Re: is time distortion actually distortion?
From: Harry (harald.vanlintel_at_epfl.ch)
Date: 06/29/04
- Next message: Harry: "Re: Radius of electron"
- Previous message: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: Effectuationism and Value"
- In reply to: Cozmo Man: "Re: is time distortion actually distortion?"
- Next in thread: Cozmo Man: "Re: is time distortion actually distortion?"
- Reply: Cozmo Man: "Re: is time distortion actually distortion?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 29 Jun 2004 01:40:45 -0700
"Cozmo Man" <cozmologist@scientist.com> wrote in message news:<20040626134241.118$lT@news.newsreader.com>...
> Harry wrote:
> > "Cozmo Man" <cozmologist@scientist.com> wrote in message
> > news:<20040625222547.602$rU@news.newsreader.com>...
> >> Harry wrote:
> >>> "Sintrinsic" <sin@dwwx.com> wrote in message
> >>> news:8c0229af.0406242210.1f79ac7c@posting.google.com...
> >>>> If there is no rock solid
> >>>> explanation for time element of relativity, tell me this;
> >>>
> >>> To the contrary, there are both "rock solid" and magical
> >>> explanations. But rarely an explanation can be verified with
> >>> measurements. Therefore, pick your choise!
> >>>
> >>
> >> What explanation of time in relativity do you think is "magical"
> >> and what explanation of time in relativity has not been verified by
> >> measurments in experiments?
> >
> > For me both Minkowski's space-time explanation and Einstein's
> > relativistic ether explanation are "magical", although the latter
> > does not clearly explain "time" for me.
>
> But why do you think that?
Sorry but I get tired of metaphysics discussions on a physics group.
It has been discussed without end in the past in this newsgroup, you
can look up the discussions with Google.
Just shortly, magical is for me anything that deviates from what I
observe in nature. When I see a magician flying, I tend to think he
does it with mirrors. Or maybe I'm wrong and he does it with wires.
But I find an explanation that uses a model that corresponds to what I
know more likely than an explanation involving magic, even if it
requires a hypothetical artefact. In this case, the magic reveals
itself as follows. If for example we send a light wave (or photon) it
is claimed to really have the same speed relative to all observers. As
a consequence nature would not exist independently of observation, and
your magical truth (light finding a way to miraculously move at c
relative to you) would be untruth to me, as I find a closing speed
between the light and you that differs from c. I have no need for such
philosophies.
> > It is impossible to test a metaphyiscal explanation of physics with
> > physics. That requires the search for new laws with which part of
> > the explanation becomes part of a theory of physics.
> >
> > See also the contributions of Tom Roberts about "LET" and SRT.
> >
>
> But SRT was expanded to GRT, but LET did not. Doesn't that count?
SRT is based on the PoR and Lorentz and Einstein disagreed about the
metaphysical explanation. It is purely a physics theory that has
nothing to do with metaphysics. Einstein's theory (GRT) is based on
the PoE which again in itself does not involve metaphysics, alhough
later he claimed (Leiden 1920) that it leads to a kind of
(relativistic) ether. Lorentz saw no reason to abandon his ether
concept because of Einstein's. In one of his last publications on that
subject in Science, Lorentz still claimed that lenght contraction is a
real effect. In conclusion: No, those laws of physics do not depend on
metaphysics.
Harald
- Next message: Harry: "Re: Radius of electron"
- Previous message: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: Effectuationism and Value"
- In reply to: Cozmo Man: "Re: is time distortion actually distortion?"
- Next in thread: Cozmo Man: "Re: is time distortion actually distortion?"
- Reply: Cozmo Man: "Re: is time distortion actually distortion?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
