Re: RAH and Light speed was Re: Awesum mind powerz!!!

In article <1140204098.361897.28130@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
genewardsmith@xxxxxxxxx says...
Gerry Quinn wrote:

You made many 'responses', none of them addressing the point at issue.
You evaded endlessly posting about undefined concepts such as
'einsteinean physics' and 'newtonian relativity'.

Excuse me, but Wayne started out by mentioning "Galilean relativity",
which is a well-known term, and made it clear "newtonian relativity"
was a synonym. Galilean relativity says that the choice of a zero
velocity is arbitrary, and that all of the properties of Newtonian
physics are invariant under an alteration of velocity applied to the
system as a whole. Moving the whole universe north ten feet changes
nothing (which could be called Euclidean relativity.) Assuming the
whole universe has 10 ft/sec tacked on to every velocity in a north
direction is the same--Galilean relativity.

Now, if you haven't heard the term that is not Wayne's fault.

Let me put it this way: I've heard the term, it may be well-defined in
some contexts, but it is completely irrelevant to the proposition Wayne
was oppong, which referred to Newronian physics and to special
relativity.

As for Einsteinean physics, in context that just means the physics of
relativity. So what's your beef? Do you just like to whine about
things?

My beef was that Wayne suddenly changed to talking about "einsteinean
physics" rather than relativity, and at one time appeared to be
claiming compatibility between "einsteinean physics" and ether
theories. If so, "einsteinean physics" must not include relativity as
a principle. I asked Wayne to clarify whether he was now referring to
relativity or to something else.

When I finally got you to delineate specifically the physical systems
that are hypothesised by your concept of special relativity, and asked
you to demonstrate how a coherent model can be made that includes both
the 'physical spacetime' you proposed [I showed such a model for
Newtonian physics] and the qualities expected of a system belong to
classical physics, you ran away.

Excuse me, Buster, but you are the one who cut and ran. I pointed out
that your model of Newtonian physics involved modeling space by means
of a metric graph, where the verticies of the graph were the
"particles" of the "ether", and that this involved assuming invariance
properties. That is, because of Galilean relativity, the velocity of
the ether would need to be practically impossible to determine. I then
asked why you couldn't likewise assume relativistic invariance, and you
ran.

On the contrary, I replied to your post (on 12th February). I agreed
that the ether in a typical ether model could be represented by a
graph, but pointed out that the last paragraph, in which you assumed
that the ether particles moved, was not a desirable feature of such a
model (it merely pushes the construction of space recursively to
another level). Your argument about whether I could assume
relativistic invariance was therefore irrelevant.

Anyone who reads the thread can verify this with ease.

Anyone can verify that you are being grossly unfair and unreasonable,
and are and have been completely full of shit on this issue. And I
notice that *no one* has suggested anything else.

Since my interlocutors on this issue total two, the argument from
popularity would be unconvincing, even if it were valid. Argument by
obscenity is likewise unconvincing.

Your 'physical spacetime' does not have the properties of locality,
measurement-independent reality, and counterfactual definiteness.

Excuse me, but who just accused Wayne of evading the issue by
"endlessly posting about undefined concepts"? Then you toss out
"counterfactual definiteness" as a property the usual notion of
spacetime lacks.

It is a quality of classical - as distinct from quantum - physics with
which the relativistic notion of spacetime is incompatible. Happy now?

It's
rather easy to see. When asked how a portion of 'spacetime' might
differ physically between alternative systems containing similar
'events' in different configurations, you were unable to answer.

The question makes no sense unless you assume one portion of spacetime
can physically differ from another. That's true in GR, but false in SR.

Well, I leave Wayne free to say what physical things differ and what
physical things don't, given different physical states of the universe,
in his proposed model. Wayne introduced spacetime as a physical
entity; presumably it has properties. Whether they can vary or not is
up to him.

You
cannot logically reconcile it with the three properties listed.

Which are undefined concepts of the sort you seem to post endlessly in
an attempt to evade the issue.

They are perfectly well-defined. (And all YOU have been able to do
with regard to the definition of classical physics is foam and gibber,
and mix in irrelevant matters of history.)

[Possible escapes: The physical differences are always 'somewhere
else' rather than in any given portion of spacetime - goodbye, locality
and worse.

Or the physically differences are encoded in the Riemann tensor, and
that is defined at every point. Of course, a curvature at a point is
meaningless without nearby points, but it does have a specific value.

Well, you are coming up with another theory not so far discussed - you
seem to be saying that general relativity - which of course includes
special relativity - fixes the problems of special relativity. I still
await your description of a classically coherent model that includes
special relativity as well as being compatible with the distinctive
qualities of classical physics.

- Gerry Quinn







.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Article: A Century of Einstein
    ... physics ideas, ... rotation between yourself and the stars. ... I know that its common for people trying to state Mach's Principle so ... rather than "absolute relativity". ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Article: A Century of Einstein
    ... physics ideas, ... rotation between yourself and the stars. ... I know that its common for people trying to state Mach's Principle so ... rather than "absolute relativity". ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • SR, curvature terms, and Realms of Validity
    ... >is a false theory of physics, while it may very well be ... Yep, people sometimes talk about SR's "realm of validity", but I don't ... It assumes that light is in no way affected by the presence or motion ... relativity, so that the total Doppler effect on a "gravitational" and ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Article: A Century of Einstein
    ... >> By thesame tokem since special relativity reduces to newtonian ... 2AB/= c to be a universal constant- the velocity of light in empty ... > interesting to hear why in physics things are what they are, ... > constant c and their dependence of Aether energy density u. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Google please assign this group a moderator
    ... Here, QM and relativity rule. ... It is just a matter of finding all the newtonian forces ... of physics runs too deep in your blood. ... universe to harvest and even divert our attention. ...
    (sci.physics)