(Bilge) wrote in message ...
Patrick Reany:
(Bilge):
Patrick Reany:
(Bilge):
Patrick Reany:
(Bilge) wrote:
[snip]

What's wrong with simply assuming

don't you mean "defining"

that "measurement theory" is a theory
about measurements and the instruments with which one performs those
measurements?


There's nothing wrong with it except it's still ambiguous to me. In
particular, it seems that SR would be a measurement theory, by that
definition. Couldn't SR be characterized as a theory about making
"relativistic" measurements, i.e., measurements when velocities are
close to the speed of light, and accounting for "relativistic" effects
on the measuring instruments themselves, such as length contraction?

Not unless you misunderstand special relativity, which has nothing
to do with relative motion.

OK, Bilge, tell me why SR has NOTHING at all to do with relative motion.

(1) it's a theory of spacetime

(2) it's a theory about invariance

(3) Do you consider the derivation of the relations:

x' = x cos(A) - y sin(A)
y' = y cos(A) + x sin(A)

to originate from a theory of relative motion or from geometry? If
those are purely geometric relations, then why would you consider
the the relations:

t' = t cosh(A) - x sinh(A)
x' = x cosh(A) - t sinh(A)

to be any different?

Technically speaking, one would not use relative motion to
find the transformations as they may be derived strictly
from geometry, just as the rotation group can.

(4) Since special relativity is a theory of spacetime rather than
relative motion, one has motivation to consider aany possible
physics to which the so-called improper lorentz transforms apply.
These are discrete transforms like refections which cannot be
performed by any continuous coordinate transform and so cannot
have anything to do with any relative motion, but has a great
deal to do with the physics in quantum mechanics and for defining
the possible forms of a potential which are lorentz covariant.

So, you're saying that because you personally like to characterize SR
as dealing with spacetime invariances, that no one is allowed to
characterize SR as having anything at all to do with relative motion?
Bilge, are there ever any real physical reference frames in your
vision of SR physics, or is it pure abstract mathematical physics to
you? Don't real frames ever enter into this peculiar world of yours,
even if only for experimental purposes? Bizarre. Seems to me that by
similar arguments that Newtonian mechanics has nothing to do with
relative motion as well. Well, thank you, Bilge, who has "shown" us
that not only has relativity removed absolute motion, it has removed
relative motion as well. ;-) If there's no relative motion in SR,
what's the v for?

Patrick

Patrick Reany:

So, you're saying that because you personally like to characterize SR
as dealing with spacetime invariances, that no one is allowed to
characterize SR as having anything at all to do with relative motion?

No, I'm saying that physicists characterize special relativity
that way for precisely the philosophical reasons you seem to think
are so important but constantly criticize the educational system
for not teaching.

Bilge, are there ever any real physical reference frames in your
vision of SR physics, or is it pure abstract mathematical physics to
you?

Don't be an idiot. I'm an experimentalist and if anything, I dislike
abstractions that I don't find physically intuitive.


Don't real frames ever enter into this peculiar world of yours,
even if only for experimental purposes?

As a matter of fact, yes, they do. In fact, attempting to understand
real physical objects in terms of the abstractions is precisely why I have
said what I have. You may find this rather difficult to believe, but real
physical objects and frames of reference make a great deal more sense when
you see how they relate to the underlying _philosophy_ of the
abstractions. Why do you think noether's theorem is the lynch pin for most
of the physics done in last century? In case you weren't aware of it, the
work that noether did for hilbert that led to hilbert's paper on general
relativity is what prompted noether.


Bizarre. Seems to me that by similar arguments that Newtonian mechanics
has nothing to do with relative motion as well.

It really doesn't. Newtonian mechanics was developed that way, because
no one understood why newtonian mechanics was as it was. All of the
the conservation laws for things like energy and momentem were merely
rules that appeared to be true for reasons no one understood up until
the early 20th century, when it was finally realized that these conservation
laws were a consequence of simple natural symmetries. If you actually
grasped the physics contained in a simple symmetry you would really
be amazed at how much physics results from literally nothing. It's a hell
of a lot more impressive to see how nature could produce the world
around us by merely doing nothing, than it is to believe nature created
complex rules about inertial frames and relative motion.

Well, thank you, Bilge, who has "shown" us
that not only has relativity removed absolute motion, it has removed
relative motion as well. ;-) If there's no relative motion in SR,
what's the v for?

You're even more of an idiot than I would have believed.


Patrick

Daniel Weston:
Bilge, the term "free creation of the human mind" can be used
appropriately and inappropriately. Most of the time your use of the
phrase is inappropriate.

The only time I use it is when I'm responding you either your usage
or reany's usage of the phrase, so I can certainly believe that
any discussion involving that phrase has to do with the inappropriate
use of it.

I figured that you would want to know.

In the same way that figured I would continue to provide responsive
answers to your trolls, you figured incorrectly.

I really think that eventually you will get it. If you live that long.

If that means coming to appreciate your naive, superficial view of
the physical world, I'm not interested regressing far enough to get
it and unless I develop alzheimer's, I don't expect to live long
enough to lose my mental faculties to that extent, either.

(Bilge) wrote in message ...
Patrick Reany:

So, you're saying that because you personally like to characterize SR
as dealing with spacetime invariances, that no one is allowed to
characterize SR as having anything at all to do with relative motion?

No, I'm saying that physicists characterize special relativity
that way for precisely the philosophical reasons you seem to think
are so important but constantly criticize the educational system
for not teaching.

Bilge, are there ever any real physical reference frames in your
vision of SR physics, or is it pure abstract mathematical physics to
you?

Don't be an idiot. I'm an experimentalist and if anything, I dislike
abstractions that I don't find physically intuitive.


Don't real frames ever enter into this peculiar world of yours,
even if only for experimental purposes?

As a matter of fact, yes, they do. In fact, attempting to understand
real physical objects in terms of the abstractions is precisely why I have
said what I have. You may find this rather difficult to believe, but real
physical objects and frames of reference make a great deal more sense when
you see how they relate to the underlying _philosophy_ of the
abstractions. Why do you think noether's theorem is the lynch pin for most
of the physics done in last century? In case you weren't aware of it, the
work that noether did for hilbert that led to hilbert's paper on general
relativity is what prompted noether.


Bizarre. Seems to me that by similar arguments that Newtonian mechanics
has nothing to do with relative motion as well.

It really doesn't. Newtonian mechanics was developed that way, because
no one understood why newtonian mechanics was as it was. All of the
the conservation laws for things like energy and momentem were merely
rules that appeared to be true for reasons no one understood up until
the early 20th century, when it was finally realized that these conservation
laws were a consequence of simple natural symmetries. If you actually
grasped the physics contained in a simple symmetry you would really
be amazed at how much physics results from literally nothing. It's a hell
of a lot more impressive to see how nature could produce the world
around us by merely doing nothing, than it is to believe nature created
complex rules about inertial frames and relative motion.

Well, thank you, Bilge, who has "shown" us
that not only has relativity removed absolute motion, it has removed
relative motion as well. ;-) If there's no relative motion in SR,
what's the v for?

You're even more of an idiot than I would have believed.

Oh I get it now. That clears it up! When you say that "SR has nothing
at all to do with relative motion," you don't actually mean that "SR
has nothing at all to do with relative motion." Silly me.

Patrick

Patrick Reany:

Oh I get it now.

No, you don't get it. In fact, you seem to be doing your best to
not "get it".

That clears it up!

It must, since you didn't object to any of the main points I made.

When you say that "SR has nothing at all to do with relative motion,"
you don't actually mean that "SR has nothing at all to do with relative
motion." Silly me.

Yes, I do mean that. Do you consider invariance under spatial
rotations to be a theory of relative locations? Do you consider
invariance under a parity transformation to be a theory of mirrors?
Do you consider time reversal to be a theory about traveling
backward in time? You seem to confuse the theory with its potential
applications. Can you show me what part of relativity identifies
some object as the inertial frames in the theory? This is a rather
contemporary question, since an inertial frame is one which preserves
the quantity `c' in the lorentz transforms and the quantity `c'
is not necessarily the speed of light as you will note from the
propsal of theories like double special relativity. In fact,
special relativity cannot even be strictly correct except in the
limit that it applies at a single point, otherwise einstein would
have not pondered the question about inertial motion and developed
general relativity to deal with frames in general.

(Bilge) wrote in me

I'm an experimentalist ..

If that's true then why don't you understand basic relativity?

Gauge, who like athelete's foot, never quite goes away:

(Bilge) wrote in me

I'm an experimentalist ..

If that's true then why don't you understand basic relativity?

Dear Miss Anthrope,

I do understand basic relativity. It's your bizarre and nonsensical
interpretation of relativity that I don't understand, since your
interpretation of relativity basically contradicts the main reasons
that relativity is found to be useful.

(Bilge) wrote [more whining]

You need to stop being so obssessed with me and you also need to hit
the books and study basic relativity. Open Jackson's text and learn
about Eq. 12.1 and stop crying and trolling

Gauge:
(Bilge) wrote [more whining]

You need to stop being so obssessed with me and you also need to hit
the books and study basic relativity. Open Jackson's text and learn
about Eq. 12.1 and stop crying and trolling

Dear Gauge Bozon:

As you have searched for a thread about which you have nothing at
all to say for the sole reason of needing to make a comment about
a screwup you made six months ago and are still pouting and climbing
the walls over, you have no business attempting to make any judgements
about obsessions. But thanks. I've always wanted a personal anklebiter
yapping, jumping up and down and following me around with a list of
of equations of which to keep abreast. Any others you think might be
useful to shoot down your next couple of posts?

By the way, if you've mistaken me for jodie foster, you'll have to
shoot yourself in the head to impress me this time.