Re: Splitting the genres

: Gerry Quinn <gerryq@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
: Newton and Einstein alike would have looked with contempt on the notion 
: that "asking the wrong question" misleads.  Making wrong assumptions 
: may mislead - asking questions, never. 

Very well.  Your question is based on the wrong assumptions.

: No, the physics are defined in these terms. 

They aren't.  I've already pointed you to the original statement in
the original 1905 paper, and things haven't changed since then. It says
nothing at all about physical state, and everything at all about "laws",
ie, the rules by which physical processes proceed.  Those are the same in
the two isolated systems.  Further, both systems have no distinct physical
state of rest, because there is no such thing as a physical state of rest,
"rest" being a convenient fiction.

You containue to assert special relativity claims things it does not claim,
and you continue to provide no support for why anybody should think it
claims these things, whereas I have shown you exactly why it does not
claim them.

: No, the systems have never changed. 

You are simply confusing yourself with a nonsensical what-if.  What if
these systems were isolated?  What if I lied to you, and they weren't?
Two completely different scenarios, which you are confusing yourself over.

: I stated that at one time we are looking at part of the universe
: containing one object and 'most of spacetime' if that makes sense, and
: at another time we are looking at part of the universe containing the
: other object and 'most of spacetime'.  And that having seen both, it
: appears that we have seen everything physical in the universe.  And
: thus, that everything in the combined system, i.e.  the actual
: universe, must be in one or the other, or partly in one and partly in
: the other. 

That is, indeed, how you are confusing yourself.

: Are you saying that things can be identical yet have different
: physical properties, in your version of physics? 

No.  I've said what I meant, as clearly as I know how.
You claim newtonian physics and einsteinian physics differ in how
to interpret the principle of relativity.  They do not.  It's that simple.

: You continually change the subject.  I have invoked only Newtonian
: physics, as defined by Newton, and relativity, as defined by Einstein. 

No, you've invoked relativity, as imagined incorrectly by you.
I've explained exactly what your error is, multilple times.   You are
confusing "follow the same laws" with "have the same state".
Both newtonian and einsteinian physics say "follow the same laws",
and both of them do not say "have the same state".

: You are claiming, in effect, that my changing of my mind can make
: physical quantities magically appear that were not previously present
: in the universe. 

I am saying, very clearly, multiple times, exactly the opposite.

: Sure, the objects were not really isolated - so tell us how the system
: containing such an object, but not the other, differs from a system in
: which the other object is present. 

Now I don't know what you mean by a "system containing an object".
It's probably something else you are making up to confuse yourself with.
If the objects aren't isolated, there is no such thing as a "system"
as in "inertial system of coordinates", which contains one object
and not the other.

: Or does this physical distinction (between a system that is really
: isolated and one that really isn't) exist somewhere else altogether? 

Where does this difference *need* to exist.  One system is isolated, and
for all purposes has only objects A, B, and C.  The other is isolated and
for all purposes has only objects X, Y, and Z.  If there's a system which
contains objects A, B, C, X, Y, and Z, obviously it is a different system
than either of the two you've mentioned before.

Shrug.  Again, what do you think newtonian physics claims about
isolated systems?  I assure you, einsteinan physics claims all the same
things about isolated systems as newton does, and einsteinian physics
means exactly the same thing by "same laws of physics" for two different
coordinate systems as newtonian physics does.  If you think different,
you have simply confused yourself.


Wayne Throop   throopw@xxxxxxxxx   http://sheol.org/throopw
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: No Such Thing As "Macro" Evolution
    ... >>>You mistake appearance for reality. ... Langrangian analysis or a Newtonian analysis must be the same for any ... using the same methods of celestial mechanics developed by Laplace ... Calculation in physics ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: How can I tell if F is a string or if it is a number?
    ... that unifies physics is not the Newtonian force but the unit system. ... Adopting an anti-realist attitude towards Newtonian force might ... However, regardless of your stance on realism versus anti-realism, you still ...
    (comp.theory)
  • Re: According to 1905 Relativity, a single material point must be always at rest
    ... Indeed, those changes of state stem from classical (Newtonian) theory, ... and the part about moving ... Stationary System to another System in Uniform Motion of Translation ... direction of motion cannot affect the physics; ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: definition of a clock in relativity theory
    ... >>of the equations of Newtonian theory. ... transition in lightpeed wouldn't have made sense of c was infinite. ... But that's an example of clever mathematics being "dumb" physics, ... Mathematicians are good at generating tools and techniques for use in ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Is F=ma a definition or not?
    ... It is only in the case of the elliptical orbits that the ... the Newtonian equation of motion is only an approximation to the ... Force is the only foundation of physics known today, ...
    (sci.physics)