In message , Bilge
writes
John Kennaugh:
[...]
I learn something new every day.

With all of the time you spend here not learning anything,
where do you find the time?

You know I really didn't know that
Maxwell wrote the laws of nature.

Believe it or not, paper and ink existed in the 19th century.


I had this silly idea that his equations modelled, to a limited
extent, the laws which already existed.

Right. Gauss wrote down one of those laws, since paper and ink
existed even before maxwell. Then faraday and ampere wrote their
laws leaving maxwell to add the finishing touch. Once maxwell
did that, television sets started to work - which was a good thing
because people were getting ****ed off about staring at snow.

I also had this stupid idea that for light to get from source to
destination some physical process must be involved. Now you tell me it
does it because Maxwell's equations tell it to.

Nature told maxwell which equations to write. They were pen pals.

Did you know that when Maxwell wrote the laws of nature they told
light to go at c relative to the ether?

Really? What did Mr. Light have to say about that?

It was Einstein who re-wrote the laws of nature and told light to travel
at c relative to the observer observing it.

Gee, that Mr. Light seems to be a pretty agreeable fellow. If
Mr. Light has becime bored over the last century doing einstein's
bidding, perhaps you could persuade him to do something different
for a few years.

While I'm sure that light is willing to obey the laws of nature
I'm not sure how it knows, when it sets out, which observer is
going to observe it.

My understanding is that Al and Mr. Light had a contract and Al
left it up to Mr. Light to live up to the 2 terms in the contract.

I suppose that if a virtual photon can pop in and out of existence as
required, act over any distance instantaneously and know whether push or
pull is appropriate it isn't too much to ask of an ordinary photon to be
able to see into the future and be able to give everyone the impression
it is a wave.

Are those photons the life of the party or what?

"Welcome to the 'physics land theme park' where everything is possible -
please leave your reason in the lockers provided before entering to
ensure your enjoyment is not inhibited" .

I'm glad you liked the theme park. We here at the kabal built the
park for people such as yourself, who wanted to engage in the fantasy
of being a scientist, but didn't actually want to study any real
science. Did you have a chance to get to the booth where you
can have your picture taken while arguing with your choice of
a famous physicist from history?

No unfortunately there was this chap called bilge hogging it trying to
persuade Einstein that he didn't mean what he wrote and castigating him
for totally failing to mention that he thought in terms of space time
geometry. Anyway my only quarrel is with Ritz for dying when he did -
just when it was getting interesting - and I can't be too hard on him
for that now can I.

I enjoyed the virtual flea circus - remarkable what they get up to. I
didn't find the Heisenberg pavilion - no one seemed to know where it
was. I eventually got thrown out for pointing out that Schrodinger's cat
was definitely dead because it hadn't been fed for 70 years! Bit of a
give away that - I'd smuggled some common sense in and that is
forbidden.

--
John Kennaugh
to email convert the number from hex to decimal

"Relativity as an axiomatic system" == bull ****.

=[ d

"DavidBowman" wrote in message
ups.com...
"Relativity as an axiomatic system" == bull ****.

=[ d


Yep. And bulls do ****, there is plenty of it around here.
Androcles.

robert j. kolker:


Bilge wrote:


Nature told maxwell which equations to write. They were pen pals.

Nature also told Weber which equations to write.

See also -Collective Electrodynamics- by Carver Mead wherein he develops
non-quantum electrodynamics -starting- with the vector potential A. The
E,B electrodynamics we know a love can be derived from this. I guess
nature also tolkd Carver Mead what to write, too.

From what I've read from carver mead with respect to quantum theory,
it's unlikely his theory is very sound. For example, he argued against
the uncertainty principle using the laser as example that violates
it, which as he understands the laser, consists of ``perfect alignment of
the crests and troughs of myriad waves of light.'' The reason the light
amplification takes place is precisely because the amplification does not
depend on any such alignment and in fact the ampification depends upon
any such phases being completely unobservable. You could probably write
a comuputer program to prove that to yourself numerically, by populating
a region with a number of atoms which take on 1 of 3 states and then
allowing the atoms to be randomly located when the emission is stimulated
by an incoming photon. So, while carver mead might be an authority in the
world of electronics chip technology and has undoubtedly made extensive
_use_ of quantum mechanics in that field, citing him in this instance
would have to qualify as classic example of the appeal to authority
fallacy.



There is a moral to all this. What nature tells us does not determine
our theories uniquely. The choice of hypothesis to explain what is seen
is a creative act, not a determined one.

``Two points of view can be detected among practicing scientists
regarding the ontological status of these [physical] laws. The
first is that there exist `real' laws or the `correct' set of
laws. As science progresses so we converge upon the `true' laws
of the universe.

By contrast, some scientists deny that there are any `true''
laws `out there' existing independently of scientific enquiry.
What we call laws, they maintain, are simply our attempts to
cope with the world by ordering our experience in a systematic
way. The only laws are our laws and they are to be judged solely
on utilitarian grounds, i.e., they are neither true nor false,
but merely more or less useful to us. My impression is that many
scientists who practice what one might loosely call applied
science incline toward the latter philosophy, while those engaged
in fundamental research, for example, quantum cosmology or the
unification program, adopt the former position.''

``Why is the Physical World so Comprehensible?''
Davies, P.C.W.

John Kennaugh:

No unfortunately there was this chap called bilge hogging it trying to
persuade Einstein that he didn't mean what he wrote and castigating him

Science didn't stop in 1905. If you want to discuss science that
has any relevance to scientists, you need to do it in the present,
which is almost 2005. If you want to debate history and argue about
the philosophical beliefs of dead people as gleaned by reading
between the lines, post in a history newsgroup.

DavidBowman:
Does anyone have a link to the original posting "Relativity as an
axiomatic system"?

I know shockingly little about relativity, but a whole LOT about
axiomatic systems.

Then you should be able to figure out that given the first
postulate of reltivity, one obtains the mathematical statement
that physics is unchanged by an infinitesimal displacement in
space and/or time. From that, the rest of relativity is mathematically
rigorous, since the finite coordinate transforms derived from the
infinitesimal ones are the lorentz transforms. The remaining questions
regarding the second postulate are then, (1) is the geometry described
by minkowski metric or is it the limiting case of a galilean spacetime?
(2) Since observation rules out anything but the minkowski metric,
the second question is, (2) ``does light propagate along the null rays
in the minkowski geometry?'' That is ultimately an experimental question
for a theory of particle interactions and doesn't really belong in
relativity which is a theory about spacetime geometry. The reasons that
einstien included the second postulate are largely of only historical
interest. It's easy to create a theory of E&M in which light doesn't
propagate at `c'. Nevertheless, experiment so far shows that `c'
and the speed of light are the same.

Henri Wilson writes
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 12:40:09 GMT, "Bill Hobba" wrote:


"Henri Wilson" H@.. wrote in message
news
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 08:08:44 GMT, "Bill Hobba"
wrote:




Nor do you. He has an excuse - you do not.

A________________________O
B--v

Tell me then Bill, seeing you are so smart, what causes adjacently
emitted
light from differently moving stars A and B to reach distant observer O
at
the
same time.

Tell me Henri when will you stop beating your wife? But even saying that
is
casting pearls before swine - you do not have enough gray matter to see
the
connection. BTW the answer is nothing causes it - it just is the way
nature
works. The same as you need to show you were beating you wife in the
first
place for the question to be meaningful - you need to show something
deeper
is responsible in the first place.

Just as I thought. You cannot answer the question without reverting to
aether
theory.

As I said Henri when will you stop beating youe wife?

OK Hobba, here's is a 'two observer' version of the original question:

O2_______________________A_______________________ _O1
B--v

When sources A and B are adjacent, they each emit a light pulse in both
directions towards the two observers.

You claim both pulses will reach O1 together and both will reach O2 together.

This requires that:

1) from O2's point of view, B's pulse leaves B at c
2) from O1's point of view, B's pulse leaves B at c

Since the two observers are connected by a rigid rod and are therefore in the
same frame, what reason can you provide for the apparent anisotrpy in the light
speed of B's pulses wrt B.

You really haven't go the hang of this relativity stuff have you. There
is an unwritten third postulate

"It doesn't have to make sense"

Just think of it this way. Each FoR is a separate universe in which
light travels everywhere at c. In other words it has its own ether and
its own reality. If we take your diagram and make A and B the observers
and S1 and S2 sources this becomes clearer. If A and B coincide when a
flash of light reaches them from S1 and S2 which are equidistant from A
then we can say.

S2_______________________A________________________ S1
B--v


In A's universe all of the light leaving S1 and S2 does so
simultaneously leaving each at a speed of c relative to each.

In B's Universe all of the light leaving S2, leaves at c+v relative to
S2 and all of the light leaving S1, leaves at c-v relative to S1. As A
and B are at the same point when the light arrives and as it set out
from the sources at different speeds it must have set out at different
times in B's universe than in A's and at different times w.r.t each
other (i.e. not simultaneous) in B's. The third postulate of relativity
allows this.

Note that it is not a case that half of the light leaves S1 at c
relative to S1 and the rest of the light at c-v relative to S1. If that
were the case the light each receives would be half as bright.
Brightness would be inversely proportional to the number of observers
which is silly. *All* of it leaves at c in A's universe and *all* of it
leaves at c-v in B's universe. That is why you need separate parallel
universes to physically interpret relativity.

Note LET says that A and B are travelling at different speeds relative
to a single ether and their different speeds causes them to see
different distortions of a single reality. Relativity says that speed is
relative so there is no way that speed can cause different distortions
to reality so if SR is not the same as LET there has to be different
genuine realities.

All you have to do to become a fully fledged relativist is to convince
yourself that it is perfectly OK for a mathematical abstraction - a FoR
- to act like a parallel universe and support an entirely separate
reality from other FoR and for it to have a property equivalent to
having its own ether stationary w.r.t it. If you drink enough over the
Christmas period you never know it might make perfect sense to you just
as it does to Bill )

**Happy Christmas**

--
John Kennaugh
to email convert the number from hex to decimal

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 18:07:43 +0000, John Kennaugh
wrote:

Henri Wilson writes
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 12:40:09 GMT, "Bill Hobba" wrote:




Nor do you. He has an excuse - you do not.

A________________________O
B--v

Tell me then Bill, seeing you are so smart, what causes adjacently
emitted
light from differently moving stars A and B to reach distant observer O
at
the
same time.

Tell me Henri when will you stop beating your wife? But even saying that
is
casting pearls before swine - you do not have enough gray matter to see
the
connection. BTW the answer is nothing causes it - it just is the way
nature
works. The same as you need to show you were beating you wife in the
first
place for the question to be meaningful - you need to show something
deeper
is responsible in the first place.

Just as I thought. You cannot answer the question without reverting to
aether
theory.

As I said Henri when will you stop beating youe wife?

OK Hobba, here's is a 'two observer' version of the original question:

O2_______________________A______________________ __O1
B--v

When sources A and B are adjacent, they each emit a light pulse in both
directions towards the two observers.

You claim both pulses will reach O1 together and both will reach O2 together.

This requires that:

1) from O2's point of view, B's pulse leaves B at c
2) from O1's point of view, B's pulse leaves B at c

Since the two observers are connected by a rigid rod and are therefore in the
same frame, what reason can you provide for the apparent anisotrpy in the light
speed of B's pulses wrt B.

You really haven't go the hang of this relativity stuff have you. There
is an unwritten third postulate

"It doesn't have to make sense"

Just think of it this way. Each FoR is a separate universe in which
light travels everywhere at c. In other words it has its own ether and
its own reality. If we take your diagram and make A and B the observers
and S1 and S2 sources this becomes clearer. If A and B coincide when a
flash of light reaches them from S1 and S2 which are equidistant from A
then we can say.

S2_______________________A_______________________ _S1
B--v


In A's universe all of the light leaving S1 and S2 does so
simultaneously leaving each at a speed of c relative to each.

In B's Universe all of the light leaving S2, leaves at c+v relative to
S2 and all of the light leaving S1, leaves at c-v relative to S1. As A
and B are at the same point when the light arrives and as it set out
from the sources at different speeds it must have set out at different
times in B's universe than in A's and at different times w.r.t each
other (i.e. not simultaneous) in B's. The third postulate of relativity
allows this.

Note that it is not a case that half of the light leaves S1 at c
relative to S1 and the rest of the light at c-v relative to S1. If that
were the case the light each receives would be half as bright.
Brightness would be inversely proportional to the number of observers
which is silly. *All* of it leaves at c in A's universe and *all* of it
leaves at c-v in B's universe. That is why you need separate parallel
universes to physically interpret relativity.

Note LET says that A and B are travelling at different speeds relative
to a single ether and their different speeds causes them to see
different distortions of a single reality. Relativity says that speed is
relative so there is no way that speed can cause different distortions
to reality so if SR is not the same as LET there has to be different
genuine realities.

All you have to do to become a fully fledged relativist is to convince
yourself that it is perfectly OK for a mathematical abstraction - a FoR
- to act like a parallel universe and support an entirely separate
reality from other FoR and for it to have a property equivalent to
having its own ether stationary w.r.t it. If you drink enough over the
Christmas period you never know it might make perfect sense to you just
as it does to Bill )

Thanks for the tip, John. I must have a thorough look at the third postulate.

Maybe I will be able to join the informed 'herd' if I keep repeating to myself,
"nothing in relativity has to make any sense".


**Happy Christmas**

same to you John.


HW.

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm