Re: The theory of relativity is 100% wrong .......

From: Bill Hobba (bhobba_at_rubbish.net.au)
Date: 10/31/04 

Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 21:55:26 GMT

"Marcus Wellpoth" <wellpoth@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:41841871$0$20927$9b4e6d93@newsread2.arcor-online.net...
> Bill Hobba wrote:
> > "Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message
> > news:9c1b39be.0410300913.1e947fa7@posting.google.com...
> >
> >>David Evens <devens@technologist.com> wrote in message
> >
> > news:<fl4sn0p60jpvs9khnh4k2d1v0mqkvs8l9b@4ax.com>...
> >
> >>>On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 22:55:27 GMT, H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>On 22 Oct 2004 21:09:09 -0700, netspider4@lycos.com (Karl-Hugo
> >
> > Weesberg) wrote:
> >
> >>>>>Sorry, but this theory is rubbish and must be replaced by a new,
> >>>>>better theory or mankind is doomed!
> >>>>
> >>>>As far as I can see, Einstein's version of relativity was never taken
> >
> > seriously
> >
> >>>>outside of the USA and GB. It is a western hoax, perpetuated by
> >
> > generations of
> >
> >>>>academic inbreeding.
> >>>>
> >>>>Most physicists elsewhere still accept the Ritzian view that light
> >
> > speed is
> >
> >>>>source dependent. Accordingly, the universe is much easier to
> >
> > understand.
> >
> >>>How would some like you, with no contact with the scientific
> >>>community, and no knowledge of any language but English, know anything
> >>>about what anyone outside the English-speaking world thinks about
> >>>anything?
> >>
> >>He is right and you are wrong, left with your ad hominen weapon. The
> >>same was true with Newton's laws. British and Americans taught them as
> >>empirical laws. Continental Europe taught them as axioms. As a matetr
> >>of fact, anyone knows and admits today that Newton's law carry no
> >>empirical content at all.
> >
> >
> > That is not quite true. Newton's third law carries empirical content.
> > Carefully analyzed and suitably reformulated Newton's second and first
law
> > can be given empirical content eg the first law can be interpreted as
> > inertial frames exist where inertial frames are defined by symmetry
> > properties. Newton's second law as analyzed by Feynman shows it is
'half a
> > law'. But even this difficulty can be overcome in an exact treatment.
In
> > modern times however, at least for advanced work, it has become standard
> > practice to formulate classical mechanics from the POR and the PLA which
> > avoids these problems from the outset, shows the connection between
> > conservation and symmetry, and genralises more readily to QM and field
> > theories.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
> What are POR and PLA are standing for?

The POR stands for Principle of Relativity. PLA stands for Principle of
Least Action.

> I can figure out that it has to
> do with Lagrangians, Noethers Theorem (Homogenity of space leads to
> momentun conservation, Isotropy of space leads to angular momentum
> conversation, Homogenity of time leads to energy conservation) and the
> Hamiltonian principle but what does it exactly mean?

The best way to answer it is to go and get Landaus classic - Mechanics where
the whole of classical mechanics is developed from the POR and PLA alone.
The physical basis of the PLA lies in Feynmans sum over history approach to
QM, the physical basis of the POR - well it is something fundamental rather
than something for which a basis is sought. He even defines an inertial
frame correctly IMHO by using symmetry properties which is much better than
the usual free particle moves at constant velocity (which is rather circular
ie what is free - why force free - but what is force free - why a particle
that moves at constant velocity). To get a flavor for what is going on
reviews of that wonderful book by Landau may help -

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/0750628960/ref=cm_cr_dp_2_1/103-3298122-3672611?%5Fencoding=UTF8&me=ATVPDKIKX0DER

'As soon as you read the first page of this book, you'll soon understand
that this book is not for using Physics.(or not for studying for your
exams.) This book is a kind of "Stoicheia" (that was written by Euclid). So
you might waste your time, especially if you don't want to know why
"mass>=0" is mathematically true. But, if you are a mathematician or a
logician or so on, (and want to learn Physics systematically,) this book
must become your favorite. Remember, this book is not too mathematical. If
you are good at mathematics, just read and learn the mathematical way of
thinking for Phisics.'

To expand on the above you learn that force is not fundamental, conservation
laws are nothing but expressions of underlying symmetries in the Lagrangeian
and why we have mass. In short it turns Newton on its ear as far as
understanding is concerned. Basically it does what Taylor is pushing for in
teaching mechanics http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/FmaAJPguest5.pdf.

IMHO there is no excuse in teaching mechanics using Newton's laws - the
method espoused by Landau and Taylor should be used. It removes all trace
circularity and ambuguaruty such as Newton's first law.

I firmly believe the best way to learn physics is to read Feynmans lectures
then Landau - Mechanics to correct Feynman major omission - no treatment of
the lagrangian formulation. Sure you are exposed to the usual Newton laws
type treatment in Feynman - but he is careful to analyze its basis. Once
you read Landau the process is complete - you understand the true basis of
classical mechanics and have the foundation for future study. It is
probably a good idea to read Feynmans QED as well because it is really easy
to see why the PLA is true once you understand that wonderful little book -
and probably the link I gave to Taylor or similar which brings it all
together.

Thanks
Bill

> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
> > Thanks
> > Bill
> >
> > They are just metaphysical statements. Read
> >
> >>and learn: (MO is in the USA)
> >>
> >>http://www.drury.edu/ess/philsci/newton.html
> >>
> >>
> >>Eveyone, I mean eveyone, outside USA and the UK, thinks SR and GR are
> >>jokes. Well, SR is half joke, GR is paranoia at its best.
> >>
> >>Mike
> >
> >
> >
>
> mw

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The theory of relativity is 100% wrong .......
    ... >> The POR stands for Principle of Relativity. ... >> the whole of classical mechanics is developed from the POR and PLA ... >> circularity and ambuguaruty such as Newton's first law. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: What is the Standard Model
    ... we can talk about Newton's Law of Gravity. ... >>Newton's mechanics plus his Law of Gravity. ... So, although Einstein didn't use the term "framework" itself, he used ... you don't need G to make predictions. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: What is the Standard Model
    ... we can talk about Newton's Law of Gravity. ... >>Newton's mechanics plus his Law of Gravity. ... So, although Einstein didn't use the term "framework" itself, he used ... you don't need G to make predictions. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: THE LAWS OF THE MECHANICS
    ... The laws of the mechanics and how can be applied in practice. ... The first law of the mechanics,, or. ... of the equivalence of the inertial force with the gravitational field, ... When he falls down the role of the gravitational force end the ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: What is the Standard Model
    ... Newton's law of gravity wasn't derived from fundamental ... >Newton's mechanics plus his Law of Gravity. ... of relativity would give you gravitational radiation and a gravitomagnetic ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)