Re: Relativity as an axiomatic system
From: John Kennaugh (JKNG_at_kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: 12/14/04
- Next message: Henri Wilson: "Re: The Ultimate Engine"
- Previous message: John Kennaugh: "Re: Relativity as an axiomatic system"
- In reply to: Bilge: "Re: Relativity as an axiomatic system"
- Next in thread: Bilge: "Re: Relativity as an axiomatic system"
- Reply: Bilge: "Re: Relativity as an axiomatic system"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 14:30:46 +0000
Bilge writes
> John Kennaugh:
> >robert j. kolker writes
>
> >>Wrong concepts, you say. Where are the empirical falsifications of the
> >>theories. A theory is -wrong- when it does not predict correctly.
> >
> >The point you are perhaps missing is that you can only reject a theory
> >if there is an alternative theory to replace it.
>
> Now that we have that cleared up, why don't you find another newsgroup
>to demonstrate just how dense a person can be?
Are you suggesting that Walter Ritz was 'dense'? Are you trying to
rewrite history again and denying that he ever produced a theory. Are
you suggesting that Waldren was also dense? Are you suggesting that you
have studied it and rejected it? I have met people like you in other
spheres. "I know that my god is the one true god so yours must be
false".
> > Everything has to be interpreted in terms of relativity and made to
> >fit because no one admits to an alternative.
> Yes, that's definitely it - collecting that nobel prize would be
>a real pain in the ass.
I am not suggesting that interpreting everything in terms of relativity
has not required a great deal of ingenuity no doubt worthy of a Nobel
prize.
The geocentric earth theory worked perfectly when there was no
alternative. In a sense there is nothing wrong with assuming the earth
is stationary and that everything goes around it. Putting the sun at the
centre of the solar system is a better idea because everything is
simpler from that view point.
Modern physics gives a very complicated view of nature. There are three
possibilities:
1/ That nature is just very complicated.
2/ That there is a simpler underlying theory which will join it all up -
string theory seems to be front runner at present :o(.
3/ That the viewpoint has been wrongly chosen and that if we look back
in history and select a different route everything will become simpler
as happened when they put the sun at the centre of the solar system
instead of the earth. There is an obvious route which has not been
explored. Physics took its present route when Einstein ditched the axiom
of universal time in order to reconcile a property of the ether - source
independence - with the PoR. That seems to me to be the most likely
point in time where things went wrong because no one believes in the
ether any more. The equivalent of assuming the earth was stationary when
there was an alternative assumption.
> >It is healthy in politics to encourage an opposition party.
> Physics isn't about running for office.
No but it is about getting at the truth and in other circumstances that
is best achieved with an advisorial system. Relativity articles are
'peer reviewed' by relativists. Articles criticising relativity are
'peer reviewed' by relativists. A monopoly.
In politics and law you have someone who's job it is to put the opposite
point of view and who is respected for doing so. By having to face such
opposition those who wish to put a case have to think it through with
the utmost care. What you have in physics is the equivalent of a one
party state giving easy passage to those ideas which follow the party
line and effectively blocking those which don't. Look what happened to
Dingle - a highly respected physicist until he stepped out of line and
was seen as a traitor. Ridiculed etc. In 'physics land' there is no room
for respected opposition. Progress is defined as accepting what has gone
before and building on it. Questioning the foundations is verboten!
> >It would in
> >my view be a healthy thing in physics to encourage and fund the study
> >and development of emission theory so that relativity has some valid
> >competition. As it is anyone even daring to suggest that relativity
> >might be wrong is subjected to ridicule.
>
> No, only idiots who are too dense to understand it and too dense
>to go read the literature and see what physicists are doing before
>whining like 5 year old are ridiculed.
Or putting it another way "get thee behind me Satan, there are no other
beliefs but mine".
The constant taunt which is the mantra of the relativist is that if you
don't accept relativity it is because you don't understand it and that
if you are too thick to understand it you will never make it as a
physicist. Was there perhaps some point in your life when your desire to
become a 'real' physicist overcame your reason. I seem to get up your
nose far more than I should. After all I simply point out simple truths
from history. I think that deep down there are suppressed doubts lurking
from when you compromised your reason to gain acceptance.
Fact - The wave-ether theory was accepted for nearly 200 years before
MMX.
Fact - The speed of light was believed to be constant w.r.t the ether so
could not be affected by the speed of the source.
Fact - Lorentz found a 'fix' for the wave ether theory which involved
interaction between ponderable matter and the ether. That interaction is
described mathematically by Lorentz transforms.
Fact - Lorentz's theory predicted that the laws of physics would appear
the same to all inertial observers but the physical interpretation he
gave to bring this about involved the ether. Naturally as his theory
involved the ether the property of the ether - source independence -
also figured in his theory.
Fact - Einstein tried to follow up a suggestion of Poncere that one
could start with the principle of relativity i.e. simply accept as
axiomatic that the laws of physics would be the same to all inertial
observers. Einstein, for whatever reason, included in his theory the
concept of source independence, a property of the ether, thus
guaranteeing that he would end up with the same maths as Lorentz. While
the principle of relativity gives his theory its name it is the
inclusion of source independence - what Einstein himself described as
'apparently irreconcilable' with the PoR - which gives it its non
classical, counter intuitive characteristic because the mathematical
device Einstein used to reconcile the apparently irreconcilable was to
ditch the axiom of universal time.
Q - No one nowadays seems to think it is necessary to believe in the
ether itself. Why then was it so important to retain that property of
the ether?
There was a point in history where there were two theories. The least
logical of the two came out on top seemingly because it was too
difficult to change peoples beliefs even when the reason for them was
discredited. Nothing has changed as you clearly demonstrate. I am
interested in where physics would have gone if it had chosen the more
logical theory. That approach has been almost totally neglected so we do
not know whether it would have failed or whether it would have given a
more joined up view of the natural world than relativity.
-- John Kennaugh "Conformity may even bring you a university chair, but all advance comes from non conformity. If there had been no troublemakers, no dissenters, we should still be living in caves" - A J P Taylor
- Next message: Henri Wilson: "Re: The Ultimate Engine"
- Previous message: John Kennaugh: "Re: Relativity as an axiomatic system"
- In reply to: Bilge: "Re: Relativity as an axiomatic system"
- Next in thread: Bilge: "Re: Relativity as an axiomatic system"
- Reply: Bilge: "Re: Relativity as an axiomatic system"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
