Re: What is luminiferous ether made of?
From: Paul Stowe (ps_at_acompletelyjunkaddress.net)
Date: 09/14/04
- Next message: Kyle Mcallister: "Lorentz and Tangherlini transforms"
- Previous message: YBM: "Re: Re : What before big bang?"
- In reply to: Patrick Reany: "Re: What is luminiferous ether made of?"
- Next in thread: Patrick Reany: "Re: What is luminiferous ether made of?"
- Reply: Patrick Reany: "Re: What is luminiferous ether made of?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 23:19:45 GMT
On 14 Sep 2004 06:55:19 -0700, reany@asu.edu (Patrick Reany) wrote:
>Paul Stowe <ps@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in message news:<qlick0p3uhfcbebll3cfbmjh813gahj2oc@4ax.com>...
>> On 13 Sep 2004 07:59:53 -0700, reany@asu.edu (Patrick Reany) wrote:
>>
> [snip]
>
>>>>>
>>>>> It takes more then covariance to make a theory "relativistic."
>>>>> Misconception #103.
>>>>
>>>> Give a restriction that would make a 'non-relativistic' physical model.
>>>>
>>>> Please be specific about the physical, observable condition that,
>>>> in an inertial system will 'break' the relativity of kinetic
>>>> elements.
>>>>
>>>> Paul Stowe
>>>
>>> LET is covariant but NOT relativistic. A relativistic theory uses the
>>> PoR: which requires at a minimum the complete equivalence of ALL
>>> inertial reference frames for ALL modeling purposes geared toward the
>>> development of the general laws of physics. The PoR and covariance are
>>> NOT the same thing. The PoR is stronger than covariance. Both do the
>>> same thing at the phenomenological level but the PoR is a stronger
>>> modeling constraint.
>>
>> Alot of words, but you did NOT answer the question above.
>
> Yes, I did! LET does not satisfy the PoR.
Then you should have ZERO problem identifying the observational
distinction between LET (which you claim does not) and SR (which
you claim does). You HAVE NOT answer the question. In fact you
invisibly snip that which you cannot answer. I'm point it out
AGAIN!
"Please be specific about THE PHYSICAL, OBSERVABLE CONDITION
that, in an inertial system will 'break' the relativity of
kinetic elements."
Just so we're clear, that's THE PHYSICAL, OBSERVABLE CONDITION
that, in an inertial systems 'breaks' the relativity of kinetic
elements.
>> Give a restriction that would make a 'non-relativistic' physical model.
>> Please be specific about THE PHYSICAL, OBSERVABLE CONDITION that,
>> in an inertial system will 'break' the relativity of kinetic elements.
>
> Sure, but I'll start with a theoretical one:
>
> 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
> bounded to lead to the theory of special relativity.
> ---- H. A. Lorentz, Creator and Personality,
> Ideas and Opinions, p. 75.
Have you, in fact, READ Lorentz's paper? To him Maxwell's equations
had to remain unaltered. In fact, Maxwell designed'em that way.
Quote (is that dueling quotes?)
"... It would be more satisfactory if it were possible
to show by means of certain fundamental assumptions
and without neglecting terms of one order of
magnitude or another, that many electromagnetic
actions are entirely independent of the motion of
the system. Some years ago, I already sought to
frame a theory of this kind[tt]. I believe it is
now possible to treat the subject with a better
result. ..."
Yup, this and the Lorentz transforms showed that wished to hold the
aether frame physically unique? NOT!
> It was only in the rest space of Lorentz's ether that the laws of
> Maxwell's equations held. Thus that fact distinguished that One Frame
> from all others.
Really? Then, again, it will be of ZERO effort for you to point out
in Lorentz paper that fact... In fact, the LT between frames guarantee
otherwise :)
> Now, for your requested 'non-relativistic' physical model with
> observable consequences. Simple, make a particle travel in the
> direction of a certain distant star at a certain relative speed
> v to it (the effect I assume to be universal though the desription
> I give here is local), and it will disppear from our universe
> forever. That defines a preferred inertial frame in Nature if we
> assume it is unique.
I will assume v > c. But you in fact cannot demonstrate any
non-relativistic 'physicial' models. None exist.
>> So, WHAT OBSERVABLE can you give? You seem to be claiming a distinction
>> without a difference. The 'POR' isn't a physical component. Covariance
>> is. IOW, in the 'real observable world' it is physical Lorentz Covariance,
>> NOT a conceptual POR that defines the system.
>>
>> Paul Stowe
>
> Both the PoR and Covariance are modeling constraints on a physical
> theories.
No, the POR is a conceptual 'modeling' constraint. The Lorentz
Covariance is an OBSERVED PHYSICAL constraint. One is observational,
the other 'philosophical'.
> The PoR is a very strong constraint on how one models inertial frames
> and physical models related to them.
The POR, in fact, depends solely upon an invariant c. That in turn
depends solely upon the properties that define c. That is why GR is
necessary. The speed c is, in fact, NOT GLOBAL invariant!
> Covariance is also a contraint on theories but only at the high level
> of how general laws of the theory formally transform.
Local Covariance is a strong constraint of material mmedia. But,
not so on large or global scales.
Paul Stowe
- Next message: Kyle Mcallister: "Lorentz and Tangherlini transforms"
- Previous message: YBM: "Re: Re : What before big bang?"
- In reply to: Patrick Reany: "Re: What is luminiferous ether made of?"
- Next in thread: Patrick Reany: "Re: What is luminiferous ether made of?"
- Reply: Patrick Reany: "Re: What is luminiferous ether made of?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
