Re: Relativity as an axiomatic system
From: Bilge (dubious_at_radioactivex.lebesque-al.net)
Date: 12/06/04
- Next message: Bilge: "Re: Relativity as an axiomatic system"
- Previous message: Jack Sarfatti: "Change in meaning of "inertial motion" in Newton to Einstein"
- In reply to: John Kennaugh: "Re: Relativity as an axiomatic system"
- Next in thread: Bilge: "Re: Relativity as an axiomatic system"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 06 Dec 2004 00:32:23 GMT
John Kennaugh:
>Bill Hobba writes
>>
>>"John Kennaugh" <JKNG@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:pshiPKB0nasBFwY2@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk...
>>> Bilge writes
>>> > John Kennaugh:
>>> > >Bilge writes
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> >Put simply you don't believe in the ether.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Put simply, I don't believe in the existence of something that can't
>>> > >>be specified in any way that makes it physically meaningful.
>>> > >
>>> > >A FoR with the properties of controlling the speed of light within it
>>> > >and within which an entirely different reality can exist independent of
>>> > >other FoR "can't be specified in any way that makes it physically
>>> > >meaningful".
>>> >
>>> > Nowhere did I say anything about an ``FoR'' ``controlling anything.
>>> >That is your own misconception.
>>>
>>> If Maxwell's equations are 'wave equations' and you claim that they are
>>> wave equations in every FoR then you are saying that light is propagated
>>> in a FoR at c. That is fine mathematically but light consists of
>>> physical energy which requires a physical means to transport it from
>>> source to destination.
>
>>You are an electrical engineer you know that light consits of EM fields -
>>that is what carries the enrgy - in fact its density is E^2 + H^2/8pi.
>
>You are perhaps confusing the role of an engineer and a scientist.
You are the one confusing the role of an engineer and a scientist.
You happen to be an engineer not a scientist and you don't seem to
be interested in learning enough physics to discuss physics as a
scientist.
>"Many thousands of professional radio engineers can design television
>transmitters, and almost anyone can build a radio receiver, but there is
>nobody who can explain in a plausible and watertight way how radio
>energy comes to be transferred from the transmitting tower to the aerial
>on the roof of my house." Scott Murray
Just because mr. murray, your perennial reference, doesn't know
how to explain it, doesn't mean no one does. Why don't you quote
aristotle? He didn't know how to explain it either.
>This perhaps gives you a clue. With my engineering hat on I'm happy to
>use any formula which works. The role of a scientist is to think about
>why and how it works.
Scientists do think about that. You just refuse to believe it
because you are too lazy to learn any physics.
>"Here, then, is a fine example of modern technology in action. We know
>how to build a radio transmitter and we can calculate very accurately
>what will happen when we switch it on. Something will travel from
>transmitter to receiver at the speed of light, and we shall be able to
>detect its arrival and make whatever use of it we please for our
>convenience and entertainment."
>
>That is the job of an engineer
And you claim to be an engineer. You aren't a scientist. I have
enough common sense to realize that I'm unlikely to design an
rf amplifier as well as an rf engineer, especially if I decide
rf engineers are idiots and build it my own way after I've been
told why that won't work. You apparently lack enough common sense
to realize anyone ever thought as ``deeply'' as you have on a
subject about which you know nothing and you refuse to believe
anyone who tells you that your thinking is rather shallow.
>"But except that it may consist of physical energy, or at least that it
>may carry physical energy with it, we have no idea what it is that does
>the travelling."
>
>That is a question for a physicist a question which has no answer so
>far.
Lots of physicists have that answer. The answer has been given to
you. You do not wish to accept it. You don't have to accept it, but
until you have an alternative answer that fits all of the data, you
have no basis for saying any other answer exists.
>>> A mathematical wave equation can propagate in a
>>> mathematical abstraction i.e. a FoR.
>
>[snip total misconception about what Electronic engineers do]
>
>>
>>> A physical wave needs something
>>> physical to propagate in
>>
>>It does not need something physical to propagate in - all it needs is
>>something to wave - and for EM waves that something is EM fields.
>
>I'll add that to my list of silly statements. Exactly what do you mean
>by a field. You are saying that a field does not physically exist but by
>waving it you can transport real physical energy.
>
>Where do photons fit into this BTW?
A perfect example of you arguing in ignorance. If you have to ask
that question, you have no business arguing anything you've been
arguing about. You are also apparently too dense to realize that.
>" there are those who have specialized in field theory so strongly that
>they believe in an electric field, as if it were a physical entity
>having an independent physical existence in its own right - like an
>electron perhaps, or a filing cabinet. Such folk do not envisage an
>electric field merely as a convenient mathematical trick for integrating
>a set of inverse-square-law forces." Scott Murray
Why don't you get mr. murray to make your point instead of quote
mining?
>>> and if you translate the maths to physics it
>>> says that every observer is stationary w.r.t his own physical
>>> propagating medium. Stick to the maths. Conceptual thinking seems to be
>>> beyond you.
>>
>>It does not say that all.
>
>It is implicit. If you quote Maxwell's equations as being 'wave
>equations' then they say that something propagates as a wave.
In maxwell's theory, electromagnetic fields propagate as waves
so what's the problem? You don't understand maxwell's theory nor
are you interested in understanding maxwell's theory, so you
certainly will not understand anything more subtle, like qed.
If you were funnier, you could pass for fred flinstone.
- Next message: Bilge: "Re: Relativity as an axiomatic system"
- Previous message: Jack Sarfatti: "Change in meaning of "inertial motion" in Newton to Einstein"
- In reply to: John Kennaugh: "Re: Relativity as an axiomatic system"
- Next in thread: Bilge: "Re: Relativity as an axiomatic system"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
