Re: Article: A Century of Einstein
From: Bill Hobba (bhobba_at_rubbish.net.au)
Date: 08/26/04
- Next message: Eric Gisse: "Re: Odds on finding gravitational waves"
- Previous message: Eric Gisse: "Re: Yes Science Needs God"
- In reply to: Mike: "Re: Article: A Century of Einstein"
- Next in thread: Bill Hobba: "Re: Article: A Century of Einstein"
- Reply: Bill Hobba: "Re: Article: A Century of Einstein"
- Reply: Mike: "Re: Article: A Century of Einstein"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 23:28:05 GMT
"Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message
news:9c1b39be.0408260614.62616e55@posting.google.com...
> Tom Roberts <tjroberts@lucent.com> wrote in message
news:<w2aXc.5052$ZC7.3988@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>...
> > Mike wrote:
> > > Tom Roberts <tjroberts@lucent.com> wrote in message
news:<cgi2pt$bp5@netnews.proxy.lucent.com>...
> > >>The PoR was introduced by Galileo, and expanded
> > >>by (IIRC) Newton, Huygens, and others (yes, 17-th century physicists).
> > >>[...]
> > >>
> > >> [#] Galilean invariance is the mathematical way of expressing
> > >> the pre-relativity PoR.
> > >
> > > The above statement is puzzling to say the least.
> >
> > Not to a physicist.
> >
> > > Please provide a
> > > reference where Newton refers to some PoR.
> >
> > I am not a historian. That's why I put that "IIRC" in there.
> >
> > If Newton himself did not mention the PoR, that is of little concern to
> > me -- Newtonian mechanics certainly obeys it, and that's what is
> > important in physics.
> >
>
> If it's of not concern to you maybe it would be better to refrain from
> any references to that.
>
> >
> > > Apparently, there are
> > > several different version of PoR and different interpretations.
> >
> > Certainly. That's what history is.
>
> Science not history, we are not in a civil court here. Playing with
> words is meaningless.
>
> >
> >
> > > Eintein's PoR is a superpositions of a metaphysical and an empirical
> > > principle.
> >
> > Hmmm. To a physicist it is a concise and quite precise statement of a
> > postulate of his theory. Though in some sense it is a meta-principle
> > that applies to all (local) theories of physics....
> >
>
> Tell me (and Mr. Bill Hobba) how you can falsify the principle that
> all physical phenomena must have the same interpretation in all
> reference frames. Just describe an experiment to me.
I gave the answer in my reply and a link that discusses such -
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html. The
POR says the laws of nature are the same in all inertial reference frames.
Thus if we do an experiment in one frame and deduce a law of nature from
that then do the same experiment in another frame the same law must apply.
A positive result on the Trouton and Noble experiment for example would have
falsified it. You have been posting the same rubbish for ages and been
given exactly the same answers.
>
> I bey tou cannot. That is an epistemological principle. For now, like
> the rest, you get a C+ with an option to improve your grade next
> semester. The passing grade is because you are a gentleman in your
> replies and you have a superb knowledge of the relativity, unlike the
> others in here who pretend to. But math and resulting heuristis are
> not enough to claim the status of physical laws.
Spend you time studying physics by physicists instead of assigning grades to
people whose knowledge of physics far surpasses your own (and mine as well).
BTW Tom is a gentleman, and a very tolerant one at that, - how he does it I
do not know - but that he is one is without doubt.
Bill
>
>
> >
> > > Facts: (1) Minkowski spacetime is absolute in SR
> >
> > Sure, for at least the relevant meanings of "absolute". So what? In all
> > previous theories of physics Euclidean space was also "absolute".
> >
> >
> > > (2) gravitational effects depend only on local mass-energy
> > > distribution in GR (failure to incorporate Mach's
principle).
> >
> > That is not true. In GR, an object (like the earth) 93 million miles
> > away feels the gravitational effects of the sun.
>
> That's pretty local to me given the current estimate of the size of
> the universe.
>
> >
> > Yes, GR does not include Mach's principle, and retains only a distant
> > echo of it. Again: so what? -- Mach's principle is most definitely not
> > some God-given foundation of theoretical physics. The founding
> > principles of GR sweem MUCH more compelling than does Mach's principle
> > (whatever that means, as he gave numerous different statements of his
> > "principle").
> >
> >
> > > Thus, the only value of PoR is from a metaphysical perspective.
> >
> > Not at all. It's primary value is as a foundation of SR. And as a
> > lead-in to the invariances of the theory -- i.e. as a meta-principle
> > applying to all (local) theories....
> >
>
>
> You can have an infinite number of compensatory theories based on the
> PoR that produce exactly the same experimental results as SR. I would
> like to request that you answer the following multiple choice
> question:
>
> A. The earth revolves around the sun
> B. The sun revolves around the earth
> C. Both A and B
> D. None of the above
>
> After you give your answer, please provide an experiment to serve as
> the basis of falsification.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com
- Next message: Eric Gisse: "Re: Odds on finding gravitational waves"
- Previous message: Eric Gisse: "Re: Yes Science Needs God"
- In reply to: Mike: "Re: Article: A Century of Einstein"
- Next in thread: Bill Hobba: "Re: Article: A Century of Einstein"
- Reply: Bill Hobba: "Re: Article: A Century of Einstein"
- Reply: Mike: "Re: Article: A Century of Einstein"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
