"Bill Hobba" ha scritto nel messaggio
...

"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.

I take up only this point.
let us limit our self to inertial movements.
A inertial system is a set of objects that move at the same speed.
A inertal frame or a coordinate system is made of three coordinate axis plus
time.
In a inertial coordinate system the time coordinate can be set arbitrarly,
therefore
the "laws of physics" are differently according to the way time coordinate
has beeen
arranged.
Only in the special SR inertial frames, where the Esynchro is performed on
setting
the time coordinate, you obtain SR isotropy and TWSL=OWSL.
Ask better your SR expert or read their posts more carefully, they will tell
you.

In nature there are not synchronized clocks,
there is a "natural" present "now" all over,
according to this "now" the laws of physics are different in different
inertial
systems, while in the a inertial coordinate system, as I said before all
depend
on the clocks setting.

Put your self on my place, I am an etherist, look at things from the ether
for once,
then trow all in the garbage and go back to SR, you may know better after
that.

best regards

beda pietanza







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

Jeff Krimmel wrote in message
news
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"?

The ones explicitly listed and numbered in the paper. Two definitions (a &
b), and six assumptions (1 through 6). Read the paper, if you're really
curious. It's available online.

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

beda pietanza wrote:

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.

Call it swiss cheese.

The aether that the ninteenth century physicists held to be necessary
was a viscoelastic medium which transmitted electromagnetic waves
transversely. They could not think of another way for light to get from
its source to a receiver.

Unfortunately the physical properties of aether made it difficult to
conceive of and violated Newton's third law.

The nail was put into aether's coffin when the MMX and similar
experiments (e.g. the Trouton-Noble X) failed to disclose it. The
position of the hypothetical aether was further marginalized by
requiring ad hoc hypothesis to explain away the failure of MMX to detect
it. Its really there, so the excuse goes, but it screws up lengths just
enough to make it indetectable. A classic case of preseverving the
appearences.

The neo-aether fans are looking for anything that fills up space. Never
mind whether it makes any physical sense or not, or whether it is
necessary to predict observed effects.

Bob Kolker

"beda pietanza" wrote in message
...

"Bill Hobba" ha scritto nel messaggio
...

"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.

I take up only this point.
let us limit our self to inertial movements.
A inertial system is a set of objects that move at the same speed.
A inertal frame or a coordinate system is made of three coordinate axis
plus
time.
In a inertial coordinate system the time coordinate can be set arbitrarly,
therefore
the "laws of physics" are differently according to the way time coordinate
has beeen
arranged.

Run that by me again? Exactly what law of physics changes when we change
the zero setting on our clocks?

Thanks
Bill

Only in the special SR inertial frames, where the Esynchro is performed on
setting
the time coordinate, you obtain SR isotropy and TWSL=OWSL.
Ask better your SR expert or read their posts more carefully, they will
tell
you.

In nature there are not synchronized clocks,
there is a "natural" present "now" all over,
according to this "now" the laws of physics are different in different
inertial
systems, while in the a inertial coordinate system, as I said before all
depend
on the clocks setting.

Put your self on my place, I am an etherist, look at things from the ether
for once,
then trow all in the garbage and go back to SR, you may know better after
that.

best regards

beda pietanza







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

"greywolf42" wrote in message
...
Jeff Krimmel wrote in message
news
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"?

The ones explicitly listed and numbered in the paper. Two definitions (a
&
b), and six assumptions (1 through 6). Read the paper, if you're really
curious. It's available online.


Sure assumptions are made and they are numbered. Let us examine a couple:

'Any event that is "seen" in one inertial system is "seen" in all others.
For example if observer in one system "sees" an explosion on a rocket then
so do all
other observers.'

Basically if you observe something in one frame then you will be able to
observe it in another frame. Do you seriously doubt this? Does your
favored Maxwell's author theory actually doubt this?

Let us see another:

'Transformation functions are differentiable at least twice with respect to
coordinates and are continuous functions of the relative speed of the
coordinate systems'.

This is a standard assumption made in many areas of physics. I wonder if
Maxwell's also made such an assumption about his aether and what its
physical basis is?

In fact only six assumptions are made - the first two; Euclidean geometry
applies and Newton's first law holds are from the definition of an inertial
frame. Of the other six 'Standard units of length and time are used in all
inertial systems. (Relativity principle can be used to calibrate units of
length and time in each inertial
system) is simply a convention used to make the math easier - it has no
physical content - all it mans is that we assume exalt the same rods and
clocks are used in each frame. All stationery observers equipped with
standard clocks and located in the same inertia coordinate system will agree
on temporal separation of events is again a defining assumption of an
inertial frame - it follows directly from homogeneity of an inertial frame -
if not true you would have a way of telling one point from another. Thus we
have reduced the 8 to 4. Number 6 has the same status as the first two
examined - ie an assumption but not one that any reasonable person would
care to seriously question. This just leaves number 1 - which is the POR
and this is the real foundation of SR.

Thanks
Bill

I take up only this point.
let us limit our self to inertial movements.
A inertial system is a set of objects that move at the same speed.
A inertal frame or a coordinate system is made of three coordinate axis
plus
time.
In a inertial coordinate system the time coordinate can be set
arbitrarly,
therefore
the "laws of physics" are differently according to the way time
coordinate
has beeen
arranged.

Run that by me again? Exactly what law of physics changes when we change
the zero setting on our clocks?

The Esynchro set the distant clock at t=(t2-t1)/2 if you use another
ratio
the distant clock will be set so that TWSL is not =OWSL any more and the
rest
comes along.

That would happen also if you decide to assign to a inertial frame a
absolute
movement and set the distant clock taking into account that one way the
speed of light
in such a frame is (forwards) C-V and the other way (backwards) C+V, so in
case
you have guessed correctly the frame absolute speed, your clocks syncro is
absolute.

In that frame the laws of physics are not the same as it would be if the
Esynchro were
applied.

I am sure many SRist would agree on the above, if you have still
difficulties you may be
stuck in SR circularity.

regards

beda pietanza

Robert J. Kolker wrote in message
news:WFbrc.14458$zw.59@attbi_s01...


beda pietanza wrote:

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.

Call it swiss cheese.

The aether that the ninteenth century physicists held to be necessary
was a viscoelastic medium which transmitted electromagnetic waves
transversely.

Bob Kolker and the big lie, again. Viscosity was not a part of Maxwell's
model. It was explicitly a fluid of effectively zero viscosity. I presume
you must be referring to Maxwell's model, because you are using the keywords
"19th century" and "transverse electromagnetic waves.' Since Maxwell was
the chap who identified light as transverse EM waves, the conclusion is
unavoidable.

They could not think of another way for light to get from
its source to a receiver.

Another bald lie. There were many other ways to get light from source to
receiver. I.E. the ballistic theory.

Unfortunately the physical properties of aether made it difficult to
conceive of and violated Newton's third law.

Another bald lie. Maxwell's model was explicitly developed using all three
of Newton's laws. You get one pity point for the fact that Maxwell *did*
have trouble believing in a superfluid -- 100 years before one was
discovered in the lab.

The nail was put into aether's coffin when the MMX and similar
experiments (e.g. the Trouton-Noble X) failed to disclose it.

Another big lie.

The
position of the hypothetical aether was further marginalized by
requiring ad hoc hypothesis to explain away the failure of MMX to detect
it.

And yet, SR is pure ad hoc. With nothing physical whatsoever. Just
metaphysics.

Its really there, so the excuse goes, but it screws up lengths just
enough to make it indetectable.

Another classic big lie. Aether is detectable. Just not with light
fringe-shift experiments. Actual timing tests work just fine, thanks.

A classic case of preseverving the appearences.

A classic case of repeating the big lie to protect one's worldview.

The neo-aether fans are looking for anything that fills up space. Never
mind whether it makes any physical sense or not, or whether it is
necessary to predict observed effects.

A completely untrue allusion. No relativist can seem to avoid including ad
hominem rants.

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

Bill Hobba wrote in message
...

"greywolf42" wrote in message
...
Jeff Krimmel wrote in message
news

{snip higher levels}

What are these "arbitrary assumptions and definitions"?

The ones explicitly listed and numbered in the paper. Two definitions
(a & b), and six assumptions (1 through 6). Read the paper, if you're
really curious. It's available online.

Sure assumptions are made and they are numbered.

Then there was no need for you to ask, and you are simply trolling.

Let us examine a couple:

'Any event that is "seen" in one inertial system is "seen" in all others.
For example if observer in one system "sees" an explosion on a rocket then
so do all other observers.'

Basically if you observe something in one frame then you will be able to
observe it in another frame. Do you seriously doubt this? Does your
favored Maxwell's author theory actually doubt this?

Why do you feel a need for a strawman?

'Frames' don't exist in aether theory. They are a relativist fiction.
However, if you replace the word 'frame' with 'coordinate system', then that
will be fine in aether theory as well.

Let us see another:

'Transformation functions are differentiable at least twice with respect
to
coordinates and are continuous functions of the relative speed of the
coordinate systems'.

This is a standard assumption made in many areas of physics. I wonder if
Maxwell's also made such an assumption about his aether and what its
physical basis is?

Well, actually, it's not an assumption in Maxwell's derivation. It's an
approximation that holds under only certain conditions. It's the
requirement for Green's Identities to hold. In other words, Maxwell's
equations fail if you choose a scale that is on the order of the corpuscle
(and molecular vortices) spacing. This parameter is governed by the action
parameter. Better known as Plank's constant.

In fact only six assumptions are made

That's what I stated the author claimed. Why the "In fact?"

- the first two; Euclidean geometry
applies and Newton's first law holds are from the definition of an
inertial frame.

Not according to the author. And I believe you are also incorrect as to the
definition of an inertial frame.

Of the other six 'Standard units of length and time are used in all
inertial systems. (Relativity principle can be used to calibrate units of
length and time in each inertial
system) is simply a convention used to make the math easier - it has no
physical content - all it mans is that we assume exalt the same rods and
clocks are used in each frame. All stationery observers equipped with
standard clocks and located in the same inertia coordinate system will
agree
on temporal separation of events is again a defining assumption of an
inertial frame - it follows directly from homogeneity of an inertial
frame -
if not true you would have a way of telling one point from another. Thus
we
have reduced the 8 to 4. Number 6 has the same status as the first two
examined - ie an assumption but not one that any reasonable person would
care to seriously question. This just leaves number 1 - which is the POR
and this is the real foundation of SR.

I never said or implied that there was anything 'wrong' with the assumptions
in the context in which they were applied. My substantive comments were
the stuff you snipped.

Bye, troll.
--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}

"greywolf42" wrote in message ...

A completely untrue allusion. No relativist can seem to avoid including ad
hominem rants.

Ad hominem rants, like
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...les/Avoid.html
?

Dirk Vdm

"greywolf42" wrote in message ...

'Frames' don't exist in aether theory. They are a relativist fiction.

and.... "Position is a scalar (a single point) not a vector." , right?
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di.../Position.html

Dirk Vdm