/T
>:
>: and v = ggv.
>
> While you have demonstrated that you have learned
>some of the conventions and techniques of mathematical
>treatment, you haven't impressed even dumb fishbrain me.
Clever technique that. Admitting the obvous about yourelf in order to defuse
it.
> This cretin fishbrain is waiting anxiously
>for your presentation, hopefully it will contain
>something more than high school algebra.
The entire basis of the tranforms are high school, and sophomoric at
precisely that level.
Elaaticus
>
>Joe Fischer who never knows when to keep his mouth shut.
>
>--
>3
"Anything and everything that requires or encourages
Stephen Speicher
> I'd disagree, that is, if we are comparing expert relativists
> with expert antirelativists. My judgement is that expert
> relativists approach relativity from a somewhat axiomatic level
> from the beginning, while expert antirelativists approach it
> from a more historical/philosophical level.
>
For my own edification, I would like to concretize what you mean.
Would you please give me a single example from this group of
"expert antirelativists" who "approach it from a more
historical/philosophical level." A single author and book will
suffice.
Joe Fischer
:Joe Fischer wrote:
:>eleaticus <thnk...@concentric.net> wrote:
:>: For instance,what are the odds against a proponent being able to show,
:>: using the transform equations, that v is the same for both systems?
:>:
:>: Zilch.
:>:
:>: If indeed T'=T/g and X'=gX (or vice versa] with the distances
:>: and times in both cases being transit times and distances,
:>: then it must be true that v=x/t and that v=X'/T'.
:>:
:>: x/t = X'/T' = gX/(T/g) = ggX/T
:>:
:>: and v = ggv.
:>
:> While you have demonstrated that you have learned
:>some of the conventions and techniques of mathematical
:>treatment, you haven't impressed even dumb fishbrain me.
:
: Clever technique that. Admitting the obvous about yourelf
: in order to defuse it.
what my math ability is, and I know what my math proficiency
is, it is almost zero, because of rust.
:> This cretin fishbrain is waiting anxiously
:>for your presentation, hopefully it will contain
:>something more than high school algebra.
:
: The entire basis of the tranforms are high school, and sophomoric at
: precisely that level.
: Elaaticus
Well let us in on your premise, do you think
the invariance of the transforms are high school -
sophomore level? Do you think there is not a
single physicist that works above this level?
I see a big problem if you think that.
Can you explain for any newbies to SR why
the invariance is important?
What is needed is clear expansion on concepts
that are important. I tried to follow your current
700+ line monograph on SR, and I couldn't find the
content for the sarcasm and metaphors.
Can you explain for any newbies to SR why
the invariance is important?
Joe Fischer
--
3
eleaticus
wrote:
> Can you explain for any newbies to SR why
>the invariance is important?
If an equation is not invariant it cannot be valid universal law.
Non-invariance means it is different in different situations.
That is ok for particularized versions of universal laws,such as using 32
ft/second^2 in a gravitation equation applying only to earth, but it can't
be G in one case and G^2 in another.
> Well let us in on your premise, do you think
>the invariance of the transforms are high school -
>sophomore level? Do you think there is not a
>single physicist that works above this level?
>I see a big problem if you think that.
It isn't math that is the problem.
It is on the borderline of what I call 'mapping'.
I have long experience with what the social sciences know as 'interval'
scale data.By definition,if x is 'ratio' scale - meaning that all math
operations on measurements are valid - any x' = f(x-a) is interval scale,
and no multiplications or divisions are valid on such data.
example: if you use a ruler to measure an 8.5 x 11 paper. Instead of
holding the ruler so the zero end is at an edge of the paper, put the
one inch mark there and get readings of 9.5 x 12..
You still get a 2.5 inch difference in the two sides, but the area
calculation is off.
The solution is obvious of course. The paper's sides have two ends, so use
them both.
'Map' them both to the equation.
Thus, we get the two lengths as (9.5 - 1) x (12 - 1) and the area works
out fine.
That was, x'=x-1 in both cases, and - so to speak - 9.5'= 8.5 and 12' = 11,
the right measurements. That's the high end measurement minus the low end.
In the usual use of the ruler, the left end is at value zero so no harm to
express the equation insuch a manner.
In the case of the area of a square we have not just A=x^2which is only
valid when we hold the ruler with the zero mark (origin) at one end of the
item to be measured.
As soon as we move the ruler, leaving the paper alone - we must have
A=(x.r - x.l)^2 with the obvious meanings of x.l and x.r.
A=(x.r' - x.l')^2 = (x.r-a) - (x.l-a) = x.r - x.l, so the equation not only
is invariant in form and value but also in notationwhen reduced.
Being in parentheses there is no possible way for this correct form to be
non-invariant under the galilean transforms.
We didn;t define a. let a be vt.
Anything, I reckon, except a=f(x).
Every equation is invariant under the Galilean transforms when expressed
correctly, such as Born's usage, which I didn't know about till recently.
[Why does basic logic and common sense need an appeal to authority?]
By insisting on inferior "strawman" usages Relativists perpetrate a
fraud against Galilean transforms, Truth, Beauty,and Justice. 8).
If light is not c+v it may not matter but at least Michelson-Morley is
explained by c+v galilean.
And the usual explanation of MMX contains a hiden absurdity, namely a c+v
requirement.
'Hidden' there means a la The Purloined Letter. It's in plain sight.
> Can you explain for any newbies to SR why
>the invariance is important?
If an equation is not invariant it cannot be valid universal law.
Maxwell is invariant under the correct conduct of the Galilean
transformations, and is not under SR..
Remember, the supposed transforms of maxwell by SR are NOT
the space and time transforms. Just look like them.They transform stuff
measured in volts/cm and webers/m^2.
For example, at a level that actually includes a distance value,
let's set the radius R to be along the x axis, with one end at x=0, and
take
E = [Q/(4*Pi*epsilon)]/R^2
E = [Q/(4*Pi*epsilon)]/x^2
What they transform is the whole [Q/4*Pi*epsilon]/x^2
and not x, which of course will tranform invariantly if expressed
correctly as (x-x.0), where x is whatever end-of-radius you have
in mind, and x.0 is the origin end before moving the origin per x'=x-vt.
And which will transform non-invariantly otherwise.
.
> What is needed is clear expansion on concepts
>that are important. I tried to follow your current
>700+ line monograph on SR, and I couldn't find the
>content for the sarcasm and metaphors.
The context is the two years of abuse by True Believer cretins denying the
simple and obvious.
>Joe Fischer
Joe Fischer
: Joe Fischer wrote:
:> Can you explain for any newbies to SR why
:>the invariance is important?
:
: If an equation is not invariant it cannot be valid universal law.
:
: Non-invariance means it is different in different situations.
Oren, please select one of the guys willing to
discuss this with you that has an advanced degree, I think
there is a more important meaning of "invariance" in
relativistic calculations than what you describe. which
seems to me to be just for low or ordinary speeds.
: That is ok for particularized versions of universal laws,such as using 32
: ft/second^2 in a gravitation equation applying only to earth, but it can't
: be G in one case and G^2 in another.
I don't suscribe to coordinate math in gravity
calculations, so either you need to use pure GR, or
I need to study general mathematics.
:> Well let us in on your premise, do you think
:>the invariance of the transforms are high school -
:>sophomore level? Do you think there is not a
:>single physicist that works above this level?
:>I see a big problem if you think that.
:
: It isn't math that is the problem.
That's the only thing you post.
: It is on the borderline of what I call 'mapping'.
:
: I have long experience with what the social sciences know as 'interval'
: scale data
Sorry, I flunked social sciences.
:[snip]
: The context is the two years of abuse by True Believer cretins denying the
: simple and obvious.
This cretin is not a "True Believer", but I do
apologize for the abuse, I guess at the time I felt
you deserved it, I'm sorry.
Joe Fischer
--
3
Etherman
>
> The reason I have asked this question is that most anti-relativist
> expositions I encounter mostly talk about the alternative theories
> themselves, not about what was wrong with SR in the first place.
To be more accurate, anti-relativists mostly talk about ideas that
don't have enough predictive power to be called theories or don't
agree with experiment.
> I mean there must be *some* reason(s) why so many people decide to
spend
> so much effort on anti-relativistic theories. I want to know what is
> it.
Several reasons for me. First is that I've found SR to be over-sold.
When you go back and read the actual papers that support SR, you'll
often find that the results didn't agree with SR but the authors
*assumed* some sort of error was present, factored it out (with no
justification) or ignored it, and then proclaimed relativity the
winner. Also, length contraction is considered a fact, but not a
single experiment has ever demonstrated that it exists. It's always
inferred (for example in the MMX) to happen. I also consider GR to be
falsified by galactic rotation curves. A scientific theory of dark
matter seems to be elusive at best. Until someone gives me convincing
evidence for DM I will consider GR invalid. From a theoretical
standpoint it's the job (or rather a job) of physicists to invent
alternative theories. Usually theories suggest experiments. So it's
nice to have ideas for experiments that might not come to you when
working within the orthodox viewpoint. SR suggested a host of new
experiments that wouldn't have been obvious under Newtonian physics.
It's also nice to have a theory waiting in the wings. Philosophically
I agree with the principle of relativity, but not Einstein's execution
of it. He restricts himself to the Poincare group but I think physics
should be based on GL(4). IMO, GL(4) invariance is equivalent to the
principle of relativity (the trick is learning Lie groups so that I
can devise a theory to test this idea). Ultimately I would like to
develop a GL(4) biscalar theory of EM.
For others I think the main reason for opposing SR and GR is that it's
counter-intuitive. People like absolute time and flat space-time.
They don't like the idea that c is some kind of absolute speed. Also
they like to think that every wave has a medium.
> Another, more broad goal, is to find out just why it is relativity
> that attracts so much disagreement. Naturally, all subjects have
their
> dissenters, but it seems to me that relativity has a
disporportionate
> number of them. I am quite curious about the cause of this
phenomenon.
> It is physics itself? Is it culture? Or maybe it's even the way
> relativity is usually taught in schools?
I think mainly because it's so counter-intuitive. QM probably has
many dissenters too. However the math is easier in SR than QM. Thus
it's more accessible to laymen. A good chunk of people can get
through algebra (which is what you really use the most of in SR) but
calculus is incomprehensible to Joe Average.
--
Etherman
AA # pi
EAC Director of Ritual Satanic Abuse Operations
"I tasted poison, when I drank the wine of fate."--Blind Guardian
Etherman
> :> ade a ade <adequest@-@home.com> wrote:
> :> : both the opponents and the proponents of relativity, there are
those who
> :> : have no real understanding of the theory. But it is pretty easy
to tell
> :> : when an opponent of relativity doesn't understand relativity.
> :> : The problem, in my view, is getting a proponent of relativity
to
> :> : realize that he or she does not understand a competing theory.
> :>
> :> The point is, there is no competing theory,
> :> not in the labs, not in the classroom, not in nature.
> :>
> :> The fact that a bunch of individuals imagine
> :> they know something about physics and like the idea
> :> of a medium exerting forces does not mean whatever
> :> they imagine can be called a "competing theory".
> :
> : I stand corrected. Maybe I should have said "alternative" or
"noncompeting"
> : instead of "competing". Frankly, I don't think this is worth an
argument,
> : but if you tell me your preferred word for describing these
theories, I'll
> : try to use it next time. Truce ?
> : ade a. ade
>
> Well, it isn't a war, it's just a discussion or
> debate. Actually I would like to know if ether theory
> is even discussed anyplace but here.
I know that you can find occasional aether articles in the journal
Foundations of Physics (especially from the 70's and 80').
Etherman
"ade a ade" <adequest@-@home.com> wrote in message
news:l59s7.89747$sM1.23...@news3.rdc1.on.home.com...> news:3BB0C11F...@asu.edu...
> > Then you are certainly an antirelativist. One either allows or
> > disallows the use of an absolute space to determine absolute
> > velocities or one does not. There really is no in between
> > on this.
> >
> Again, all this depends on the meaning of "absolute".
Actually it depends on what is meant by "relativity." There's a
difference between relativity and Einsteinian relativity. I'm a
relativist in the sense that I disallow the use of absolute space.
I'm an anti-relativist in the sense that I oppose SR and GR.
ade a ade
news:XwOs7.34033$vq.77...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net...
>
> "ade a ade" <adequest@-@home.com> wrote in message
> news:l59s7.89747$sM1.23...@news3.rdc1.on.home.com...
> > "Patrick Reany" <re...@asu.edu> wrote in message
> > news:3BB0C11F...@asu.edu...
> > > Then you are certainly an antirelativist. One either allows or
> > > disallows the use of an absolute space to determine absolute
> > > velocities or one does not. There really is no in between
> > > on this.
> > >
> > Again, all this depends on the meaning of "absolute".
>
> Actually it depends on what is meant by "relativity." There's a
> difference between relativity and Einsteinian relativity. I'm a
> relativist in the sense that I disallow the use of absolute space.
> I'm an anti-relativist in the sense that I oppose SR and GR.
>
OK.
ade a ade
news:Pine.LNX.4.10.101092...@photon.compbio.caltech.edu...
>
> > I'd disagree, that is, if we are comparing expert relativists
> > with expert antirelativists. My judgement is that expert
> > relativists approach relativity from a somewhat axiomatic level
> > from the beginning, while expert antirelativists approach it
> > from a more historical/philosophical level.
> >
>
> For my own edification, I would like to concretize what you mean.
> Would you please give me a single example from this group of
> "expert antirelativists" who "approach it from a more
> historical/philosophical level." A single author and book will
> suffice.
>
I'm not sure what this line of discussion will accomplish. If I name someone
you respect, you may agree with me, but then since we already know that you
respect this person, nothing new has been accomplished. On the other hand,
if I name someone you disrespect, you will disagree with me, but since we
already know you disrespect this person, nothing new has been accomplished.
We both have our prejudices on a subject like this and I don't think
anything will change that. But still, if you really must have some names,
there are a number of books by Jefimenko, Assis, the Graneaus, Phipps,
Vigier and many others.
Patrick Reany
Etherman wrote:
> "ade a ade" <adequest@-@home.com> wrote in message
> news:l59s7.89747$sM1.23...@news3.rdc1.on.home.com...
> > "Patrick Reany" <re...@asu.edu> wrote in message
> > news:3BB0C11F...@asu.edu...
> > > Then you are certainly an antirelativist. One either allows or
> > > disallows the use of an absolute space to determine absolute
> > > velocities or one does not. There really is no in between
> > > on this.
> > >
> > Again, all this depends on the meaning of "absolute".
>
> Actually it depends on what is meant by "relativity." There's a
> difference between relativity and Einsteinian relativity. I'm a
> relativist in the sense that I disallow the use of absolute space.
> I'm an anti-relativist in the sense that I oppose SR and GR.
Being against SR and GR does NOT make one an antirelativist.
It only makes one an Anti-Einsteinian relativist. If you oppose
the allowance of any absolute space in a theoretical model then
you are by definition a relativist.
Patrick
Bill Rowe
"Etherman" <ether...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Several reasons for me. First is that I've found SR to be over-sold.
>When you go back and read the actual papers that support SR, you'll
>often find that the results didn't agree with SR but the authors
>*assumed* some sort of error was present, factored it out (with no
>justification) or ignored it, and then proclaimed relativity the
>winner.
That is sufficient to be critical of those papers. But it is not
sufficient to either reject or accept SR. It isn't logical to accept or
reject any theory based on a flawed or incomplete analysis.
>Also, length contraction is considered a fact, but not a
>single experiment has ever demonstrated that it exists.
You may be correct as far as any direct observation of length
contraction, but it is clear there is indirect experimental evidence of
length contraction. Spefically, there is direct experimental observation
of time dialation. Additionally, there is direct experimental evidence
supporting the local speed of light in vacuum is c from any inertial
frame. These two together require the existence of length contraction.
>I also consider GR to be falsified by galactic rotation curves.
This is reasonable *only* if you assume we know mass and distances
sufficiently accurately. The obvious alternative is GR is correct and or
information regarding mass etc is incomplete. Given the accuracy to
which GR is confirmed where we know we have complete information it
seems to me more reasonable to assume the discrepancy you note here is a
problem with incomplete information rather than evidence GR is invalid.
>For others I think the main reason for opposing SR and GR is that it's
>counter-intuitive.
That is probably the fundamental reason for the almost all objections to
both SR and GR. Closely related is the desire to have a mechanistic
explanation rather than a geometric explanation.
>People like absolute time and flat space-time. They don't like the
>idea that c is some kind of absolute speed. Also they like to think
>that every wave has a medium.
Yes, people like to have things work in ways they are familiar with. The
problem with all of these is they simply do not match experimental
observation.
>> Another, more broad goal, is to find out just why it is relativity
>> that attracts so much disagreement. Naturally, all subjects have
>> their dissenters, but it seems to me that relativity has a
>> disporportionate number of them. I am quite curious about the cause
>> of this phenomenon. It is physics itself? Is it culture? Or maybe
>> it's even the way relativity is usually taught in schools?
>I think mainly because it's so counter-intuitive. QM probably has
>many dissenters too. However the math is easier in SR than QM. Thus
>it's more accessible to laymen. A good chunk of people can get
>through algebra (which is what you really use the most of in SR) but
>calculus is incomprehensible to Joe Average.
Yes, this is undoubtedly the main reason. I would add that because the
math for SR is more accessible, people *think* they understand
relativity without having reviewed much in the way of experimental data
supporting the math.
--
-
PGPKey fingerprint: 6DA1 E71F EDFC 7601 0201 9243 E02A C9FD EF09 EAE5
eleaticus
>You may be correct as far as any direct observation of length
>contraction, but it is clear there is indirect experimental evidence of
>length contraction. Spefically, there is direct experimental observation
>of time dialation.
If, say, a meson travels a distance D in time T in the inertial system at,
say, v=.866c (yes, I know that;'s too slow but gamma works nice)
then gamma = 2 and SR says the particle experiences T'=T/g, but SR
keeps silent on the other basic equation, D'=gD.
WIth gamma = 2 the T'=T/2 formulation says the 'clock' rate is half that of
the stationary system, but D'=2D says the distance covered is experienced as
twice that of the stationary system, for a net effect of zilch.
If dilation is proved SR's basic Lore and Dogma are proved wrong.
Lore and Dogma because the basic equations call for time contraction.
As shown a number of times in recent days. Einstein's "evidently x=vt" was
even worse than his typical absurdity effluvia. (Should that last have been
singular in form?)
Eleaticus
eleaticus
wrote:
>:> Well let us in on your premise, do you think
>:>the invariance of the transforms are high school -
>:>sophomore level? Do you think there is not a
>:>single physicist that works above this level?
>:>I see a big problem if you think that.
>:
>: It isn't math that is the problem.
> That's the only thing you post.
My text is always what SR actually says - in its basic equations - as
opposed to what the cult Lore and Dogma say.
What I post are statements of fact based on direct and simple use of SR's
basic equations, then directly and simply demonstrate the truth of what I
said.
As you know full well, they never respond directly to what is said, just
rant.
True, I have also stated some fact that is proved by what the True Believer
cretins do and don't do in response.
Mostly that what they deem a correct coordinate transform process is
'slightly' flawed as proved by their inability to demonstrate the invariance
of even the simplest equation expressed in coordinates, equations known
universally to represent invariant quantities under the Galilean transforms.
The most frequent being the formula for the area of a cube A=s^2
put into coordinate form: A=x^2.
As you no doubt have noticed Tom Roberts posted a long diatribe saying
basically that it was invariant, but he can't, couldn't, and never will get
a clue as to how to show the invariance as long as he holds to the idiocies
he commits in assailing rather than responding to what is there.
I tell the cretin cultists how to do it and they still can't do it.
If you want such posers as mine to disappear, kindly ask such cretins as Tom
and John Anderson to demonstrate the simple and obvious.
Ask them to demonstrate the invariance of A=x^2.
What the hell's the problem with such a simple problem?
Besides the fact they would then have to back off the ignorant, cultist
belief that Maxwell isn't invariant under the Galilean transforms.
>: It is on the borderline of what I call 'mapping'.
>:
>: I have long experience with what the social sciences know as 'interval'
>: scale data
>
> Sorry, I flunked social sciences.
>
>:[snip]
>: The context is the two years of abuse by True Believer cretins denying the
>: simple and obvious.
>
> This cretin is not a "True Believer", but I do
>apologize for the abuse, I guess at the time I felt
>you deserved it, I'm sorry.
Hmmm. I have noticed you have recently in a little decency with your abuse!
Thank you.
But the time you keep taking to tell me you don't do math would be much
better spent asking the abusive cretins to please response directly to
simple math and logic.
Eleaticus
Dennis McCarthy
Etherman:
>When you go back and read the actual papers that support SR, you'll
>often find that the results didn't agree with SR but the authors
>*assumed* some sort of error was present, factored it out (with no
>justification) or ignored it, and then proclaimed relativity the
>winner.
Dennis: Brillet Hall being the most obvious example. Other than the "spurious
signal" at twice the rate of the rotation table, the results are consistent
with SR.
Etherman: Also, length contraction is considered a fact, but not a
>single experiment has ever demonstrated that it exists. It's always
>inferred (for example in the MMX) to happen.
Dennis: Yup.
Etherman:
I also consider GR to be
>falsified by galactic rotation curves.
Dennis: 100 billion galaxies can't be wrong. ;-)
Also, the SR/GR explanation for Sagnac is so needlessly convoluted its
ludicrous.
In order to keep c constant, for example, Rizzi and Tartaglia argue that a
small stationary rim on a rotating planet is not the same length CW as CCW.
Finally, there's absolutely no reason for notions of "time dilation" let
alone "mutual time dilation"--when an absolute clock retardation works nicely.
And most important of all...
There's no material causality. And material causality is the mort
important and well established principle in all of science.
(...)
>For others I think the main reason for opposing SR and GR is that it's
>counter-intuitive. People like absolute time and flat space-time.
>They don't like the idea that c is some kind of absolute speed. Also
>they like to think that every wave has a medium.
Dennis: Well, the hypothesis that light waves don't need a medium does not
overcome the fact that every other wave we know about does.
Dennis McCarthy
Dennis McCarthy
>
>>Also, length contraction is considered a fact, but not a
>>single experiment has ever demonstrated that it exists.
Rowe:
>You may be correct as far as any direct observation of length
>contraction, but it is clear there is indirect experimental evidence of
>length contraction. Spefically, there is direct experimental observation
>of time dialation.
Dennis: Well, for clock retardation, yes. But this does not require length
contraction.
My wrist watch slows noticeably without getting smaller.
Rowe: Additionally, there is direct experimental evidence
>supporting the local speed of light in vacuum is c from any inertial
>frame.
Dennis: There isn't any experiment ever which even remotely suggests by
anyone's stretch of the imagination that the speed of light is constant in two
inertial frames in relative motion--let alone all of them.
The MM-type experiments suggest an *approximate* isotropy *in the Earth
surface frame* only. No one has measured the speed of light in a frame that is
moving at high velocity wrt the Earth's surface.
Moreover, not only does the MM not suggest constancy of c in inertial frames
in relative motion--the most accurate MM (Brillet Hall) even produced a signal
in the Earth lab frame.
So even in the only frame we have ever conducted MM experiments, isotropy is
still in question.
(...)
>>For others I think the main reason for opposing SR and GR is that it's
>>counter-intuitive.
>
>That is probably the fundamental reason for the almost all objections to
>both SR and GR. Closely related is the desire to have a mechanistic
>explanation rather than a geometric explanation.
Dennis: Bingo. That's mine.
Dennis McCarthy
Dennis McCarthy
>relativist in the sense that I disallow the use of absolute space.
>I'm an anti-relativist in the sense that I oppose SR and GR.
Dennis: Seconded.
Dennis McCarthy
Joe Fischer
: But the time you keep taking to tell me you don't do math would be much
: better spent asking the abusive cretins to please response directly to
: simple math and logic.
How about if I ask you to research if "invariance"
in SR includes avoiding results where an object would have
to be in two places at the same time?
Joe Fischer
--
3
Vertner Vergon
"Etherman" <ether...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:XwOs7.34033$vq.77...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net...
>
> news:l59s7.89747$sM1.23...@news3.rdc1.on.home.com...
> > "Patrick Reany" <re...@asu.edu> wrote in message
> > news:3BB0C11F...@asu.edu...
> > > Then you are certainly an antirelativist. One either allows or
> > > disallows the use of an absolute space to determine absolute
> > > velocities or one does not. There really is no in between
> > > on this.
> > >
> > Again, all this depends on the meaning of "absolute".
>
> Actually it depends on what is meant by "relativity." There's a
> difference between relativity and Einsteinian relativity. I'm a
> relativist in the sense that I disallow the use of absolute space.
> I'm an anti-relativist in the sense that I oppose SR and GR.
Vergon:
It seems to me you have accepted one of the cornerstones of SR.
So I am curious, what are the main reasons you oppose It?
I admire a man who, in the strength of his own convictions, can
stand up against the tide of the majority. So I'm sure you have
good reasons. Would you care to share them?
We've had our differences but a fresh approach appeals to me.
How about you?
************************************************************************
Vertner Vergon
"Bill Rowe" <bjr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:bjrowe-93C855....@nnrp03.earthlink.net...
****************************************************************************
**
Vergon:
A very intelligent dialog here. You gentlemen are to be congratulated.
And If I may, I would like to put my 2 cents in:
I think the consensus here is that the main reason for anti relativism
is the counter-intuitiveness. I most certainly agree. I also hold the
same for QM.
When people think of SR they picture a venerable white haired
gent well along in his years, very wise.
The fact is, he was 26 years old when he rote it, lived in a little upstairs
flat
with a wife he later divorced - and held a menial job as a patent clerk.
Could a young man with problems have a great idea -- and fumble a few times
as he put it on paper? You bet your sweet bippie.
Einstein was not a god, just a brilliant young man with no mentors to aid
him,
save one: M. Beso.
It is my belief that his postulates and modus operandi were brilliant and
led to his brillant theory -- but (there's always that "but") -- he took the
physical
parameters involved, put them into mathematical context, worked the math,
and then transposed the resulting equations back into the physical world.
It is in that latter step that he fell short. It is that latter step that
resulted in
the counter-intuitiveness. If he didn't see that at the time he should have.
The fact that there were counter-intuitive aspects -- and even some errors
should have told him that his work was not done and that he should go
back to the drawing board.
He should have realized something was missing, something that would
preserve the theory but be perfectly acceptable to intuition.
The fact he left his work undone is testified to by the cacophony that
resulted ever since publication.
About 35 years ago, I took it upon myself to see if I could supply the
missing ingredients. I think I have done that.
I published the work in book form in 1976 and have also (foolishly) used
some of it in my posts on this NG -- only to earn the title of Sir Kook.
Bill ,and you Etherman, if you digested the material in the book I'm
sure you would come to a mutual agreement. (but you do need
an open mind).
************************************************************************
David Evens
wrote:
>In the 80 are measured via radio telescope that a fragment of quasar have a
>speed 10 times bigger that c.
>Nobody say now of this phenomenon that is contrary to findings of Einstein.
In reality we observed a rather well-known optical illusion. This was
covered, in detail, when I studied SR in 2nd year mechanics.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Jim Heckman
On 27-Sep-2001, djm...@aol.com (Dennis McCarthy) wrote:
[...]
> Dennis: There isn't any experiment ever which even remotely suggests by
> anyone's stretch of the imagination that the speed of light is constant in two
> inertial frames in relative motion--let alone all of them.
Not even a *remote* suggestion? Not by *anyone's* stretch of the imagination?
Pretty impressive.
> The MM-type experiments suggest an *approximate* isotropy *in the Earth
> surface frame* only.
The Earth is unique in the Universe? Wow.
> No one has measured the speed of light in a frame that is
> moving at high velocity wrt the Earth's surface.
No one's ever measured the speed of light in, say, an airplane, to better
accuracy than the plane's velocity wrt the Earth's surface?
> Moreover, not only does the MM not suggest constancy of c in inertial frames
> in relative motion--the most accurate MM (Brillet Hall) even produced a signal
> in the Earth lab frame.
I thought it was agreed that the Chinese experiment was more accurate than
Brillet-Hall.
--
Jim Heckman
Dennis McCarthy
>
>
>On 27-Sep-2001, djm...@aol.com (Dennis McCarthy) wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>> Dennis: There isn't any experiment ever which even remotely suggests by
>> anyone's stretch of the imagination that the speed of light is constant in
>two
>> inertial frames in relative motion--let alone all of them.
>
Dennis: Right. Unless you think isotropy of sound in a lab frame suggests
constancy of speed of sound.
JHeckman: Not by *anyone's* stretch of the imagination?
>Pretty impressive.
Dennis: You're right that I shouldn't say that. Let me rephrase: "Not by
anyone's reasonable stretch of the imagination."
>> The MM-type experiments suggest an *approximate* isotropy *in the Earth
>> surface frame* only.
>
JHeckman: >The Earth is unique in the Universe? Wow.
Dennis: Does isotropy of sound waves in a basement lab also lead you to this
same conclusion?
Isotropy of all known waves will occur locally in the perferred medium frame.
To just assume that light is an exception to this well known rule is not
*experimental* evidence-- just a strange assumption.
>> No one has measured the speed of light in a frame that is
>> moving at high velocity wrt the Earth's surface.
>
JHeckman: >No one's ever measured the speed of light in, say, an airplane, to
better
>accuracy than the plane's velocity wrt the Earth's surface?
Dennis: No.
>> Moreover, not only does the MM not suggest constancy of c in inertial
>frames
>> in relative motion--the most accurate MM (Brillet Hall) even produced a
>signal
>> in the Earth lab frame.
JHeckman:
>I thought it was agreed that the Chinese experiment was more accurate than
>Brillet-Hall.
Dennis: I thought it was well known that it is still unknown (and IMO doubtful)
whether, unlike Brillet Hall, the Chinese experiment was really referring to
the lab frame as opposed to the sidereal frame.
Dennis McCarthy
Luc Bourhis
> [...] I also consider GR to be falsified by galactic rotation curves.
> A scientific theory of dark matter seems to be elusive at best. Until
> someone gives me convincing evidence for DM I will consider GR
> invalid.
You have cited only one evidence for dark matter where there exist many
more. As you surely know there have been many opportunities to falsify
the dark matter hypothesis within General Relativity or at least to make
this combination very unattractive but none of them has materialised.
--
Luc J. Bourhis
eleaticus
wrote:
>eleaticus <thnk...@concentric.net> wrote:
Elaborate.
eleaticus
eleaticus
>Etherman: Also, length contraction is considered a fact, but not a
>>single experiment has ever demonstrated that it exists. It's always
>>inferred (for example in the MMX) to happen.
>
>Dennis: Yup.
And the various FAQ sections I've seen on this are the most bizarre and
confused mess that's ever seen 'print', unless the fabled monkeys have
produced something readable.
> Finally, there's absolutely no reason for notions of "time dilation" let
>alone "mutual time dilation"--when an absolute clock retardation works nicely.
Not to mention that with T'=T/g and X=gX the required mutuality of v says
that v=X/T and v=X'/T' = gX/(T/g) = g^2(X/T) = g^2v.
Nor that a clock rate of T'=T/2 when the distance travelled is X'=2X means
that the moving object must cover twice the distance at half the clock rate,
which means the moving clock would always show the same time as the
stationary clock.
> And most important of all...
> There's no material causality. And material causality is the mort
>important and well established principle in all of science.
Just by deciding to cross the road a chicken changes the shape, size, and
mass of everything in the universe. {Well, where an object's relative v to
him was,say,-5, if he moves at what seemed to be +10 the object doesn't
change.)
>
>(...)
>>For others I think the main reason for opposing SR and GR is that it's
>>counter-intuitive. People like absolute time and flat space-time.
>>They don't like the idea that c is some kind of absolute speed. Also
>>they like to think that every wave has a medium.
>Dennis: Well, the hypothesis that light waves don't need a medium does not
>overcome the fact that every other wave we know about does.
No other wave has an initial 'thing' that reaches a 'distant shore'.
Eleaticus
>
>Dennis McCarthy
Bill Rowe
"Vertner Vergon" <VVe...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>When people think of SR they picture a venerable white haired
>gent well along in his years, very wise.
Undoubtedly this is true of some people, but it is totally not releveant
to the validity of relativity.
>The fact is, he was 26 years old when he rote it, lived in a little
>upstairs flat with a wife he later divorced - and held a menial job as
>a patent clerk.
This too is totally not relevant.
>Einstein was not a god,
I don't know of anyone claiming Einstein was a god. So what is your
point?
>The fact that there were counter-intuitive aspects -- and even some errors
>should have told him that his work was not done and that he should go
>back to the drawing board.
No. Why is it everyone expects intuition developed from every day
experiemce to apply in regimes far removed from everyday experience?
Simply put there is no rational basis for expecting experience at low
velocity to be valid when extrapolated to arbitrarily high velocity.
>I published the work in book form in 1976 and have also (foolishly) used
>some of it in my posts on this NG -- only to earn the title of Sir Kook.
>Bill ,and you Etherman, if you digested the material in the book I'm
>sure you would come to a mutual agreement. (but you do need
>an open mind).
Based on what I've seen you post here it seems very unlikely to be worth
reading. Development of relativity didn't stop with Einstein's death.
Whether Einstein made errors in some of his papers or not is matter of
historical interest only and has little bearing on the validity of
relativity.
Etherman
"Vertner Vergon" <VVe...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:VqUs7.47400$6Q6.3312502913@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Etherman" <ether...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:XwOs7.34033$vq.77...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net...
> >
> > "ade a ade" <adequest@-@home.com> wrote in message
> > news:l59s7.89747$sM1.23...@news3.rdc1.on.home.com...
> > > "Patrick Reany" <re...@asu.edu> wrote in message
> > > news:3BB0C11F...@asu.edu...
> > > > Then you are certainly an antirelativist. One either allows or
> > > > disallows the use of an absolute space to determine absolute
> > > > velocities or one does not. There really is no in between
> > > > on this.
> > > >
> > > Again, all this depends on the meaning of "absolute".
> >
> > Actually it depends on what is meant by "relativity." There's a
> > difference between relativity and Einsteinian relativity. I'm a
> > relativist in the sense that I disallow the use of absolute space.
> > I'm an anti-relativist in the sense that I oppose SR and GR.
>
**********************************************************************
> Vergon:
>
> It seems to me you have accepted one of the cornerstones of SR.
Am I correct in assuming you mean the masslessness of photons? I
accept that because the evidence strongly suggests that the mass of a
photon is zero, or very nearly so.
> So I am curious, what are the main reasons you oppose It?
I explained this elsewhere in the thread but briefly:
1) I think physicists have gone easy on the theory. They always have
a ready excuse when experiment doesn't agree with the predictions of
SR and GR. The most obvious example is the invention of nonbaryonic
dark matter to save GR (and the BBT) from the results of observation.
2) Physicists have over-sold the theory. Length contraction is often
inferred, but never observed. There are a wide variety of
interpretations available for the various experiments but relativists
insist on discussing only two: SR/GR and Absolute Space-time coupled
with an Aether.
3) I think inertial frames should be based on GL(4), the general
linear group, rather than the Poincare group. Such a definition would
include both Lorentz and Galilean transforms as special cases. I'm
currently teaching myself Lie groups so that I may eventually test
this idea.
Etherman
> "Etherman" <ether...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Several reasons for me. First is that I've found SR to be
over-sold.
> >When you go back and read the actual papers that support SR, you'll
> >often find that the results didn't agree with SR but the authors
> >*assumed* some sort of error was present, factored it out (with no
> >justification) or ignored it, and then proclaimed relativity the
> >winner.
>
> That is sufficient to be critical of those papers. But it is not
> sufficient to either reject or accept SR. It isn't logical to accept
or
> reject any theory based on a flawed or incomplete analysis.
In science one must reject a theory until it's "proven" itself.
Einstaeinian relativity hasn't proven itself to me.
> >Also, length contraction is considered a fact, but not a
> >single experiment has ever demonstrated that it exists.
>
> You may be correct as far as any direct observation of length
> contraction, but it is clear there is indirect experimental evidence
of
> length contraction. Spefically, there is direct experimental
observation
> of time dialation.
I accept this.
> Additionally, there is direct experimental evidence
> supporting the local speed of light in vacuum is c from any inertial
> frame.
I would like to eventually read the original papers for these
experiments. I want to see exactly what is being measured and how.
> These two together require the existence of length contraction.
This I doubt. I'd like to see a proof of this if you have one. I've
been pointed to one paper before (I think by Robertson) but have been
unable to obtain a copy. I rather suspect that there are numerous
hidden assumptions.
> >I also consider GR to be falsified by galactic rotation curves.
>
> This is reasonable *only* if you assume we know mass and distances
> sufficiently accurately.
As these measurements improve the situation for GR doesn't.
Physicists have been forced to invent ludicrous hypotheses about
nonbaryonic dark matter that never stand up to observational scrutiny.
> The obvious alternative is GR is correct and or
> information regarding mass etc is incomplete. Given the accuracy to
> which GR is confirmed where we know we have complete information it
> seems to me more reasonable to assume the discrepancy you note here
is a
> problem with incomplete information rather than evidence GR is
invalid.
We can be pretty sure that GR is an approximation. The trick is
figuring out when the approximation is valid. We can be pretty sure
it's not valid on the quantum level. It's proven itself remarkably
resistent to quantization. It also has problems on galactic scales.
The BBT is constantly running into problems as well.
Etherman
I think Bill and myself would agree that you've earned the title Sir
Kook.
Etherman
"Luc Bourhis" <Luc.B...@durham.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:1f0gcrc.1wm6irzuoy74iN%Luc.B...@durham.ac.uk...
Unfortunately every theory of DM proposed so far which has been tested
has failed. I would love to see a theory which agrees with all
observations, is based on known particles, and can explain the origin
and distribution of dark matter. Of course it must also be
falsifiable and have made at least one correct quantitative
prediction. Up for the challenge?
Etherman
dilation" let
> >alone "mutual time dilation"--when an absolute clock retardation
works nicely.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Are you talking about clocks
slowing down, as opposed to time dilating? For example, the rate of
muon decay would decrease with an increase in velocity? I've thought
of this, but I can't think of any way to distinguish the two.
> >>For others I think the main reason for opposing SR and GR is that
it's
> >>counter-intuitive. People like absolute time and flat space-time.
> >>They don't like the idea that c is some kind of absolute speed.
Also
> >>they like to think that every wave has a medium.
>
> >Dennis: Well, the hypothesis that light waves don't need a medium
does not
> >overcome the fact that every other wave we know about does.
What is the medium for electron waves?
Joe Fischer
: "Vertner Vergon" <VVe...@prodigy.net> wrote:
:>The fact is, he was 26 years old when he rote it, lived in a little
:>a patent clerk.
:
: This too is totally not relevant.
It also is a distortion, he was a "technical expert",
and he was also a journal reviewer for Annalen der Physik
for two or three years prior, plus having been published
a dozen times.
That is more than the average person could hope for
in a lifetime.
Joe Fischer
--
3
rbw...@mindspring.com
>>Also, length contraction is considered a fact, but not a
>>single experiment has ever demonstrated that it exists.
>
>You may be correct as far as any direct observation of length
>contraction, but it is clear there is indirect experimental evidence of
>length contraction. Spefically, there is direct experimental observation
>of time dialation. Additionally, there is direct experimental evidence
>supporting the local speed of light in vacuum is c from any inertial
>frame. These two together require the existence of length contraction.
>
I don't personally see it myself. If you take two sets of coordinates K and
K' with K' in motion with velocity v relative to K in the x direction, then
if x=ct and x'=ct' for a photon sent from the origins at t=t'=0 in the +x
direction,
x=x'+vt'
ct=ct'+vt'
As you will notice the photon is traveling at a velocity of c in both
frames of reference. You will also notice that there is no distance
contraction. Now we use the same equation for a photon sent in the -x
direction from the origins at t=t'=0.
x=x'+vt'
x= -ct
x'= -ct'
-ct= -ct' +vt'
You will notice that the photon is traveling at a velocity of -c in both
frames of reference. You will also notice that there is no distance
contraction.
All it takes to do this is using velocity of light instead of speed of
light. So now we need to consider the scientific aspects of this equation.
Suppose that all humans had been conditioned to believe a different equation
at the Harry Potter school for wizards where a distance contraction is
required. Would they ever be allowed to consider anything else?
What would the other wizards do if someone answered a post like this one?
Robert B. Winn
----- Posted via NewsOne.Net: Free (anonymous) Usenet News via the Web -----
http://newsone.net/ -- Free reading and anonymous posting to 60,000+ groups
NewsOne.Net prohibits users from posting spam. If this or other posts
made through NewsOne.Net violate posting guidelines, email ab...@newsone.net
Jim Heckman
> >> The MM-type experiments suggest an *approximate* isotropy *in the Earth
> >> surface frame* only.
> >
> >JHeckman: The Earth is unique in the Universe? Wow.
>
> Dennis: Does isotropy of sound waves in a basement lab also lead you to this
> same conclusion?
> Isotropy of all known waves will occur locally in the perferred medium frame.
Exactly! So then why do MM-type experiments suggest that the speed of light
is approximately isotropic only at the Earth's surface? Why not also at other
places in the Universe, in the locally preferred medium frame?
[...]
> >JHeckman: No one's ever measured the speed of light in, say, an airplane, to
> >better accuracy than the plane's velocity wrt the Earth's surface?
>
> Dennis: No.
Interesting. Sounds like an easy experiment to do, and one that would be worth
doing.
> >> Moreover, not only does the MM not suggest constancy of c in inertial
> >> frames
> >> in relative motion--the most accurate MM (Brillet Hall) even produced a
> >> signal in the Earth lab frame.
>
> >JHeckman:
> >I thought it was agreed that the Chinese experiment was more accurate than
> >Brillet-Hall.
>
> Dennis: I thought it was well known that it is still unknown (and IMO doubtful)
> whether, unlike Brillet Hall, the Chinese experiment was really referring to
> the lab frame as opposed to the sidereal frame.
What does the ether theory predict for the mathematical relationship between
the speed of light in the lab frame, and the speed of light in the sidereal frame?
--
Jim Heckman
Martin Hogbin
"punk floyd" <punk...@rambler.ru> wrote in message news:6168dc4a.01092...@posting.google.com...
> Hello,
>
> This is a question to the posters that feel that special relativity
> theory is not correct and has to be abandoned in favour of ,say,
> aether theories or some other hypothesis. I am not really depating
> validity or invalidity of these, it's something that really has to be
> examined on a case-by-case basis. What I am wondering about is what
> exactly you think is wrong with Special Relativity?
<Snip>
It would be interesting to hear from the original poster on this one.
What do you think of the replies from the anti-relativists?
Do any of them make any sense at all?
Have you seen one cogent argument against relativity?
Martin Hogbin
Dennis McCarthy
>
>[...]
>
>> >> The MM-type experiments suggest an *approximate* isotropy *in the
>Earth
>> >> surface frame* only.
>> >
>> >JHeckman: The Earth is unique in the Universe? Wow.
>>
>> Dennis: Does isotropy of sound waves in a basement lab also lead you to
>this
>> same conclusion?
>> Isotropy of all known waves will occur locally in the perferred medium
>frame.
JHeckman:
>Exactly! So then why do MM-type experiments suggest that the speed of light
>is approximately isotropic only at the Earth's surface? Why not also at other
>places in the Universe, in the locally preferred medium frame?
Dennis: IGS does suggest that it is also isotropic in the locally preferred
medium frame many other places in the universe (e.g. isotropic in the
horizontal direction on every planet or star centered inertial frame). But
that's not isotropic in all inertial frames. But in inertial frames moving at
high speed through the locally preferred medium frames, it predicts Galilean
variation in the speed of light--and the Sagnac effect is simply a
manifestation of this effect. [One understands the Sagnac effect is described
as non-Inertial, but the physical phenomenon that produces a global Sagnac
effect must also occur locally over small sections of the rim, i.e., in
inertial frames.]
>[...]
>
>> >JHeckman: No one's ever measured the speed of light in, say, an airplane,
>to
>> >better accuracy than the plane's velocity wrt the Earth's surface?
>>
>> Dennis: No.
JHeckman:
>Interesting. Sounds like an easy experiment to do, and one that would be
>worth
>doing.
Dennis: This is what I and many other etherists have been screaming at the top
of our lungs for more than a decade now.
Indeed, there was just a thread by an etherist within the last 6 months
describing in detail the need for exactly that experiment.
It would cost perhaps 1/100,000th of what it would cost to produce the
gravity probe B experiment.
[Carr actually asked why I haven't conducted such MM experiments--and I had to
explain that my neighbor borrowed my Fabry-Perot and hasn't returned it.]
D:
>> >> Moreover, not only does the MM not suggest constancy of c in inertial
>> >> frames
>> >> in relative motion--the most accurate MM (Brillet Hall) even produced a
>> >> signal in the Earth lab frame.
>>
>> >JHeckman:
>> >I thought it was agreed that the Chinese experiment was more accurate than
>> >Brillet-Hall.
>>
>> Dennis: I thought it was well known that it is still unknown (and IMO
>doubtful)
>> whether, unlike Brillet Hall, the Chinese experiment was really referring
>to
>> the lab frame as opposed to the sidereal frame.
JHeckman:
>What does the ether theory predict for the mathematical relationship between
>the speed of light in the lab frame, and the speed of light in the sidereal
>frame?
Dennis: IGS predicts c for the sidereal frame.
c +/-v for the lab frame where v is the rotational velocity of the lab at
that latitude.
Dennis McCarthy
Dennis McCarthy
>
>> On 28 Sep 2001 03:27:49 GMT, djm...@aol.com (Dennis McCarthy)
>wrote:
>>
>> > Finally, there's absolutely no reason for notions of "time
>dilation" let
>> >alone "mutual time dilation"--when an absolute clock retardation
>works nicely.
Etherman:
>I'm not sure what you mean by this. Are you talking about clocks
>slowing down, as opposed to time dilating?
Dennis: Yes. When my wristwatch slows, I don't think I become younger.
Etherman: For example, the rate of
>muon decay would decrease with an increase in velocity? I've thought
>of this, but I can't think of any way to distinguish the two.
Dennis: Different types of clocks change rates due to different types of
motion according to different equations for different types of reasons. For
example, a gravity clock (hourglass) speeds up when moving upward--while at
certain velocities an atomic clock would slow down in the same situation.
Pendulum clocks change their rate due to motion for still different reasons.
Moreover, a square ring Sagnac light clock doesn't retard by gamma when
rotating around a planet.
There's a difference between time and what a clocks says. This is easily
proved by breaking your wrist watch and noticing that time doesn't stop.
Indeed, the rates of atomic clocks are also temperature dependent. But does
this mean time is temperature dependent?
>> >>For others I think the main reason for opposing SR and GR is that
>it's
>> >>counter-intuitive. People like absolute time and flat space-time.
>> >>They don't like the idea that c is some kind of absolute speed.
>Also
>> >>they like to think that every wave has a medium.
>>
>> >Dennis: Well, the hypothesis that light waves don't need a medium
>does not
>> >overcome the fact that every other wave we know about does.
>
Etherman: >What is the medium for electron waves?
Dennis: Ether. Waves produced by material particles can be assumed to be like
"bow waves" or compression waves that motion through the medium produces. Drop
a marble in a bathtub--or shoot a torpedo through the ocean and compression
waves result due its movement through the water.
Dennis McCarthy
Dennis McCarthy
Dennis: How could one falsify all possible types of dark matter (cold, hot,
warm, non-baryonic, etc.)?
Dennis McCarthy
eleaticus
wrote:
>> >JHeckman: The Earth is unique in the Universe? Wow.
>>
>> Dennis: Does isotropy of sound waves in a basement lab also lead you to this
>> same conclusion?
>> Isotropy of all known waves will occur locally in the perferred medium frame.
>
>Exactly! So then why do MM-type experiments suggest that the speed of light
>is approximately isotropic only at the Earth's surface? Why not also at other
>places in the Universe, in the locally preferred medium frame?
?. Please illuminate the suggetion tht MMX suggests that.
Thanks
Eleaticus
Bill Rowe
"Etherman" <ether...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Bill Rowe" <bjr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:bjrowe-93C855....@nnrp03.earthlink.net...
>In science one must reject a theory until it's "proven" itself.
Agreed.
>Einstaeinian relativity hasn't proven itself to me.
Not relevant. The validity of a theory is independent of your acceptance
of it.
>> Spefically, there is direct experimental observation of time
>> dialation.
>I accept this.
>> Additionally, there is direct experimental evidence supporting the
>> local speed of light in vacuum is c from any inertial frame.
>I would like to eventually read the original papers for these
>experiments. I want to see exactly what is being measured and how.
I'll take this as acceptance for now.
>> These two together require the existence of length contraction.
>This I doubt. I'd like to see a proof of this if you have one.
Easily done:
Start with the K' frame. A measurement of the speed of light in that
frame would consist of a measurement of a time interval and distance
interval. That is one must have
c = (x1'-x0')/(t1'-t0') eg1
measurent in the K frame of the same experiment must yield
c = (x1-x0)/(t1-t0) eg2.
The validity of eq1 and eq2 follow from light speed being constant for
all intertial observers.
The existence of time dialation implies
t1'-t0'= g(t1-t0) for some g not equal to unity.
Taking eq1 and eq2 together and rearranging the terms gives
(x1'-x0')/(x1-x0) = (t1'-t0')/(t1-t0)
But this last is the factor g which means
x1'-x0' = g(x1-x0) which is what is meant by length contraction
>We can be pretty sure that GR is an approximation. The trick is
>figuring out when the approximation is valid. We can be pretty sure
>it's not valid on the quantum level. It's proven itself remarkably
>resistent to quantization.
Agreed.
>It also has problems on galactic scales.
This is debatable. The difference between observation and prediction
here is more likely due to issues of measurement than problems with GR.
>The BBT is constantly running into problems as well.
BBT = big bang theory?
eleaticus
>The existence of time dialation implies
>
>t1'-t0'= g(t1-t0) for some g not equal to unity.
That's the correct time effect formula, the time contraction formula.
>
>Taking eq1 and eq2 together and rearranging the terms gives
>
>(x1'-x0')/(x1-x0) = (t1'-t0')/(t1-t0)
>
>But this last is the factor g which means
>
>x1'-x0' = g(x1-x0) which is what is meant by length contraction
>
>>We can be pretty sure that GR is an approximation. The trick is
>>figuring out when the approximation is valid. We can be pretty sure
>>it's not valid on the quantum level. It's proven itself remarkably
>>resistent to quantization.
>
>Agreed.
>
>>It also has problems on galactic scales.
>
>This is debatable. The difference between observation and prediction
>here is more likely due to issues of measurement than problems with GR.
>
>>The BBT is constantly running into problems as well.
>
>BBT = big bang theory?
>
>--
>-
>PGPKey fingerprint: 6DA1 E71F EDFC 7601 0201 9243 E02A C9FD EF09 EAE5
"Anything and everything that requires or encourages
eleaticus
On Sat, 29 Sep 2001 19:09:48 GMT, Bill Rowe <bjr...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>The existence of time dialation implies
>
>t1'-t0'= g(t1-t0) for some g not equal to unity.
That's the correct time effect formula, the time contraction formula.
Use the dilation formula and you can get an interesting fact I've posted a
few times recently.
eleaticus
>
>Taking eq1 and eq2 together and rearranging the terms gives
>
>(x1'-x0')/(x1-x0) = (t1'-t0')/(t1-t0)
>
>But this last is the factor g which means
>
>x1'-x0' = g(x1-x0) which is what is meant by length contraction
>
>>We can be pretty sure that GR is an approximation. The trick is
>>figuring out when the approximation is valid. We can be pretty sure
>>it's not valid on the quantum level. It's proven itself remarkably
>>resistent to quantization.
>
>Agreed.
>
>>It also has problems on galactic scales.
>
>This is debatable. The difference between observation and prediction
>here is more likely due to issues of measurement than problems with GR.
>
>>The BBT is constantly running into problems as well.
>
>BBT = big bang theory?
>
>--
>-
>PGPKey fingerprint: 6DA1 E71F EDFC 7601 0201 9243 E02A C9FD EF09 EAE5
"Anything and everything that requires or encourages
Jim Heckman
On 29-Sep-2001, djm...@aol.com (Dennis McCarthy) wrote:
[...]
> >JHeckman:
> >Exactly! So then why do MM-type experiments suggest that the speed of light
> >is approximately isotropic only at the Earth's surface? Why not also at other
> >places in the Universe, in the locally preferred medium frame?
>
> Dennis: IGS does suggest that it is also isotropic in the locally preferred
> medium frame many other places in the universe (e.g. isotropic in the
> horizontal direction on every planet or star centered inertial frame).
So IGS is ruled out by MM-type experiments, which suggest that the speed of
light is approximately isotropic only at the Earth's surface.
[...]
> >> >JHeckman: No one's ever measured the speed of light in, say, an airplane,
> >> >to better accuracy than the plane's velocity wrt the Earth's surface?
> >>
> >> Dennis: No.
>
> >JHeckman:
> >Interesting. Sounds like an easy experiment to do, and one that would be
> >worth doing.
>
> Dennis: This is what I and many other etherists have been screaming at the top
> of our lungs for more than a decade now.
Yet none of the etherists has done such an experiment? Why not?
> Indeed, there was just a thread by an etherist within the last 6 months
> describing in detail the need for exactly that experiment.
Yet none of the etherists has done such an experiment? Why not?
> It would cost perhaps 1/100,000th of what it would cost to produce the
> gravity probe B experiment.
Exactly! Well within the means of the average person, yet none of the etherists
has put their money where their mouth is. Why not?
> [Carr actually asked why I haven't conducted such MM experiments--and I had to
> explain that my neighbor borrowed my Fabry-Perot and hasn't returned it.]
Folks, you can't *buy* entertainment like this!
[...]
--
Jim Heckman
Jim Heckman
On 29-Sep-2001, thnk...@concentric.net (eleaticus) wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Sep 2001 06:02:17 GMT, "Jim Heckman" <NOjhe...@SPAMmy-deja.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> >JHeckman: The Earth is unique in the Universe? Wow.
> >>
> >> Dennis: Does isotropy of sound waves in a basement lab also lead you to this
> >> same conclusion?
> >> Isotropy of all known waves will occur locally in the perferred medium frame.
> >
> >Exactly! So then why do MM-type experiments suggest that the speed of light
> >is approximately isotropic only at the Earth's surface? Why not also at other
> >places in the Universe, in the locally preferred medium frame?
>
> ?. Please illuminate the suggetion tht MMX suggests that.
I'm afraid I don't understand it either. I'm trying to follow Dennis' reasoning in his
claim that:
"The MM-type experiments suggest an *approximate* isotropy *in the Earth
surface frame* only."
It seems he thinks that MM rules out the approximate isotropy of the speed of
light everywhere in the Universe except in the Earth surface frame. That seems
like quite a leap to me.
--
Jim Heckman
Dennis McCarthy
>
>On 29-Sep-2001, djm...@aol.com (Dennis McCarthy) wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>> >JHeckman:
>> >Exactly! So then why do MM-type experiments suggest that the speed of
>light
>> >is approximately isotropic only at the Earth's surface? Why not also at
>other
>> >places in the Universe, in the locally preferred medium frame?
>>
>> Dennis: IGS does suggest that it is also isotropic in the locally preferred
>> medium frame many other places in the universe (e.g. isotropic in the
>> horizontal direction on every planet or star centered inertial frame).
JHeckman:
>So IGS is ruled out by MM-type experiments, which suggest that the speed of
>light is approximately isotropic only at the Earth's surface.
Dennis:?? I thought we've been through this. The speed of the Earth's
rotation is so small wrt the speed of light that there has been only one MM of
which I am aware that determined light speed wrt the lab frame with the
accuracy to determine rotational velocity.
That was BH. The IGS predicted c +/-v predicts a 16.2 Hz peak at twice the
rotation rate of the table. The result was a 17 Hz peak at twice the rotation
rate of the table--which is within error bars. SR predicts 0 Hz.
So if you believe that inconsistency with an MM experiment constitutes a
refutation, well....
>[...]
>
>> >> >JHeckman: No one's ever measured the speed of light in, say, an
>airplane,
>> >> >to better accuracy than the plane's velocity wrt the Earth's surface?
>> >>
>> >> Dennis: No.
>>
>> >JHeckman:
>> >Interesting. Sounds like an easy experiment to do, and one that would be
>> >worth doing.
>>
>> Dennis: This is what I and many other etherists have been screaming at the
>top
>> of our lungs for more than a decade now.
>
JHeckman: >Yet none of the etherists has done such an experiment? Why not?
Dennis: As I said, my neighbor borrowed my Fabry Perot.
Are these questions really serious?
Dennis:
>> Indeed, there was just a thread by an etherist within the last 6 months
>> describing in detail the need for exactly that experiment.
JHeckman:
>Yet none of the etherists has done such an experiment? Why not?
Dennis: Above.
D:
>> It would cost perhaps 1/100,000th of what it would cost to produce the
>> gravity probe B experiment.
>
>Exactly! Well within the means of the average person,
Dennis: Yes, every average person who has a jet and the Brillet Hall set up.
Wow.
JHeckman: yet none of the
>etherists
>has put their money where their mouth is. Why not?
Dennis: One would think that in the normal course of all of the funding for
various experiments, they would want to run this experiment especially after
Brillet Hall, don't you? That would be more sensible than asking the small
percentage of etherists who exist to some how gather the hundreds of thousands
of dollars to run an experiment that no one would believe the results of
anyway.
>> [Carr actually asked why I haven't conducted such MM experiments--and I
>had to
>> explain that my neighbor borrowed my Fabry-Perot and hasn't returned it.]
>
JHeckman: >Folks, you can't *buy* entertainment like this!
Dennis: But from your reaction above, I don't think you really get it.
Dennis McCarthy
Luc Bourhis
> "Luc Bourhis" <Luc.B...@durham.ac.uk> wrote in message news
>> Etherman <ether...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> [...] I also consider GR to be falsified by galactic rotation
>>> curves. A scientific theory of dark matter seems to be elusive at
>>> best. Until someone gives me convincing evidence for DM I will
>>> consider GR invalid.
>> You have cited only one evidence for dark matter where there exist
>> many more. As you surely know there have been many opportunities to
>> falsify the dark matter hypothesis within General Relativity or at
>> least to make this combination very unattractive but none of them has
>> materialised.
Just to make sure you got my point, here are some of the opportunities I
talked about.
- One can "weight" a galaxy by studying its rotation curve and how it
bends light. If the two methods consistently gave different results,
General Relativity would be falsified.
- One can "weight" a cluster of galaxies plus the hot intergalactic gas
within from the velocity distribution, from gravitational lensing and
from temperature profiles deduced from x-ray emissions. General
Relativity would be falsified if these methods would not be compatible
with the same energy-momentum distribution of dark matter.
- That dark matter observatories on Earth have not reported any
convincing positive detection so far suggest strongly that dark matter
particles weakly interact not only with baryonic matter but also with
each others -- otherwise one would have to postulate a new interaction
which would only affect dark matter, which is a very unattractive
feature. But then if our observational data on galaxies, clusters and
superclusters was not compatible with dust-like dark matter in the
framework of General Relativity, there would be something very fishy.
It is largely considered that General Relativity plus dark matter has
successfuly passed these tests -- I mean, I am not an astrophysicist and
I have therefore to trust the received opinion in their community.
> Unfortunately every theory of DM proposed so far which has been tested
> has failed. I would love to see a theory which agrees with all
> observations, is based on known particles, and can explain the origin
> and distribution of dark matter. Of course it must also be falsifiable
> and have made at least one correct quantitative prediction. Up for the
> challenge?
What failures do you have in mind exactly ? Anyway I do agree that it is
still work in progress. But you should not forget that we are talking
about astrophysics, where failures can quickly transform into successes
(and successes into failures as well !). For example, a relevant one in
this discussion, models of galaxies evolution and stars formation have
recently been re-invented almost from scratch when evidence for super
heavy black holes at their core have emerged.
--
Luc J. Bourhis
Dennis McCarthy
Dennis: What a bizarre statement to say--as I've already explained to you
exactly what I mean.
You and others actually seemed to believe that MM **implies** constancy of c
in all inertial frames. But of course it does no such thing. I do however
believe that there are many frames were the speed of light is isotropic (always
the preferred medium frame.)
Again, IGS does suggest that it is also isotropic in the locally preferred
medium frame many other places in the universe (e.g. isotropic in the
horizontal direction on every planet or star centered inertial frame). But
that's not isotropic in all inertial frames. But in inertial frames moving at
high speed through the locally preferred medium frames, it predicts Galilean
variation in the speed of light--and the Sagnac effect is simply a
manifestation of this effect. [One understands the Sagnac effect is described
as non-Inertial, but the physical phenomenon that produces a global Sagnac
effect must also occur locally over small sections of the rim, i.e., in
inertial frames.]
That
>seems
>like quite a leap to me.
Dennis: ? No, the leap would be finding approx. isotropy in an Earth surface
lab--and then assuming isotropy in all inertial frames.
Acknowledging that all other waves require a medium and that those waves are
isotropic in the locally preferred medium frame is not a leap, just standard
hydrodynamics.
Dennis McCarthy
Dennis McCarthy
>>slowing down, as opposed to time dilating?
>
>Dennis: Yes. When my wristwatch slows, I don't think I become younger.
I should say above "become younger relative to others" or "age more slowly."
Dennis McCarthy
Paul Stowe
Luc.B...@durham.ac.uk (Luc Bourhis) wrote:
>Etherman <ether...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "Luc Bourhis" <Luc.B...@durham.ac.uk> wrote in message news
>
>>> Etherman <ether...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> [...] I also consider GR to be falsified by galactic
>>>> rotation curves. A scientific theory of dark matter seems
>>>> to be elusive at best. Until someone gives me convincing
>>>> evidence for DM I will consider GR invalid.
>
>>> You have cited only one evidence for dark matter where there
>>> exist many more. As you surely know there have been many
>>> opportunities to falsify the dark matter hypothesis within
>>> General Relativity or at least to make this combination very
>>> unattractive but none of them has materialised.
>
> Just to make sure you got my point, here are some of the
> opportunities I talked about.
>
> - One can "weight" a galaxy by studying its rotation curve and
> how it bends light. If the two methods consistently gave
> different results, General Relativity would be falsified.
One cannot directly determine the mass distribution of a galaxy
\nor can one weigh a galaxy. One can 'assume' a set of equations
and plug & chug. But one MUST also assume that the answer is
consistent and it isn't.
One must assume 'a dark matter shell' eternal to the galaxy to
get the profile of rotation, but that IS, by definition,
external to the visible galaxy radius. BTW, how dow one
'determine' where an object actually is if it's light is bent,
and we're seeing it someplace else??? Does one calculate the
this position. If so, one must use something to do so and
explicitly 'assume' that the method is going to yield a valid
result. To then go backwards and claim that see, this proves
the validity of that method is circular, and a rather silly
flaw in logic.
> - One can "weight" a cluster of galaxies plus the hot
> intergalactic gas within from the velocity distribution,
> from gravitational lensing and from temperature profiles
> deduced from x-ray emissions. General Relativity would be
> falsified if these methods would not be compatible with the
> same energy-momentum distribution of dark matter.
What dark matter? How does one directly observe it? To 'save'
an existing theory one postulates it... Tell us all how to
independently measure or observe dark matter.
> - That dark matter observatories on Earth have not reported
> any convincing positive detection so far suggest strongly that
> dark matter particles weakly interact not only with baryonic
> matter but also with each others -- otherwise one would have
> to postulate a new interaction which would only affect dark
> matter, which is a very unattractive feature. But then if our
> observational data on galaxies, clusters and superclusters was
> not compatible with dust-like dark matter in the framework of
> General Relativity, there would be something very fishy.
There's something 'very fishy' already... That WHY we have the
idea of dark matter to begin with!
> It is largely considered that General Relativity plus dark
> matter has successfuly passed these tests -- I mean, I am not
> an astrophysicist and I have therefore to trust the received
> opinion in their community.
I like Feynmann's take on this attitude... What is it, one cannot
reason for themselves?
>> Unfortunately every theory of DM proposed so far which has been
>> tested has failed. I would love to see a theory which agrees
>> with all observations, is based on known particles, and can
>> explain the origin and distribution of dark matter. Of course it
>> must also be falsifiable and have made at least one correct
>> quantitative prediction. Up for the challenge?
>
> What failures do you have in mind exactly ? Anyway I do agree
> that it is still work in progress. But you should not forget that
> we are talking about astrophysics, where failures can quickly
> transform into successes (and successes into failures as well !).
> For example, a relevant one in this discussion, models of galaxies
> evolution and stars formation have recently been re-invented almost
> from scratch when evidence for super heavy black holes at their
> core have emerged.
Paul Stowe
Matthew Nobes
> In article <1f0k10k.1s1lkdz1p06rk0N%Luc.B...@durham.ac.uk>,
> Luc.B...@durham.ac.uk (Luc Bourhis) wrote:
>
> >Etherman <ether...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Luc Bourhis" <Luc.B...@durham.ac.uk> wrote in message news
> >
> >>> Etherman <ether...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>>> [...] I also consider GR to be falsified by galactic
> >>>> rotation curves. A scientific theory of dark matter seems
> >>>> to be elusive at best. Until someone gives me convincing
> >>>> evidence for DM I will consider GR invalid.
> >
> >>> You have cited only one evidence for dark matter where there
> >>> exist many more. As you surely know there have been many
> >>> opportunities to falsify the dark matter hypothesis within
> >>> General Relativity or at least to make this combination very
> >>> unattractive but none of them has materialised.
> >
> > Just to make sure you got my point, here are some of the
> > opportunities I talked about.
> >
> > - One can "weight" a galaxy by studying its rotation curve and
> > how it bends light. If the two methods consistently gave
> > different results, General Relativity would be falsified.
>
> One cannot directly determine the mass distribution of a galaxy
> \nor can one weigh a galaxy. One can 'assume' a set of equations
> and plug & chug. But one MUST also assume that the answer is
> consistent and it isn't.
This is untrue Paul. One assumes a set of equations, but no
consistency assumption is made, that is a check on the theory.
That is you assume the relationship between total mass and
rotation curve. You can then use use the observed rotation curve
to predict the mass. This gives you some number M_{r}.
Then you plug this number into the equation that describes
gravitaional lensing. If it gives you a prediction that is in
agreement with experiment, everything is consistent and GR can
justly claim and experimental verification.
> One must assume 'a dark matter shell' eternal to the galaxy
> to get the profile of rotation, but that IS, by definition,
> external to the visible galaxy radius.
This isn't how I'd put it. One assumes that GR is correct, then
uses it to fix masses. If GR requires more mass then we see
visably (which it does) then you hve to make a hard choice about
whether you want to belive GR or not. The fact that the GR
derived mass gives a correct prediction for another (independent)
phenmena makes that choice a lot easier.
> BTW, how dow one 'determine' where an object actually is if
> it's light is bent, and we're seeing it someplace else???
For example the Einstein cross looks (ideally) like this
X
X R X
X
X are the images and R is the real position. This has been
observed in at least one case.
> Does one calculate the this position. If so, one must use
> something to do so and explicitly 'assume' that the method is
> going to yield a valid result. To then go backwards and
> claim that see, this proves the validity of that method is
> circular, and a rather silly flaw in logic.
See above. There's no flaw in logic.
> > - One can "weight" a cluster of galaxies plus the hot
> > intergalactic gas within from the velocity distribution,
> > from gravitational lensing and from temperature profiles
> > deduced from x-ray emissions. General Relativity would be
> > falsified if these methods would not be compatible with the
> > same energy-momentum distribution of dark matter.
>
> What dark matter? How does one directly observe it? To 'save'
> an existing theory one postulates it... Tell us all how to
> independently measure or observe dark matter.
Now you sound like Dennis. There are lots of proposals about
what the dark matter might be. All of which suggest ways of
observation (of varying degrees of practicality).
--
"Neutral kaons are even more crazy than silly putty"
-G. 't Hooft
Matthew Nobes, c/o Physics Dept. Simon Fraser University, 8888 University
Drive Burnaby, B.C., Canada, http://www.sfu.ca/~manobes
Joe Fischer
:PS wrote:
:> What dark matter? How does one directly observe it? To 'save'
:> an existing theory one postulates it... Tell us all how to
:> independently measure or observe dark matter.
:
: Now you sound like Dennis. There are lots of proposals about
: what the dark matter might be. All of which suggest ways of
: observation (of varying degrees of practicality).
Have you seen the new images of a star almost
totally hidden by what is apparently planetary matter
totally spread around it in a flattened sphere/oval?
These are Hubble images taken this summer. This
means stars exist which were never seen before because
they were hidden by "dark matter", but the mass of the
star is probably much more than that of the DM.
Joe Fischer
--
3
Etherman
> Etherman <ether...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "Luc Bourhis" <Luc.B...@durham.ac.uk> wrote in message news
>
> >> Etherman <ether...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> [...] I also consider GR to be falsified by galactic rotation
> >>> curves. A scientific theory of dark matter seems to be elusive
at
> >>> best. Until someone gives me convincing evidence for DM I will
> >>> consider GR invalid.
>
> >> You have cited only one evidence for dark matter where there
exist
> >> many more. As you surely know there have been many opportunities
to
> >> falsify the dark matter hypothesis within General Relativity or
at
> >> least to make this combination very unattractive but none of them
has
> >> materialised.
>
> Just to make sure you got my point, here are some of the
opportunities I
> talked about.
>
> - One can "weight" a galaxy by studying its rotation curve and how
it
> bends light. If the two methods consistently gave different results,
> General Relativity would be falsified.
AFAIK the weights for these two measurements have been consistent.
Unfortunately they disagree with the "weight" we can measure from the
light and what we infer from light dispersion.
> - One can "weight" a cluster of galaxies plus the hot intergalactic
gas
> within from the velocity distribution, from gravitational lensing
and
> from temperature profiles deduced from x-ray emissions. General
> Relativity would be falsified if these methods would not be
compatible
> with the same energy-momentum distribution of dark matter.
The problem seems to stem from the same "flaw" in the theory. There
should be mass according to theory, yet all attempts to account for it
all have failed.
> - That dark matter observatories on Earth have not reported any
> convincing positive detection so far suggest strongly that dark
matter
> particles weakly interact not only with baryonic matter but also
with
> each others -- otherwise one would have to postulate a new
interaction
> which would only affect dark matter, which is a very unattractive
> feature. But then if our observational data on galaxies, clusters
and
> superclusters was not compatible with dust-like dark matter in the
> framework of General Relativity, there would be something very
fishy.
Yet something is already very fishy.
> It is largely considered that General Relativity plus dark matter
has
> successfuly passed these tests -- I mean, I am not an astrophysicist
and
> I have therefore to trust the received opinion in their community.
Yet no one can tell us what it's made of, where it came from, or why
it's distributed as it is.
> > Unfortunately every theory of DM proposed so far which has been
tested
> > has failed. I would love to see a theory which agrees with all
> > observations, is based on known particles, and can explain the
origin
> > and distribution of dark matter. Of course it must also be
falsifiable
> > and have made at least one correct quantitative prediction. Up for
the
> > challenge?
>
> What failures do you have in mind exactly ?
The origin, composition, and distribution of the dark matter. Don't
forget that there's also the cosmological dark matter problem. You
might also want to take a look at
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0009074 for some very specific
problems with all dark matter models. And I just found this paper as
well: http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0109555
> Anyway I do agree that it is
> still work in progress. But you should not forget that we are
talking
> about astrophysics, where failures can quickly transform into
successes
> (and successes into failures as well !).
I'll wait for the success before assuming it's going to exist.
Paul Stowe
Matthew Nobes <man...@fraser.sfu.ca> wrote:
That's fine if, and only if, there is a galaxy that has both
lensing and a rotation that can be both assocated with a path
which can be shown to be grazing the rotation at some radius
consistent to both.
>> One must assume 'a dark matter shell' eternal to the galaxy
>> to get the profile of rotation, but that IS, by definition,
>> external to the visible galaxy radius.
>
> This isn't how I'd put it. One assumes that GR is correct, then
> uses it to fix masses. If GR requires more mass then we see
> visably (which it does) then you hve to make a hard choice about
> whether you want to belive GR or not. The fact that the GR
> derived mass gives a correct prediction for another (independent)
> phenmena makes that choice a lot easier.
The GR prediction for a typical sprial galaxy is ...
*
* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
*
The observed is more like ...
*
* *
* * * * * *
*
*
*
*
*
and this is interpreted to indicate a external halo of mass equaling
~90% of the total. If I'm wrong here I'd like to know. My references
confirm this.
>> BTW, how dow one 'determine' where an object actually is if
>> it's light is bent, and we're seeing it someplace else???
>
> For example the Einstein cross looks (ideally) like this
>
> X
>
> X R X
>
> X
>
> X are the images and R is the real position. This has been
> observed in at least one case.
Yes, see:
http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/NumRel/EinsteinTest.html
http://www.astr.ua.edu/keel/agn/qso2237.html
The question is, can GR predict both the actual rotation profile
and cross with the mass distribution within 0.05 arcsecond of
where we see the galaxy's nucleus? I'd like to see a reference
for this one (above). Since this seems to be a top down view
I doubt that we know that galaxy's rotation profile.
>> Does one calculate the this position. If so, one must use
>> something to do so and explicitly 'assume' that the method is
>> going to yield a valid result. To then go backwards and
>> claim that see, this proves the validity of that method is
>> circular, and a rather silly flaw in logic.
>
> See above. There's no flaw in logic.
>
>> > - One can "weight" a cluster of galaxies plus the hot
>> > intergalactic gas within from the velocity distribution,
>> > from gravitational lensing and from temperature profiles
>> > deduced from x-ray emissions. General Relativity would be
>> > falsified if these methods would not be compatible with the
>> > same energy-momentum distribution of dark matter.
>>
>> What dark matter? How does one directly observe it? To 'save'
>> an existing theory one postulates it... Tell us all how to
>> independently measure or observe dark matter.
>
> Now you sound like Dennis. There are lots of proposals about
> what the dark matter might be. All of which suggest ways of
> observation (of varying degrees of practicality).
Actually I sound like many cynics herein. So when we can catch
dark matter and directly observe it by manipulation, I'll be
interested otherwise dark matter is like the (and actually probably
is) the ether, and at this juncture most certainly ad hoc even more
so than Lorentz's proposal of length contraction in 1895.
Paul Stowe
Bilge
>
>What dark matter? How does one directly observe it? To 'save'
>an existing theory one postulates it... Tell us all how to
>independently measure or observe dark matter.
Well, let's first divide this into the proper categories,
so you actually have to specify what it is you mean. So let's
dispense with the catch-all "dark matter", since I'm sure you
believe in some what constitues "dark matter" (feel free to say
you believe in none of these, however):
I. Things that interact electromagnetically, but are
"dark"
a) standard fare
i) dead stars
ii) chunks of dead stars
iii) dust from exploded dead stars
iv) primary cosmic rays
b) electromagnetic exotica
i) magnetic monopoles
II. Things that don't interact electromagnetically, but
hang around more or less eternally
a) neutrinos
i) electron neutrinos
ii) muon neutrinos
iii) tau neutrinos
b) misc esotrica
i) wimps
ii) machos
iii) others
III. None of the above
[...]
>There's something 'very fishy' already... That WHY we have the
>idea of dark matter to begin with!
Well, unless you disagree that any of the above exist,
we've just changed the argument to one of "how much of each".
Group I, subsection a). There are obviously lots of things from
dead stars - dead stars, planets and asteroids, nebulae and other
cosmic debris. Since these do not light up on their own or in most
cases, give much clue that they exist, this is one form of dark matter
that even you can't dispute exists. But onward to the more exotic.
Group I, subsection b). The jury is still out on magnetic monopoles
but since these should be relatively straight-forward to detect, one
is hard pressed to believe they are plentiful and certainly cannot be
massive enough to offset the rarity. So, we can ignore this as an option.
Group II, subsection a). Certainly there are a quite a lot of
neutrinos. Every star produces electron neutrinos in large quantities.
Unlike light, neutrinos can escape rather easily from any part of the
star. The fact that they are hard to detect is evidence that once emitted,
they are likely to remain as part of the background.
Group II, subsections b) & c). Now that the masses of neutrinos have
been verified to be non-zero, the electron neutrinos will oscillate into
muon and tau neutrinos and back to electron neutrinos, etc. Muon and
tau neutrinos are even less likely to be impeded by anything, which gives
even more reason to believe the universe is bathed in them. The only
question is how many there are. Apparently, not enough though.
Group II, subsection b). These are speculative and contrary to your
apparent belief that these things are accepted without question or are
untestable. Any gravitationally interacting body can be detected, in
principle. In fact, were such a body _only_ gravitationally interacting,
it would not only be detectable in principle, it would have a signature
which would be different from anything else that could account for
the signal. In other words, it would be infinitely more detectable
than your ether, which you can offer nothing to detect which is uniquely
that of the ether. Sorry, but claiming that all phenomena which can
be explained without the ether are evidence for it, is not a unique
signature. In the case of dark matter, one would see the gravitational
disturbance without seeing any electromagnetic, strong or weak interaction
along with it. I have no idea how many times this has to be posted
before it registers, since I know I've posted something along these
lines at least twice.
Group III. Perhaps some better understanding will obviate the belief
of what the universe _should_ look like and nothing at all will be required
to "fix" anything. It's not as if everyone's ready to board up the lab and
go home. However, no one is willing to give up using models that have been
without precedent in the ability to describe nature for models that cannot
come close to doing the same thing.
>I like Feynmann's take on this attitude... What is it, one cannot
>reason for themselves?
I've often asked that question...