Re: is time distortion actually distortion?

From: Cozmo Man (cozmologist_at_scientist.com)
Date: 07/01/04 

Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 22:07:32 -0700

Harry wrote:
> "Cozmo Man" <cozmologist@scientist.com> wrote in message
> news:20040629200320.440$mS@news.newsreader.com...
>> Harry wrote:
>>> "Cozmo Man" <cozmologist@scientist.com> wrote in message
> SNIP
>
>>>>> 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.
>>
>> No thanks. I asked you because you said it.
>
> I said it as reply to Sintrinsic. But he didn't follow up on it,
> so...
>

So what?

>>> Just shortly, magical is for me anything that deviates from what I
>>> observe in nature. ... If for example we send a light wave (or
>> photon)
>>> it is claimed to really have the same speed relative to all
>>> observers.
>>
>> It is not "claimed". It is observed. So, in your language, there is
>> nothing in that penomena of light "that deviates from what I
>> observe in nature", and therefore it is not "magical".
>
> Well seen! There is the additional subtle point of distinguishing
> exception from what is normal: if I believe all what I observe, I
> could never call anything "magical" for everything is normal. I
> observe David Copperfield fly above the heads of people, and still
> tend to call the theory that that really happens magical - isn't
> that the definiton of magical?

You are terribly confused, mixing up many different things. The reason
you question Copperfield flying is that you know by his nature that he
cannot fly unaided. What has that to do with taking measurements of
the speed of light? Unless of course you have already decided not to
believe those measurements, which puts you into the role of the
metaphysician who simply does not believe "what I observe in nature".
Then it is is you who is dealing with the "magical" not Minkowski or
Einstein or relativity. You are just fooling yourself with a lot of
philosophical talk, probably for the reason that you do not understand
the physics. From what I have seen here, you are not alone.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Intelligence: Everywhere, Great and Small
    ... no matter how small we observe, there seems to be no end to functional, ... us the certain conviction of the existence of a Supreme Being. ... It is the very nature of an idea that no experience can ever be ... for reason to reach it, considering that all rules determining the ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Length "contraction" and time "dialation" bad language.
    ... >> referred to a specific model of SRT and not to SRT itself. ... if measurements could be accurate enough what one ... One would observe a contraction of the measured components say ... >> Only in your preferred metaphysics is that more than a mathematical ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: SRs velocity addition -- ANY Experimental Evidence?
    ... |>>to observe Galilean symmetry, since we do, your point isn't made. ... Mapping k -> K ... Thus I observe the Galilean Transforms to be symmetric. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: SRs velocity addition -- ANY Experimental Evidence?
    ... |>>to observe Galilean symmetry, since we do, your point isn't made. ... Mapping k -> K ... Thus I observe the Galilean Transforms to be symmetric. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Models. predictions, physicallity, and observations
    ... >>Nature as anything more than the phenomena Nature produces. ... We don't know if what we observe is real or not. ... > senses, or that which is capable of effecting that which can stimulate the senses, is ... Physics deals with this issue more concretely by considering as physical ...
    (sci.physics)