|
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
| Tags: history, relativity, update |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
| Ads |
|
#2
November 29th 05
posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics
|
|||
|
|||
Update on history of relativity
"Juan R." wrote in message oups.com... The Canonical Research on history of relativity has been updated. http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com...ty-theory.html Previous blog-news has been substituted by a resume of paper on history of relativity. SNIP Well, Poincaré reduced phenomena to the PoR and the variational principle via new simultaneity (non-Galilean). Poincaré was the first rejecting Lorentz absolute aether, In which paper and where exactly do you think that he rejected Lorentz's ether concept? Harald 
|
|
#3
November 29th 05
posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics
|
|||
|
|||
|
Update on history of relativity
Juan R. wrote:
The Canonical Research on history of relativity has been updated. http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com...ty-theory.html Previous blog-news has been substituted by a resume of paper on history of relativity. Anyone is openly invited to comment, critize, correct the research done. Rigor and honesty would be primary objects. Unjustified rejection of research is not accepted (and just ignored). Of course, anyone with contrary views can write a rebutal paper or simply a page on the internet! ************************************************** ********************* Next i reply an interesting comment by on Einstein WAS smart thread ha escrito: Juan R. wrote: Which is also supported by Nobel Fundation http://nobelprize.org/physics/educat...history-1.html Moreover, they admit that Poincaré was the first one proving absence of absolute motion, etc. Such cannot be proved. I think that they refer to a scientific proof not to absolute proof. To accept or reject absolute motion is no more than to accept or reject a formal point of view lacking any physical content by itself either way. You get to freely invent your ontology. It's the entire theory, not its individual parts, that has the physical content. Regarding the supposed failure of Poincaré for obtaining full relativity is precisely that has been shown incorrect in recent research. I and others have proved that Poincaré obtained SR before Einstein... In a recent Physics Today [December 2001 Volume 54, Number 12], the historian of science Stephen G. Brush said "The French mathematician Henri Poincaré provided inspiration for both Einstein and Picasso. Einstein read Poincaré's Science and Hypothesis (French edition 1902, German translation 1904) and discussed it with his friends in Bern. He might also have read Poincaré's 1898 article on the measurement of time, in which the synchronization of clocks was discussed--a topic of professional interest to Einstein as a patent examiner." I have no doubt that Einstein was partially inspired by Poincare's writings, but Poincare did not invent SR, no matter how "close" people say he got to it. You either got it or you didn't get it. Simply espousing a few relativistic principles is NOT enough! Poincare did not invent the PoR. Galileo did centuries prior to Poincare! Einstein did not need Poincare for him to be a total believer in the PoR. This is quite evident from Einstein's thought experiment he had when he was 16 years old. He talked about what a light wave would look like as you ran abreast of it. The point to make of this is: Einstein did not say in the formulation of this experiment that one had to first identify the rest frame of the ether and then perform the experiment in THAT frame. Any inertial frame was fine for this experiment (SPoR). Einstein gave a very clear exposition on his motivations for SR in his essay "Relativity and the Problem of Space" (Ideas and Opinions), in which he said (368-369): BEGIN QUOTE During the second half of the nineteenth century, in connection with the researches of Faraday and Maxwell, it became more and more clear that the description of electromagnetic processes in terms of field was vastly superior to a treatment on the basis of the mechanical concepts of material points. By the introduction of the field concept in electro-dynamics, Maxwell succeeded in predicting the existence of electromagnetic waves, the essential identity of which with light waves could not be doubted, if only because of the equality of their velocity of propagation. As a result of this, optics was, in principle, absorbed by electrodynamics. One psychological effect of this immense success was that the field concept gradually won greater independence from the mechanistic framework of classical physics. Nevertheless, it was at first taken for granted that electro-magnetic fields had to be interpreted as states of the ether, and it was zealously sought to explain these states as mechanical ones. But as these efforts always met with frustration, science gradually became accustomed to the idea of renouncing such a mechanical interpretation. Nevertheless, the conviction still remained that electromagnetic fields must be states of the ether, and this was the position at the turn of the century. The ether-theory brought with it the question: how does the ether behave from the mechanical point of view with respect to ponderable bodies? Does it take part in the motions of the bodies, or do its parts remain at rest relatively to each other? Many ingenious experiments were undertaken to decide this question. The following important facts should be mentioned in this connection: the "aberration" of the fixed stars in consequence of the annual motion of the earth, and the "Doppler effect," i.e., the influence of the relative motion of the fixed stars on the frequency of the light reaching us from them, for known frequencies of emission. The results of all these facts and experiments, except for one, the Michelson-Morley experiment, were explained by H. A. Lorentz on the assumption that the ether does not take part in the motions of ponderable bodies, and that the parts of the ether have no relative motions at all with respect to each other. Thus the ether appeared, as it were, as the embodiment of a space absolutely at rest. But the investigation of Lorentz accomplished still more. It explained all the electromagnetic and optical processes within ponderable bodies known at that time, on the assumption that the influence of ponderable matter on the electric field-and conversely-is due solely to the fact that the constituent particles of matter carry electrical charges, which share the motion of the particles. Concerning the experiment of Michelson and Morley, H. A. Lorentz showed that the result obtained at least does not contradict the theory of an ether at rest. In spite of all these beautiful successes the state of the theory was not yet wholly satisfactory, and for the following reasons. Classical mechanics, of which it could not be doubted that it holds with a close degree of approximation, teaches the equivalence of all inertial systems or inertial "spaces" for the formulation of natural laws, i.e., the invariance of natural laws with respect to the transition from one inertial system to another. Electromagnetic and optical experiments taught the same thing with considerable accuracy. But the foundation of electromagnetic theory taught that a particular inertial system must be given preference, namely, that of the luminiferous ether at rest. This view of the theoretical foundation was much too unsatisfactory. Was there no modification that, like classical mechanics, would uphold the equivalence of inertial systems (special principle of relativity)? END QUOTE In other words, to Einstein, the most important sticking point he had against the Lorentz theory was precisely that it violated the PoR by insisting that one inertial frame was special above all the rest! And in another place he clarified (H. A. Lorentz, Creator and Personality" p. 75, Ideas and Opinions): BEGIN QUOTE H. A. Lorentz even discovered the "Lorentz transformation," later called after him, though without recognizing its group character. To him Maxwell's equations in empty space held only for a particular coordinate system distinguished from all other coordinate systems by its state of rest. This was a truly paradoxical situation because the theory seemed to restrict the inertial system more strongly than did classical mechanics. This circumstance, which from the empirical point of view appeared completely unmotivated, was bound to lead to the theory of special relativity. END QUOTE As we know, classical mechanics declared the total equivalence of all inertial systems. We will never know the extent to which Einstein drew on the work of Poincaré in the development of SR. Einstein was adamant that what held up his effort to rid the ether from the foundation of physics was his trouble with finding a place for absolute time in the new theory. He claimed that he found the solution only when it became clear to him that time cannot be absolutely defined (yes, that's how he stated it -- no hype at all). If anyone had access to Poincaré's work it was Poincaré, yet Poincaré did not come up with SR. SR is a theory, not a farrago of discoveries and popular headlines. Yes history is not one of exact science, but one can 'prove' things at a reasonable level. Einstein said that newer read Poincaré and just a ten years ago paper by Lorentz. Where is your reference for this bizarre claim about Poincare and Lorentz? There is evidence that Einstein read 1902 Poincaré, including testimony of two Einstein colleagues. There rather evidence that Einstein would wrote some technical paper on Poincaré clocks synchronizing method, because paper was accesible to Einstein and because similar papers were then read by Einstein at the Office. There is historical evidence that several Poincaré papers was being lectured just then at Einstein place, etc. Moreover, entire pieces of Poincaré papers appear in Einstein 1905. For example, Einstein first postulate is practically a literary copy -word by word- of Poincaré /principle of relativity/. Of course! How many ways can it be stated concisely? It a pretty simple principle. The principle of relativity, first extracted from the laws of mechanics, either respects the laws of E&M or it does not. Take your pick. Other evidence support thesis, for example Einstein used the same mathematical notation that Lorentz used in his crucial 1904 paper (which Einstein claimed newer read), etc. In my opinion, Poincaré already obtained full SR (see also multiple references supporting my point). Most historians disagree with you. Einstein's generation of physicsts in 1905 disagree with you. Poincare seems to have disagreed wtih you. But even if we do not agree here, it is clear that Einstein was not pioneering, which was the popular The distortion is the fault of ignorant physicists and popularizers of relativity, not Einstein's fault. Read Einstein's essays in Ideas and Opinions if you want to know what Einstein thought about his relativity theories. Even today most physicists do NOT read this insightful book. Curoiusly years after Einstein claimed that newer read Poincaré and that his theory of relativity was totally new... Give this reference for the claim that "Einstein claimed that newer read Poincaré and that his theory of relativity was totally new." In fact, he claimed just the opposite on both counts! How would we name to a guy who read and copy the work of others and after claim that his work is novel and revolutionary and that NEWER read works of Poincaré? C. Jon Bjerknes choosed the word "plagiarism"... He is wrong. If anyone want do some serious criticism on the current view Einstein copied his works from others can do via providing serious evidence and data and submiting a serious paper to any journal on history of science. For example, if you claim that Einstein obtained GR before Hilbert, present us a published paper by einstien before Hilbert one. If you wanty claim that Einstein was the first claiming constancy of c or that time was relative, present us a Einstein's paper published before 1902. This is a perfect example of what goes around comes around. Relativists and relativity polularists have done immense harm to relativity by stressing the bizarre aspects of relativity. Einstein was not impressed by those flashy aspects at all. He was a minimalist-theory hunter, not a headline hunter. I am not sure, then read his book Ideas and Opinions. traditional portrait of Einstein being a 'shy' genious appears inconsistent. He was absorbed in his work, but not shy as an adult. Who cares anyway? What difference does it make? My uncle, who took a relativity class from Einstein, described him as a quiet and pensive man, even as he taught the class, writing tensor equations down on the blackboard. His life was not plain. I believe that Einstein was very arrogant and loved fame. History shows you wrong on that. That violates the testmony of most the people who were close to him. It's nothing less than defamation of character. But that's just par for the course around this NG. In particular, Infeld rejected that slur against Einstein repeatedly in his books. However, the true history of relativity may be highlighted, and this is independent if Einstein popularity was helded by himself (some people call him a good marketing guy) or by others with 'obscure' motives (the War, atomic bomb and energy, clear rivality between french and german mathematicians, etc). Some people are great liars. And you are free to believe anything you want about Einstein. But that doesn't make you right. Einstein found no personal reward to be found in claiming priority of the constancy of the speed of light. He certainly wasn't the first to say it, because he claimed it was an existing empirical result known to physics on which he based SR. I cannot agree here. Precisely, the traditional thesis Einstein obtained SR and Poincaré failed is usually sustained in the fact Einstein explicitely postulated the constancy of c, which Poincaré newer did because worked a different axiomatic theory (with same physics predictions). To Einstein the Light Principle was empirical fact, established by experimentalists before he even started to refound E&M. He said on this in his essay "The Problem of Space, Ether, and the Field in Physics" (p. 283, Ideas and Opinions): BEGIN QUOTE We start with the special theory of relativity. This theory is still based directly on an empirical law, that of the constancy of the velocity of light. END QUOTE Now, in a formal system of any physical theory on electrodynamics, one can either treat this principle as a theorem or as a postulate. Einstein chose to treat it as the latter and see what he could deduce from it. In fact, i found an explicit quote from Poincaré claiming that c was a constant. For Poincaré, constancy of c was a theorem. A theorem deduced from what premises? The ether hypothesis? If one treats Maxwell's equations as a consistent source of predictions for E&M observations made from an inertial frame then it predicts the constancy of the speed of light too! The question to Einstein in 1905 was this: What is the simplest theory he could invent that replaced Lorentz's theory with a theory containing only mass points and fields, consistent with the PoR? I think that Einstein clearly benefit from that. In fact, i cite a preprint by Rovelly (that anyone cited on spr) where he claims that Einstein may be considered the true father of SR because recognized that c was constant. But precisely Poincaré did first! That is pure bull**** from ignorant relativity popularizers. Einstein was not first, and he never claimed to be! It was NOT that Einstein originated the Light Principle, but what he did with it in SR, that distinghuishes him in the history of physics! Einstein never claimed to have originated the Light Principle per se. But in using it as a postulate of SR, Einstein rightly claimed to have invented a "principle" theory to replace Lorentz's "constructive" theory. physics on which he based SR. Einstein was not out to prove relative time or E = mc^2. Yes, but popular books written by physicists, the rather irrational NOVA pages on 'Einstein legacy' based in pure marketing, and all that clearly thought us the wrong history! Then READ the book Ideas and Opinions and forget about the hyping promoters! accomplishment: All he wanted to do was to reduce the number of independent ontological objects in the foundation to physics by eliminating ether (a nonempirical space of absolute rest) as an irreducible object, distinct from mass particle and EM field. Einstein regarded the luminiferous ether in Lorentz's theory as violating his sense of the PoR. What Einstein accomplished ontologically in his two theories of relativity is apparently so esoteric that few physicists even appreciate it Well, Poincaré reduced phenomena to the PoR and the variational principle via new simultaneity (non-Galilean). Poincaré was the first rejecting Lorentz absolute aether, and do not forget that in subsequent years Einstein ***recovered the aether***. So what! Poincare did not submit for publication to a physics journal the THEORY of relativity. That's the point! Curiously after of 1919, Einstein recovered Poincaré aether for both SR and GR and agreed with Lorentz that some aether concept was needed on relativity theory. Mainstream physicists just ignore those 'dangerous' Einstein papers for maintaining the 'marketing' of the heroe. They are not dangerous for me, though. There are billions of notions of ether. In fact, any space-filling "thing" will pass as one! The latter "ether" Einstein referred to (the metric) was not a mechanical ether, though. That's the point, and he made it himself in the essay. The reason you don't get the importance of this fact is because physics is not taught from the historical perspective. Since you don't know the evolution of physics, you don't see how formal points of view evolved dramatically over the last 400 years. For over 200 years, from Newton till the beginning of the twentieth century, physics was under the burden to explain all things mechanically. This program was soundly defeated by four things at the beginning of the twentieth century: 1) the failure of the mechanical program to make a workable mechanical theory of E&M. 2) the failure of classical physics to account for the ultraviolet catastophe and the stability of the atom. 3) the success of Einstein to replace Lorentz's theory with SR. 4) the success of Einstein to make a particle model of light and use it to predict the photo-electric effect. Freed from the draconian restrictions of the mechanical program, physicists in the beginning of the twentienth century were at last free to invent creative theories on pragmatic grounds using formal points of view of their own choosing. Einstein's motive to generalize SR had nothing to do with black holes or anything else that the popular media thinks about. He was motivated to further cleanup the foundation to physics. He thought that the duality between inertial and noninertial motion was troubling, and he thought the dualism between particle, with its total diff equation of motion, and field, with its PDEs, was annoying (the basis of his unified field theory after GR). Einstein was also bothered by Newton's absolute rest space by which acceleration was to make sense in Newton's mechanics. But none of that was interesting to popular audiences. Yes! somewhat as historians agree that Einstein newer formulated SR by clock paradoxes (Einstein was really perplexed by EM difficulties) Somewhat as history of Newton discovering gravitation from a falling apple is a myth, etc. http://www.canonicalscience.com/en/r...ne/history.xml (this is XML thecnology see html root http://www.canonicalscience.com if you cannot access it) Poincaré was the first formulating a pionnering relativistic gravity, and reducing Mercury perihelion to 32'' (now we know that SR effects alone cannot explain all of perihelion) in 1905-06. Einstein claimed to have begun the generalization of SR in flat spacetime to include gravity but that this approached failed. He later found the principle of equivalence to be the key insight on how to proceed. Regarding particle-field duality. Einstein wanted to obtain the concept of particle (and GR equations of motion) from singularities of fields, that is not popularly explained is that his method failed and Fock-school method is today used fro deriving geodesics from "nabla G". Which has nothing to do with the priority question of 1905 or even of 1915. I am not sure now but Einstein rejected BH and i think also existence of gravitational waves. It is more, it appears that Einstein newer hold the curved spacetime view, but did not research on this still. What?
|
|
#4
November 29th 05
posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics
|
|||
|
|||
|
Update on history of relativity
Harry ha escrito:
"Juan R." wrote Well, Poincaré reduced phenomena to the PoR and the variational principle via new simultaneity (non-Galilean). Poincaré was the first rejecting Lorentz absolute aether, In which paper and where exactly do you think that he rejected Lorentz's ether concept? Harald Poincaré is difficult to understand at first. One may read many Poincaré papers for follow his FULL program. Poincaré emphasized that time was relative, neglected Newtonian absolute motion studied many interesting stuff as action-reaction principle bodies contraction, etc. and remarked delay of EM and gravity interactions. From all this follows that Poincaré aether cannot be absolute with respect to our measurements. I am mainly inspired on arXiv  hysics/0408077 v4 6 Jul 2005. See herereferences and quotes That Poincaré abandoned the absolute aether frame measured by true Lorentz time was discussed by own Lorentz in 1914 in his "The two papers by Henri Poincar´e on mathematical physics. Others authors expressing similar thoughts[*] At variance with Lorentz' perspective, Poincaré had no privileged reference frame but a completely relativistic point of view, by which also dynamical effects are no more absolute ones, but relative to the reference frame: that is, dynamics is relative to the kinematics of the reference frames. Remember that in a letter to Lorentz dated 17 June 1916, Einstein wrote: I agree with you that the general relativity theory admits of an ether hypothesis as does the special relativity theory. But this new ether theory would not violate the principle of relativity." And that In 1920 at a lecture in Leiden, Einstein explained why a revised notion of the ether was required in physics. He repeated Poincaré's claims of 1900, presented at the Paris physics congress and used a "relativistic aether". [*] Jules-Henri Poincaré e la nascita della relativitŕ speciale, and delivered at the LXXIX Congresso Nazionale Societŕ Italiana di Fisica, Udine 27 Settembre - 2 Ottobre 1993 on 27 September 1993; then, in a conference entitled Jules-Henri Poincaré and the Rise of Special Relativity, delivered at the Congrčs International Henri Poincaré, Nancy 14-18 Mai 1994, on 18 May 1994; in a conference entitled Henri Poincaré and the Rise of Special Relativity, delivered at the International Seminar Devoted to the 140th Birthday of Henri Poincaré, High Energy Physics and Field Theory XVII Seminar, Protvino (Moscow) June 27 - July 1, 1994, on 27 June 1994 (see a Russian interviewsummary published on Yckoriteav 4 (181) (14 July 1994), p. 2; in a conference entitled La fisica del '900: Henri Poincaré e la relativitŕ, delivered at the Seminari di Storia delle Scienze, Almo Collegio Borromeo, Pavia 1995, on 30 March 1995. Partial results of this historiographical inquiry were discussed in: Henri Poincaré and the rise of special relativity , in Quanta Relativity Gravitation: Proceedings of the XVIII (1995) Workshop 'Problems on High Energy Physics and Field Theory, Protvino (Mosca),1996, pp. 3-31; a review of the book Relativitŕ Speciale by A. A. Tyapkin, in Le Scienze n. 307 (March 1994), p. 92; a review of the book Scritti di Fisica-Matematica by J.-H. Poincaré, edited by U. Sanzo, in Le Scienze n. 312 (August 1994), pp. 88-89; Note Storico-Critiche sul Mutamento e il "Realismo": Henri Poincaré, la Relativitŕ Speciale e le Teorie Fisiche, in Ancora sul Realismo. Aspetti di una Controversia della Fisica Contemporanea, ed. by G. Giuliani, Goliardica Pavese, Pavia 1995, pp. 241-249; Note sul tempo e sul moto attraverso la storia della fisica e le critiche filosofiche, in Atti del XIII Congresso Nazionale di Storia della Fisica, ed. by A. Rossi, Conti, Lecce 1995, pp. 9-43. Juan R. Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)
|
|
#5
November 29th 05
posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics
|
|||
|
|||
|
Update on history of relativity
Harry wrote: "Juan R." wrote in message oups.com... The Canonical Research on history of relativity has been updated. http://canonicalscience.blogspot.com...ty-theory.html Previous blog-news has been substituted by a resume of paper on history of relativity. SNIP Well, Poincaré reduced phenomena to the PoR and the variational principle via new simultaneity (non-Galilean). Poincaré was the first rejecting Lorentz absolute aether, In which paper and where exactly do you think that he rejected Lorentz's ether concept? Harald I really feel sorry for your dilemma,truncate the acceptance of relativity out of a cloth cut to Maxwell onwards and nobody cares,after all,relativity was after this guy called Newton. Go back to Newton and you have the explicit comment from this the rogue himself that he explicitly rejects an aether never mind associating it with 'absolute space ' * . It is such a funny,funny thing to witness everyone attempting to get a story straight and everyone will fail because Isaac set it up that way. As for Albert,well he took his chances with associating aether with absolute space * * and sealed yours and everyone else's fate whether you like it or not. * "The fictitious matter which is imagined as filling the whole of space is of no use for explaining the phenomena of Nature, since the motions of the planets and comets are better explained without it, by means of gravity; and it has never yet been explained how this matter accounts for gravity. The only thing which matter of this sort could do, would be to interfere with and slow down the motions of those large celestial bodies, and weaken the order of Nature; and in the microscopic pores of bodies, it would put a stop to the vibrations of their parts which their heat and all their active force consists in. Further, since matter of this sort is not only completely useless, but would actually interfere with the operations of Nature, and [314] weaken them, there is no solid reason why we should believe in any such matter at all. Consequently, it is to be utterly rejected." Newton in Optics ( 1704 ) ** " "In order to be able to look upon the rotation of the system, at least formally, as something real, Newton objectivises space. Since he classes his absolute space together with real things, for him rotation relative to an absolute space is also something real. Newton might no less well have called his absolute space ``Ether''; what is essential is merely that besides observable objects, another thing, which is not perceptible, inust be looked upon as real, to enable acceleration or rotation to be looked upon as something real. " http://www.mountainman.com.au/aether_0.html The good news is that you can't even save Newton for who in the hell would want a mechanical solar system based on terrestial ballistics. There you go Harry,I am rightly proud that absolutely no person here in this forum will now run with Albert's story,not even the most rabid aetherist or Newtonian.
|
|
#6
November 29th 05
posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics
|
|||
|
|||
|
Update on history of relativity
What long posts these have become!
Please try to understand what I will try to say. I believe that there is an ether, so your prejudices will probably not allow you to read farther. That is fine. It would not do you any good if you have such prejudices to read more. So please do not read more! ****************************** All modern-day theories have math equations that are used to make predictions. This is fine. Math is required to make exact predictions, and we must have exact predictions to make the decisions that have to be made. But these math equations have to come from somewhere. With Newton's law of gravity, his math was just made up. It was a guess. It might have been a guess based upon logic, reasonableness, etc., but it was still a guess, not a math that was developed from any deeper assumptions. PV = nRT is also math, but it comes from a deeper assumption, a physical assumption that reality (of gases) consists of particles that physically collide, etc. The theory is not PV = nRT. PV = nRT is the results of the theory. The theory is a physical theory. The math is developed from the physical assumptions of the theory. It should be noted that just a math theory, like Newton's law of gravity, can be most useful, even perfect or exact. But it is only math, and being only math, it is impossible for it to tell us the physical causes of the actions being seen, or the how's or wherefores, etc. But with a physical based theory, every cause is presented, and can be physically understood. There are many advantages with a theory when it has a physical base. For Special Relativity (SR), the math is not from any physical assumptions. Within SR, no physical explanations are possible. Sometimes it is said that SR is a principle theory. That is understandable, to call it a principle theory. The principles upon which SR is based are that light velocity is a constant c, and the forms of all equations in all frames are of the same form. These principles are really just two math assumptions, that light velocity is a math constant c, and all math forms have the same math form. None of these principle assumptions tell us physically why c is a constant, or physically why all equations are of the same form. Now after saying all this, why waste so much time? Because Lorntz's ether theory (LET) results in the same math as SR. Now you do not often hear any of this, but it is true. On the kinematics level, these two theories are the identical theory. But one is based upon simple math, the other has a physical base. And I say, that the physical based theory is superior to the math based theory. You can reference my seven or more years on this net if you want to understand more of this. We are now at the point where I want to be. In the posts you have so far seen, a statement was made that SR, not being based on the physical ether, makes it superior to LET. There is no science to this decision. There is no science that has ever been done to date, that shows that SR is correct, and LET is not correct. All these decisions are based upon personal feelings. They are only personal choices, where some feel that SR is simpler, and therefore better. But none of these acts are based upon any scientific fact. I therefore beg you, to so state this fact. You have a right to choose SR over LET, as a human being. But you do not have a scientific right to do such things. And you should be sure to make all this known, in any scientific presentation, that is discussing these theories! Let me say all this again, so you can be sure what is being said: In terms of present-day science, we actually do not scientifically know whether there really is an ether or not. It is unscientific to infer that there is no ether. It is fine to accept, as a personal decision, that a theory that does not use an ether is correct. But it is scientifically wrong to automatically say that a theory that does use an ether is wrong. To be scientific, you could reject a theory that uses an ether, if that theory produced wrong predictions. So far, LET does not produce any wrong predictions, in the limit where it applies (the same limit as for SR.) I hope you will properly understand this problem, and even more, I hope you will have the scientific integrity to state such facts in your article. Thank you for reading. Gerald L. O'Barr
|
|
#7
November 29th 05
posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics
|
|||
|
|||
|
Update on history of relativity
Gerald L. O'Barr wrote: What long posts these have become! Please try to understand what I will try to say. I believe that there is an ether, so your prejudices will probably not allow you to read farther. That is fine. It would not do you any good if you have such prejudices to read more. So please do not read more! ****************************** All modern-day theories have math equations that are used to make predictions. This is fine. Math is required to make exact predictions, and we must have exact predictions to make the decisions that have to be made. But these math equations have to come from somewhere. Your naivete about how these physical laws arose is astounding. With Newton's law of gravity, his math was just made up. It was a guess. It might have been a guess based upon logic, reasonableness, etc., but it was still a guess, not a math that was developed from any deeper assumptions. That is poppycock. There were several physical realizations that went into this law: 1. Newton's 2nd law and the observation that the acceleration of falling objects was independent of mass = the force is proportional to the mass being pulled 2. Newton's 3rd law = the force is proportional to the product of the interacting masses 3. Proximity yields a greater gravitational pull = the force is proportional to an inverse power of the distance between the bodies 4. The acceleration of the moon is observed to be 1/3600th of that of a body falling near the surface = the inverse power of the distance is 2. Once you know what observations went into this law, it's hard to see how it could have been guessed to be anything else. Still, the genius was in the synthesis and not the guess. PV = nRT is also math, but it comes from a deeper assumption, a physical assumption that reality (of gases) consists of particles that physically collide, etc. This is also historical crapola. The microscopic (kinetic) theory of ideal gases followed the ideal gas law by a century. What went into the ideal gas law were three experimental observations. 1. P is proportional to 1/V. (Boyle's law) 2. V is proportional to T. (Charles's law) 3. V is proportional to n. (Avogadro's law) From this, the ideal gas law is an obvious consolidation. There was *nothing* understood about colliding bodies in the gas at the time of its formulation. The theory is not PV = nRT. PV = nRT is the results of the theory. The theory is a physical theory. The math is developed from the physical assumptions of the theory. It should be noted that just a math theory, like Newton's law of gravity, can be most useful, even perfect or exact. But it is only math, and being only math, it is impossible for it to tell us the physical causes of the actions being seen, or the how's or wherefores, etc. But with a physical based theory, every cause is presented, and can be physically understood. There are many advantages with a theory when it has a physical base. And you apparently don't know of the *assumptions* that go into the kinetic theory of gases, nor where those assumptions can be taken to be valid and not valid. See "triple point" or "van der Waals" in Google. What is the physical basis for the validity of those assumptions? For Special Relativity (SR), the math is not from any physical assumptions. This is also complete hokum. The physical assumption is that 1. The Maxwell theory of electromagnetism is a correct law of physics. 2. Like all other physical laws, changing to another inertial frame of reference has no bearing on that law. If you're looking for a mechanism for *why* the speed of light is constant, then look at fact (1), where that information is contained. Within SR, no physical explanations are possible. Sometimes it is said that SR is a principle theory. That is understandable, to call it a principle theory. The principles upon which SR is based are that light velocity is a constant c, and the forms of all equations in all frames are of the same form. These principles are really just two math assumptions, that light velocity is a math constant c, and all math forms have the same math form. None of these principle assumptions tell us physically why c is a constant, or physically why all equations are of the same form. Now after saying all this, why waste so much time? Because Lorntz's ether theory (LET) results in the same math as SR. Now you do not often hear any of this, but it is true. On the kinematics level, these two theories are the identical theory. Yes, but SR deviates from LET in one important aspect. It makes statements about the manifest covariance of the kinematics, but also about the manifest covariance of the *dynamics* -- that is, the nature of the physical laws that govern the interactions. All of them. About this, LET is silent. It is particularly SR's voice in this matter that makes it more successful than LET. But one is based upon simple math, the other has a physical base. And I say, that the physical based theory is superior to the math based theory. You can reference my seven or more years on this net if you want to understand more of this. We are now at the point where I want to be. In the posts you have so far seen, a statement was made that SR, not being based on the physical ether, makes it superior to LET. There is no science to this decision. There is no science that has ever been done to date, that shows that SR is correct, and LET is not correct. All these decisions are based upon personal feelings. They are only personal choices, where some feel that SR is simpler, and therefore better. But none of these acts are based upon any scientific fact. I therefore beg you, to so state this fact. You have a right to choose SR over LET, as a human being. But you do not have a scientific right to do such things. And you should be sure to make all this known, in any scientific presentation, that is discussing these theories! Let me say all this again, so you can be sure what is being said: In terms of present-day science, we actually do not scientifically know whether there really is an ether or not. It is unscientific to infer that there is no ether. It is fine to accept, as a personal decision, that a theory that does not use an ether is correct. But it is scientifically wrong to automatically say that a theory that does use an ether is wrong. To be scientific, you could reject a theory that uses an ether, if that theory produced wrong predictions. So far, LET does not produce any wrong predictions, in the limit where it applies (the same limit as for SR.) I hope you will properly understand this problem, and even more, I hope you will have the scientific integrity to state such facts in your article. PD
|
|
#8
November 29th 05
posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics
|
|||
|
|||
|
Update on history of relativity
"PD" wrote in message oups.com... Gerald L. O'Barr wrote: What long posts these have become! Please try to understand what I will try to say. I believe that there is an ether, so your prejudices will probably not allow you to read farther. That is fine. It would not do you any good if you have such prejudices to read more. So please do not read more! ****************************** All modern-day theories have math equations that are used to make predictions. This is fine. Math is required to make exact predictions, and we must have exact predictions to make the decisions that have to be made. But these math equations have to come from somewhere. Your naivete about how these physical laws arose is astounding. Can you blame someone like this? http://www.theobarrs.com/images/400/glofam/family1.jpg Dirk Vdm
|
|
#9
November 30th 05
posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics
|
|||
|
|||
|
Update on history of relativity
Juan R. wrote:
Anyone is openly invited to comment, critize, correct the research done. Try this for starters. Your link states: Special relativity was mainly an achievement of Lorentz and Poincaré. Their views were complemented by Einstein, Planck, Minkowski, and some other authors. Untrue. For example see page 168 of Pias - Subtle is the Lord: 'It is evident that as late as 1909 Poicare did not know that the contraction of rods is a consequence of the two Einstein Postulates. Poincare therefore did not understand one of the most basic traits of Special Relativity.' The rest of your rubbish if full of similar misconceptions and selective quotes deliberately designed to present your spin rather than a balanced analysis of the evidence. .. Bill
|
|
#10
November 30th 05
posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics
|
|||
|
|||
|
Update on history of relativity
In .com
PD wrote: Gerald L. O'Barr wrote: . . . deletes O'Barr wrote: All modern-day theories have math equations that are used to make predictions. This is fine. Math is required to make exact predictions, and we must have exact predictions to make the decisions that have to be made. But these math equations have to come from somewhere. PD wrote: Your naivete about how these physical laws arose is astounding. O'Barr comments: Thanks for the compliment! O'Barr wrote: With Newton's law of gravity, his math was just made up. It was a guess. It might have been a guess based upon logic, reasonableness, etc., but it was still a guess, not a math that was developed from any deeper assumptions. PD wrote: That is poppycock. There were several physical realizations that went into this law: 1. Newton's 2nd law and the observation that the acceleration of falling objects was independent of mass = the force is proportional to the mass being pulled O'Barr comments: Exactly correct. In pure (free) space, all objects, no matter what their mass, accelerate the same. But there were not then, nor is there now, any physical reasons given as to why this is true. It is only an observation that it appears to be true. I stand by my original statement. PD wrote: 2. Newton's 3rd law = the force is proportional to the product of the interacting masses O'Barr comments: When using the appropriate constant (G), one can certainly assume that the resulting force might be proportional to the mass of the object causing the attraction, and the mass of the object responding to the attraction. But again and again, there are no physical reasons or causes given to establish any of this. I have to stand with what I originally said! PD wrote: 3. Proximity yields a greater gravitational pull = the force is proportional to an inverse power of the distance between the bodies O'Barr comments: And this might really be expected. But again, since the origin of the force is not physically defined, it can only be a guess. I stand with what I originally said. PD wrote: 4. The acceleration of the moon is observed to be 1/3600th of that of a body falling near the surface = the inverse power of the distance is 2. Once you know what observations went into this law, it's hard to see how it could have been guessed to be anything else. Still, the genius was in the synthesis and not the guess. O'Barr comments: The question is not how easy or logical all the guessing might have been. The point being made was that there were no physical reasons provided by Newton why all these things were physically true. The math was not derived from any physical theory that was producing these force, it was only the application of math that matched what was observed. O'Barr wrote: PV = nRT is also math, but it comes from a deeper assumption, a physical assumption that reality (of gases) consists of particles that physically collide, etc. PD wrote: This is also historical crapola. The microscopic (kinetic) theory of ideal gases followed the ideal gas law by a century. What went into the ideal gas law were three experimental observations. 1. P is proportional to 1/V. (Boyle's law) 2. V is proportional to T. (Charles's law) 3. V is proportional to n. (Avogadro's law) From this, the ideal gas law is an obvious consolidation. There was *nothing* understood about colliding bodies in the gas at the time of its formulation. O'Barr comments: And so? However true it is that this math was able to be developed as math, it is now known today by its physical development! And why is this? It is known today by its physical development because the physical is always superior to just a math presentation. Thank you for confirming all this. In exactly the same way, SR will eventually be fully and completely explained by an ether (a physical) approach, because pure math is not superior to a physical development. O'Barr wrote (about the kinetic theory of gases): The theory is not PV = nRT. PV = nRT is the results of the theory. The theory is a physical theory. The math is developed from the physical assumptions of the theory. It should be noted that just a math theory, like Newton's law of gravity, can be most useful, even perfect or exact. But it is only math, and being only math, it is impossible for it to tell us the physical causes of the actions being seen, or the how's or wherefores, etc. But with a physical based theory, every cause is presented, and can be physically understood. There are many advantages with a theory when it has a physical base. PD wrote: And you apparently don't know of the *assumptions* that go into the kinetic theory of gases, nor where those assumptions can be taken to be valid and not valid. See "triple point" or "van der Waals" in Google. What is the physical basis for the validity of those assumptions? O'Barr comments: If you do not know the differences between just a math theory from a theory that is based upon a physical base, as exhibited in Newton's law of gravity and in the kinetic theory of gases, then there is no use to go on. It would not do any good to study all the theories in the world. O'Barr wrote: For Special Relativity (SR), the math is not from any physical assumptions. PD wrote: This is also complete hokum. The physical assumption is that 1. The Maxwell theory of electromagnetism is a correct law of physics. 2. Like all other physical laws, changing to another inertial frame of reference has no bearing on that law. If you're looking for a mechanism for *why* the speed of light is constant, then look at fact (1), where that information is contained. O'Barr comments: So if I read you correctly, how many assumptions are there in SR? Why don't you list all of them, and then we can compare them with LET. A math relationship that describes or mimics the actions of physical objects does not make the theory a physical theory. You seem confused with what words mean. The word 'heavy' is not 'heavy,' just because it is the word for heavy. And the word 'theory' is not itself 'a theory' just because it is the word for theories. And neither is a physical theory a physical theory just because it is used in a test that include physical objects. A pure math theory, just a math theory, is not the same as a physical theory, no matter how the theories might be used or applied. The origin of a theory cannot be changed by its use! You are insane! O'Barr wrote: . . . Within SR, no physical explanations are possible. Sometimes it is said that SR is a principle theory. That is understandable, to call it a principle theory. The principles upon which SR is based are that light velocity is a constant c, and the forms of all equations in all frames are of the same form. These principles are really just two math assumptions, that light velocity is a math constant c, and all math forms have the same math form. None of these principle assumptions tell us physically why c is a constant, or physically why all equations are of the same form. Now after saying all this, why waste so much time? Because Lorntz's ether theory (LET) results in the same math as SR. Now you do not often hear any of this, but it is true. On the kinematics level, these two theories are the identical theory. PD wrote: Yes, but SR deviates from LET in one important aspect. It makes statements about the manifest covariance of the kinematics, but also about the manifest covariance of the *dynamics* -- that is, the nature of the physical laws that govern the interactions. All of them. About this, LET is silent. It is particularly SR's voice in this matter that makes it more successful than LET. O'Barr comments: And here is where your prejudices show so clearly. The ***voice*** of SR is whatever you want it to say. You want it to say many things! You do not seem to understand that the ***voice*** of LET can be the exact same as SR. And it is only your own unwillingness to let the ***voice*** be the same that is a problem. LET, the extended LET, is just as able to say what SR is able to say, if you would only think about it! LET results in the exact same reality, and the reality that results from LET is thus able to do the same things that SR can do. You cannot escape this! LET works upon more levels that SR. In LET, there is the absolute. But the absolute results in a level that is exactly what is seen in SR. Once you get to the level that is SR, then you can switch into SR math and never miss a beat. Surely you must know all this! LET does not change SR, it explains it. And it explains it perfectly! Thanks for reading. Gerald L. O'Barr
|
