(Old Physics) wrote in message m...

OWLS = TWLS because SR deals with inertial frames that by definition are
isotropic. Now in practice we can not measure directly OWLS but we know
that for many practical purposes frames attached to the earth are isotropic
hence will obey SR to a good approximation. No problems in logic.


Much better say: we cannot obtain one way measurements.


And I have not seen a knowledgeable poster who says you can. What is being
said is what I said above - SR concerns itself with inertial frames and for
many practical purposes frames attached to the earth are inertial.

Suppose a laser or microwave beam is run parallel to the poles in
the CMB, traversing a distance of 93 miles. An atomic clock, accurate
to about two nanoseconds per hour, keeps track of the time it takes
the modulated beam to reach it. wouldn't this constitute an owls
measurement accurate to two feet per hour?

Goofed. What can be determined is a difference of as little as
100mph in an "aether drift" over the twelve hours it would take the
setup to reverse direction. A result within that limit would
constitute the "holy grail" triumph of relativity over the aether.


We can only approximate one way measurements using a arbitrary
chosen preferred frame where with "absolutely" synchronized local clocks
we obtain a ("at least" SR equivalent) one way measurements that are
logic and consistent.

Or do we prefer to deceive our selfs ??????.

No deception being made. We are simply observing that for many purposes
frames attached to the earth are inertial. Exactly the same problem occurs
in classical mechanics - it requires inertial frames that do not actually
exist in realty and can not be determined to be strictly inertial - we have
no problems with classical mechanics - why single out SR?

Thanks
Bill

(Patrick Reany) wrote in message . com...
(beda pietanza) wrote in message . com...
I would like some comment on the following:

Points and instants are just abstractions useful to spot a point and a
instant in a coordinate system, they don't have any physical meaning.


That depends on how one defines "physical meaning." For Einstein's
part, an invisible ether or an invisible Principle of Relativity are
both useful for making deductions within a theory, but Einstein just
couldn't accept the loss of the pure Principle of Relativity from the
foundations of physics (in Lorentz's theory) just for the sake of the
mechanical "expanations" afforded by the hypothesis of the
luminiferous ether. Besides, a principle is usually "better" than a
hypothesis any day.

Patrick

To be concrete let us concentrate on the representation of local Space
in 3D, we have here two different ways to represent it:
1)the observer can construct a cubic grid made of (let us say) of iron
wires around him, or
2)he can abstractly image a grid floating in empty space around him.

When the observer is inertialy moving these two different grids are
equivalent only if we assume that the inertial movement doesn't
contract the iron wires.

But these two grids act in a completely different manner if we assume
as valid the Lorentz conjecture of contraction of lengths, in this
case your SR, POR , and the inertial frames are not useful at all,
indeed the principles they contain are not just wrong but lead to a
theoretical construction that mimic a insistent, false and strongly
deceiving representation of what happen.

If the Lorentz conjecture is valid then the first grid will made the
vision of the universe enlarging while the second grid would leave it
unaltered (we are not using clocks till now).

When you choose the pure Principle of Relativity in building SR, you
concretely discard definitively the Lorentz conjecture, you choose to
operate in a inexistent empty Space and refute the real matter filled
Space we live in.

Your choice is irreversibly wrong, in principle if you want.

Your choice of principle is wrong even if the Lorentz conjecture is
uncertain for that hypothesis would never fit into your theoretical
representation.

best regards

beda pietanza

(xxein) wrote in message . com...
(beda pietanza) wrote in message . com...
I would like some comment on the following:

Points and instants are just abstractions useful to spot a point and a
instant in a coordinate system, they don't have any physical meaning.

The countless events that continuously take place at any point and at
any instant in the 3D space +time, if taken track of them, constitute
a texture grid that uniquely associate each point and each instant to
some of those events, and therefore we have a "absolute" 3D + time
grid, and the absolute here comes not from any physical property of
space itself.

We call the above a "weak" reason for the absolute 3D space + time.

We have a "strong" reason that conceive 3D space + time has having
physical properties itself.

We have a "economic" reason that comes from the Kantian aprioristic
common sense of 3D + time.

We call "ether" the coincidence of all three reason above in a unique
concept, save the mystery we are in, for the little we know, for now.

Best regards

Beda pietanza

xxein: Kool! With the proper reservations. Is it moving? Does it
have an architecture?

To reconcile the three above reasons the strong reason and the
economic reason have to converge over the weak one:

So the substrate out of which quantum fluctuation take place becames
the "ether" where light is isotropic and should be our 3D Space
representation.

What is this substrate mad of is beyond our reach up to now.

Better stay on this side of the fence and take care of semantic
misunderstanding on what is much more concrete and can be handled in a
more logic way.

Please see my answer to Patrick Reany on this same thread.

best regards

beda pietanza

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message ...
"beda pietanza" wrote in message
...
"beda pietanza" wrote in message
om...
I would like some comment on the following:

Points and instants are just abstractions useful to spot a point and a
instant in a coordinate system, they don't have any physical meaning.

The countless events that continuously take place at any point and at
any instant in the 3D space +time, if taken track of them, constitute
a texture grid that uniquely associate each point and each instant to
some of those events, and therefore we have a "absolute" 3D + time
grid, and the absolute here comes not from any physical property of
space itself.

We call the above a "weak" reason for the absolute 3D space + time.

We have a "strong" reason that conceive 3D space + time has having
physical properties itself.

We have a "economic" reason that comes from the Kantian aprioristic
common sense of 3D + time.

We call "ether" the coincidence of all three reason above in a unique
concept, save the mystery we are in, for the little we know, for now.

Bill:
Thing is exactly what do predict with these ideas that SR does not.

Beda:
The crux is not what do predict with a theory but what do explain with it
and above all the theory has to be self consistent and logic.

Using local distant clocks Esynchronized, SR makes the
one way Speed of light = two way / 2
in all frames; doing so SR jumps out of logic with no return.

Much better say: we cannot obtain one way measurements.

We can only approximate one way measurements using a arbitrary
chosen preferred frame where with "absolutely" synchronized local clocks
we obtain a ("at least" SR equivalent) one way measurements that are
logic and consistent.

Or do we prefer to deceive our selfs ??????.

Beda the following is a good derivation of the Lorentz transformations:
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0110076. Note it has nothing to do with light.
All this business about OWLS and TWLS are really irrelevant to what SR is on
about.

Thanks
Bill

SR is founded on two postualates and there is asserted that OWLS =
TWLS, note that if the Lorentz conjecture of the contraction of the
moving bodies is accepted (I do accept it) the Lorentz tranforms are
not valid regardless how you derive them.

Please read my other posts on this same thread.

best regards

beda pietanza




Please

"Bill Hobba" wrote in message ...
"beda pietanza" wrote in message
...
"beda pietanza" wrote in message
om...
I would like some comment on the following:

Points and instants are just abstractions useful to spot a point and a
instant in a coordinate system, they don't have any physical meaning.

The countless events that continuously take place at any point and at
any instant in the 3D space +time, if taken track of them, constitute
a texture grid that uniquely associate each point and each instant to
some of those events, and therefore we have a "absolute" 3D + time
grid, and the absolute here comes not from any physical property of
space itself.

We call the above a "weak" reason for the absolute 3D space + time.

We have a "strong" reason that conceive 3D space + time has having
physical properties itself.

We have a "economic" reason that comes from the Kantian aprioristic
common sense of 3D + time.

We call "ether" the coincidence of all three reason above in a unique
concept, save the mystery we are in, for the little we know, for now.

Bill:
Thing is exactly what do predict with these ideas that SR does not.

Beda:
The crux is not what do predict with a theory but what do explain with it
and above all the theory has to be self consistent and logic.

The crux of science however is does theory match with exprimenet and the
logical consitency of the theory. That is all.

I think science, theory have to explain things and first of all explain them selves.


Using local distant clocks Esynchronized, SR makes the
one way Speed of light = two way / 2
in all frames; doing so SR jumps out of logic with no return.

OWLS = TWLS because SR deals with inertial frames that by definition are
isotropic. Now in practice we can not measure directly OWLS but we know
that for many practical purposes frames attached to the earth are isotropic
hence will obey SR to a good approximation. No problems in logic.

Inertial frames are not isotropic, only SR Esynchronized frames are.
No room for arguing.



Much better say: we cannot obtain one way measurements.


And I have not seen a knowledgeable poster who says you can. What is being
said is what I said above - SR concerns itself with inertial frames and for
many practical purposes frames attached to the earth are inertial.

They are not.


We can only approximate one way measurements using a arbitrary
chosen preferred frame where with "absolutely" synchronized local clocks
we obtain a ("at least" SR equivalent) one way measurements that are
logic and consistent.

Or do we prefer to deceive our selfs ??????.

No deception being made. We are simply observing that for many purposes
frames attached to the earth are inertial. Exactly the same problem occurs
in classical mechanics - it requires inertial frames that do not actually
exist in realty and can not be determined to be strictly inertial - we have
no problems with classical mechanics - why single out SR?

Classical mechanism with light and at high speeds fails as SR.
Please see my other posts in this same thread.

Best regards

Beda pietanza


Thanks
Bill

"beda pietanza" wrote in message
om...
"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...
"beda pietanza" wrote in message
...
"beda pietanza" wrote in message
om...
I would like some comment on the following:

Points and instants are just abstractions useful to spot a point and
a
instant in a coordinate system, they don't have any physical
meaning.

The countless events that continuously take place at any point and
at
any instant in the 3D space +time, if taken track of them,
constitute
a texture grid that uniquely associate each point and each instant
to
some of those events, and therefore we have a "absolute" 3D + time
grid, and the absolute here comes not from any physical property of
space itself.

We call the above a "weak" reason for the absolute 3D space + time.

We have a "strong" reason that conceive 3D space + time has having
physical properties itself.

We have a "economic" reason that comes from the Kantian aprioristic
common sense of 3D + time.

We call "ether" the coincidence of all three reason above in a
unique
concept, save the mystery we are in, for the little we know, for
now.

Bill:
Thing is exactly what do predict with these ideas that SR does not.

Beda:
The crux is not what do predict with a theory but what do explain with
it
and above all the theory has to be self consistent and logic.

Using local distant clocks Esynchronized, SR makes the
one way Speed of light = two way / 2
in all frames; doing so SR jumps out of logic with no return.

Much better say: we cannot obtain one way measurements.

We can only approximate one way measurements using a arbitrary
chosen preferred frame where with "absolutely" synchronized local
clocks
we obtain a ("at least" SR equivalent) one way measurements that are
logic and consistent.

Or do we prefer to deceive our selfs ??????.

Beda the following is a good derivation of the Lorentz transformations:
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0110076. Note it has nothing to do with
light.
All this business about OWLS and TWLS are really irrelevant to what SR
is on
about.

Thanks
Bill

SR is founded on two postualates and there is asserted that OWLS =
TWLS, note that if the Lorentz conjecture of the contraction of the
moving bodies is accepted (I do accept it) the Lorentz tranforms are
not valid regardless how you derive them.

Please read my other posts on this same thread.

best regards

beda pietanza

Beda what I am claiming, as the paper I linked to makes clear, as other
sources such as Rindler also makes clear, as Bilge and other knowledge
people who post around here have also made clear, this notion of SR is
false. The true basis of SR lies not in OWLS or TWLS it lies in the POR.
SR is assumed to apply to inertial frames that are by definition isotropic
which guarantees OWLS=TWLS. I suspect your basing your ideas of accounts
given in popular literature where to give pictorial vividness to the ideas
they discuss lightening strikes in trains etc. That however is not the full
detail. Now if what you claim is true then you should be able to find an
error in the paper. If you can't do that then do you not see that your
whole argument falls to pieces?

Thanks
Bill

"beda pietanza" wrote in message
m...
"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...
"beda pietanza" wrote in message
...
"beda pietanza" wrote in message
om...
I would like some comment on the following:

Points and instants are just abstractions useful to spot a point and
a
instant in a coordinate system, they don't have any physical
meaning.

The countless events that continuously take place at any point and
at
any instant in the 3D space +time, if taken track of them,
constitute
a texture grid that uniquely associate each point and each instant
to
some of those events, and therefore we have a "absolute" 3D + time
grid, and the absolute here comes not from any physical property of
space itself.

We call the above a "weak" reason for the absolute 3D space + time.

We have a "strong" reason that conceive 3D space + time has having
physical properties itself.

We have a "economic" reason that comes from the Kantian aprioristic
common sense of 3D + time.

We call "ether" the coincidence of all three reason above in a
unique
concept, save the mystery we are in, for the little we know, for
now.

Bill:
Thing is exactly what do predict with these ideas that SR does not.

Beda:
The crux is not what do predict with a theory but what do explain with
it
and above all the theory has to be self consistent and logic.

The crux of science however is does theory match with exprimenet and the
logical consitency of the theory. That is all.

I think science, theory have to explain things and first of all explain
them selves.

That however is not the definition of scientific method. It might be a good
idea to stick to the normal meaning of words rather than engage in fanciful
flights of fancy on what you think science should be or do.



Using local distant clocks Esynchronized, SR makes the
one way Speed of light = two way / 2
in all frames; doing so SR jumps out of logic with no return.

OWLS = TWLS because SR deals with inertial frames that by definition are
isotropic. Now in practice we can not measure directly OWLS but we know
that for many practical purposes frames attached to the earth are
isotropic
hence will obey SR to a good approximation. No problems in logic.

Inertial frames are not isotropic, only SR Esynchronized frames are.
No room for arguing.

I am afraid you are incorrect. Look up the definition of inertial frame -
it is one which is defined as free particle move at constant velocity. Now
the POR asserts the laws of physics are the same in any inertial frame.
Rotate a coordinate system - do free particles continue to move at constant
velocity? - yes. Hence via the POR the laws of physics are the same in this
new coordinate system so is isotropic. Now there is a way to semantically
quibble about what is meant by Law of Physics and claim such things that it
means observable laws of physics etc. But there is no doubt in my, and many
other peoples mind, that is not what is meant here. But if you insist on
going down that path there is also another definition of inertial as defined
by Landau - it is a frame that is homogeneous in space and time and
isotropic in space. There is no room for quibbling in this definition. An
inertial frame is isotropic - end of story.




Much better say: we cannot obtain one way measurements.


And I have not seen a knowledgeable poster who says you can. What is
being
said is what I said above - SR concerns itself with inertial frames and
for
many practical purposes frames attached to the earth are inertial.

They are not.

That would be news to engineers who need to assume it is to apply classical
mechanics. Just where are you getting this tripe from?



We can only approximate one way measurements using a arbitrary
chosen preferred frame where with "absolutely" synchronized local
clocks
we obtain a ("at least" SR equivalent) one way measurements that are
logic and consistent.

Or do we prefer to deceive our selfs ??????.

No deception being made. We are simply observing that for many purposes
frames attached to the earth are inertial. Exactly the same problem
occurs
in classical mechanics - it requires inertial frames that do not
actually
exist in realty and can not be determined to be strictly inertial - we
have
no problems with classical mechanics - why single out SR?

Classical mechanism with light and at high speeds fails as SR.
Please see my other posts in this same thread.

You have yet to address my point - in order to apply classical mechanics
here on earth you must assume it is inertial to a good degree of accuracy.
Just exactly what do you think Newton's first law of motion is saying - that
we can use any old frame of reference? It only works for frames of
reference where free particles move at constant velocity - other frames do
not obey Newton's first law. I am not claiming classical mechanics is
correct - I am claiming that just like classical mechanics can assume we are
in an inertial frame SR does the same thing. This is the assumption the
engineers who used SR to design the monitor your writing this on - if what
you claim is true how is that possible?

Thanks
Bill

Best regards

Beda pietanza


Thanks
Bill

Bill Hobba wrote in message
...

"beda pietanza" wrote in message
om...
"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...

{snip higher levels}

Beda the following is a good derivation of the Lorentz
transformations:
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0110076. Note it has nothing to do with
light.

The paper is limited to the Lorentz transformations as a mathematical
exercise. It says nothing about SR ... or Lorentz, for that matter. Also
uses 8 arbitrary assumptions and definitions.

All this business about OWLS and TWLS are really irrelevant to
what SR is on about.

SR is founded on two postualates and there is asserted that OWLS =
TWLS, note that if the Lorentz conjecture of the contraction of the
moving bodies is accepted (I do accept it) the Lorentz tranforms are
not valid regardless how you derive them.

Please read my other posts on this same thread.

Beda what I am claiming, as the paper I linked to makes clear, as other
sources such as Rindler also makes clear, as Bilge and other knowledge
people who post around here have also made clear, this notion of SR is
false. The true basis of SR lies not in OWLS or TWLS it lies in the POR.
SR is assumed to apply to inertial frames that are by definition isotropic
which guarantees OWLS=TWLS.

Here I agree with Bill. But I also agree with beda. This is because Bill
is making an argument-by-definition.

Einstein's PoR assumes that OWLS = TWLS (as Bill noted). Of course, this
assumption has no effect on reality (as beda noted). To get around any
irritating deviations in the real world, Einstein's 'synchronization'
procedure is used. This redefines space and time (according to Einstein) in
such a way to assure that the *measured* speed of light is always 'c.'
However, this simply defines the question away.

I suspect your basing your ideas of accounts
given in popular literature where to give pictorial vividness to the ideas
they discuss lightening strikes in trains etc. That however is not the
full
detail. Now if what you claim is true then you should be able to find an
error in the paper. If you can't do that then do you not see that your
whole argument falls to pieces?

Another fallacy. If beda doesn't find an error, that doesn't mean that one
doesn't exist. It simply means that he didn't find it. And the error may
not be a simple calculational problem. It may exist in one of the unstated
assumptions or references. Logic and math can only work with what it is
given (GIGO).

--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}

"Bill Hobba" a écrit dans le message de
...

certain class of aether theories (no I do not know their
detail - I have simply been assured they do exist see
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...periments.html)
the affects of an aether will cause the clocks sync to change in slow
clock transport

Of course. It is easy to calculate. As soon as the Lorentz contraction
(1-v^2/c^2)^(1/2) is assumed (similarly to the Lorentz contraction of a
rotating ruler in a stress free state : see for instance the calculation of
a massless relativist elastic isotropic rotating disc
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/lebigbang/disque.htm ) to be a real phenomenon
contracting stationary quantum waves propagating at speed v with regard to
an assumed propagation medium, a slow motion of a light clock in a moving
inertial frame will cause the clock to be late. The amount of the induced
delay is obtained by simple arthmetic caculations and amounts to v.AB/c^2
when the light clock is moved from point A to point B in a frame moving at
velocity v (in nice agreement with Lorentz transform) with regard to the
assumed quantum waves propagation medium.

I dispalyed these sort of simple aether calculations on
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/lebigbang/Lorentz.htm

On Thu, 20 May 2004 08:54:28 -0700, greywolf42 wrote:

Bill Hobba wrote in message
...

"beda pietanza" wrote in message
om...
"Bill Hobba" wrote in message
...

{snip higher levels}

Beda the following is a good derivation of the Lorentz
transformations:
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0110076. Note it has nothing to do with
light.

The paper is limited to the Lorentz transformations as a mathematical
exercise. It says nothing about SR ... or Lorentz, for that matter. Also
uses 8 arbitrary assumptions and definitions.

[...]

What are these "arbitrary assumptions and definitions"?

Jeff

--
Add an underscore between 'd' and 's' and remove the first three
letters of the alphabet for email.