Re: GR ?


"Significant Zero" <paulpsremove@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1122541896.12029.1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:F7%Fe.64882$oJ.41029@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> |
> | "Significant Zero" <paulpsremove@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> | news:1122457009.969.0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> | >
> | > "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> | > news:IvAFe.63757$oJ.53375@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> | > |
> | > | "Significant Zero" <paulpsremove@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> | > | news:1122284819.28734.3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> | > | >
> | > | > "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> | > | > news:lZAEe.60068$oJ.49705@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> | > | > |
> | > | > | "Significant Zero" <paulpsremove@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> | > | > | news:1122151906.25789.0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> | > | > | >
> | > | > | > "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> | > | > | > news:L3kEe.59411$oJ.36184@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | "Significant Zero" <paulpsremove@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message
> | > | > | > | news:1122061613.84099.0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> | > | > | > | >
> | > | > | > | > "Tom Roberts" <tjroberts@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> | > | > | > | > news:ImDDe.1901$fx4.1574@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> | > | > | > | > | Significant Zero wrote:
> | > | > | > | > | > "Tom Roberts" <tjroberts@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> | > | > | > | > | > news:lOYCe.673$lX2.670@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> | > | > | > | > | > [...]
> | > | > | > | > | > This seems to be saying that length contraction and
time
> | > | > dilation
> | > | > | > are
> | > | > | > | > just
> | > | > | > | > | > observational distortions in the same way that railway
> | lines
> | > | get
> | > | > | > | > apparenly
> | > | > | > | > | > nearer as they extend to the horizon.
> | > | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | > | Sort of -- both are effects of perspective, but
different
> | > | effects.
> | > | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | > | > Is this the way you explain to
> | > | > | > | > | > yourself the experimental variation in muon decay and
> | > | > contraction
> | > | > | in
> | > | > | > | the
> | > | > | > | > | > direction of motion ?
> | > | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | > | It is the way SR explains them. Just like rotations in
> 3D --
> | > | what
> | > | > | > | > | "explanation" do you use for the fact that a
10-foot-long
> | > ladder
> | > | > | will
> | > | > | > | > | fit through a 3-foot-wide door in one orientation but
not
> in
> | > | > | another?
> | > | > | > | >
> | > | > | > | > Nice example but neither the doorway or the ladder change
in
> | > | > physical
> | > | > | > | > reality only the relationship between the ladder and door.
> | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | And the same in SR - neither the coordinate system or the
> clock
> | > | change
> | > | > | in
> | > | > | > | physical reality only the relationship between them.
> | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | > The pov can
> | > | > | > | > change as much as it likes it still will not enable the
> ladder
> | > to
> | > | > fit
> | > | > | > | > through the door in the inappropriate orientation.
> | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | The same with SR - clocks will not measure time dilated
unless
> | > they
> | > | > have
> | > | > | > the
> | > | > | > | appropriate 'orientation's wrt the coordinate system.
> | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | > The physical fact of the
> | > | > | > | > ladder and door are not changed by observation or
> measurement
> | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | The same with SR - the proper time is not changed either.
> | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | > and any
> | > | > | > | > measurement that fails to correct for factors it is aware
> are
> | > | > imbedded
> | > | > | > in
> | > | > | > | > its methodology needs a poke in the eye with a sharp
stick.
> | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | And so does SR - which is why proper time is the only
> invariant
> | > | time.
> | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | Bill
> | > | > | >
> | > | > | > Thanks Bill that seems to say that environmental time is
> invariant
> | > but
> | > | > | > observational time is variant ?
> | > | > |
> | > | > | I am saying that in relativity what is measured is determined by
a
> | > | > | projection of invariant objects onto your particular coordinate
> | system
> | > | > just
> | > | > | like the projection of the rotating rod onto the x-y coordinate
> | > system.
> | > | > It
> | > | > | is those invariant objects that are important in the theory (and
> is
> | > the
> | > | > | reason the principle of general covariance is important) - not
the
> | > | > | projections - which is precisely what is meant by saying
> relativity
> | is
> | > | > | basically geometry. It was realized in the 19th century that,
> | > expressed
> | > | > | rather loosely, geometry is the study of a theories invariants.
> For
> | > | more
> | > | > | detail do a search on the Erlangen program
> | > | > | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erlangen_programme
> | > | > |
> | > | > | As I have said previously one of your problems is you are trying
> to
> | > | > | understand a mathematical theory semantically. Study the math
and
> | the
> | > | > | answer will be clear.
> | > | > |
> | > | > | Bill
> | > | >
> | > | > This is saying study my notation and you will then write notation
> like
> | > me.
> | > |
> | > | That is not what it is saying. It is saying what has become obvious
> | from
> | > | the questions you ask - if you actually study the things you ask
> | questions
> | > | about then the answer is obvious. The fact you ask the kind of
> | questions
> | > | you do indicates you are not studying the concepts. For example you
> | asked
> | > | in another part of this thread how we know proper time is always
> | constant.
> | > | Proper time is the time read by an imaginary clock traveling along
> with
> | a
> | > | particle so obviously it is always the same regardless of what
> | coordinate
> | > | system you use or what cosmological model you hold to or pretty much
> | > | anything you can think of. Once you understand the concept the
answer
> | is
> | > | obvious. Concentrate on understanding the concepts instead of
posting
> | > | questions about them.
> | > |
> | > | > Perhaps I might say that geometry is the study of the relationship
> of
> | > | > variants and varience and the only invarience is the geometry
used.
> | > |
> | > | Physics or even mathematics for that matter is not about inventing
> your
> | > own
> | > | definitions then expecting to understand the material from the
> | perspective
> | > | of the definitions you have invented. In fact that is trivially
> obvious
> | > for
> | > | any domain of discourse. If you wish to be understood and
understand
> | then
> | > | you must use words in the way that is standard in what you wish to
> | > discuss.
> | > |
> | > | Bill
> | >
> | > That would be true if everbody had the same concept for any given word
> but
> | > we all have our own personal idea of what words and notation mean
> |
> | I beg yours. The notation and ideas both myself and Tom have mentioned
> are
> | not personal - they are standard to physics.
> |
> | > and the
> | > point of debate is to try and detemine which view is the most
coherent,
> | from
> | > my pov anyway you will possibly attach a different meaning to my words
> and
> | > any notation I might post.{:-)
> | > I give you this as an extract from a defintion of proper time.
> | >
> | > "In Special Relativity neither length nor time interval are invarient
> | under
> | > transformation between inertial frames."
> | >
> | > That appears to me as a word salad that has decayed into rubbish as
per
> my
> | > interpretation below.
> |
> | It follows trivially from the Lorentz transformations. If you can not
see
> | that then you really so need to think harder. Indeed if that is not
> obvious
> | I suspect physics is beyond you. No problem if that is the case - but
> just
> | as there are those who can not understand the variables used in algebra
> and
> | can not see how the x and y's etc can stand for unknowns the problem
lies
> in
> | you not the subject
>
> And I counter with a theory as apparently understood by you is irelevent
to
> understanding the real physical changes that may happend due to motion and
> gravirational intensity. BTW I think I understand the application of this
> transform and the reality behind it in a more complete manner than you and
> will rewrite that phrase so it makes some relevent to physical reality
> sense.
>
> "In physical reality neither length nor time interval are invarient and
> under Special Relativity transformations between inertial frames, the true
> state of the observed object relative to the observer may be determined in
> some cases."

That may be how you view it but my claim is phrases like 'in physical
relaity' lie beyond experimental verification and are philoshical positions
not particularly relevant to science. The view Tom and myself have been
presenting follows quite simply from the principle of general covariance -
that the laws of physics should be put in a form that are independent of
coordinate systems - which really follows from the view there is a single
objective reality out there. This means the key elements of the theory are
invariants and since geometry was discovered in the nineteenth century to be
basically a theory about invariants (loosely speaking) then the correct
language to use is the language of geometry. However it is also well known
that the principle of general covariance is without actual physical content
(as was pointed out to Einstein by Kretchman) and so can not really be an
objective basis for anything. However experience has shown it is a very
valuable heuristic and it still retained. And that is the bottom line -
experience has shown the most elegant and best way to view relativity is
geometrically. If you want to form you own views - fine go ahead. But I
think you would be wise to listen to Gerad t Hooft,
http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/theorist.html

'Do get me right: you don't have to believe anything you read on faith -
check it. Try alternative approaches, as many as you can. You will discover,
time and again, that really what those guys did indeed was the smartest
thing possible.'

It is fairly obvious you are the type that needs to learn it from
experience.

Bill

>
> And
> The local observer will have difficult determining any variance in time
and
> distance by local measurement alown.
>
> |
> | >
> | > I take this to read that the transformes are unable to correct for
> | > perspective\obsevational differences between inertial co-ordinate
> systems
> | > and you will just have to guess at any real physical differences
between
> | two
> | > or more real physical objects that were the same but are now in
> different
> | > inertial systems.
> | >
> | > And to cap it.
> | >
> | > However , there is a combination of length and time which is invariant
,
> | > which is known as the (space-time ) interval.
> | > mathmatical mumble, mumble etc.
> | >
> | > Talk about covering every option with imprecision to ensure that you
can
> | > never be pointed to as having been incorrect{:-)
> | > ROFLMAO Call this physics its more like a kiddies magic show performed
> by
> | a
> | > VERY inexperienced (but persistent)magician.
> |
> | You may not be able to see it but all the above indicates is your
> inability
> | to reason out very simple things.
>
> I see you as having the same problem {:-)
>
> |
> | >
> | > The extracts are from.
> | > http://www.pact.cpes.sussex.ac.uk/~markh/GR/node13.html
> | >
> | >
> | > DOES TIME AND LENGTH PHYSICAL CHANGE FROM WHAT IT MAY HAVE BEEN AS A
> | RESULT
> | > OF A CHANGE IN MOTION AND OR GRAVITATIONAL INTENSITY, YES OR NO.
> |
> | As usual that depends on what you mean by physically change. They
measure
> | different that is for sure - so if that is what you mean then the answer
> is
> | yes. If you mean do the things that are considered fundamental in the
> | theory like the actual lengths of a rod rather than their projections on
> an
> | axis then no. You must stop this engaging in irrelevant semantics and
> | understand the math.
>
> I would counter with you must stop engaginging in irelevent math that have
> no base in physical realitiy and are you not just playing with your
geometry
> set using your statments as a base for your understanding of physical
> reality. {:-)
>
> | The math remains true regardless of what you mean by
> | terms like physically change - which is one reason math is often
preferred
> | to English in physics.
>
> Math may indeed be a very useful tool to aid our understanding of reality
> but like any tool it can be abused as can also be said for words.
>
> |
> | Bill
> |
> | >
> | > I believe they do and have a good idea of why if its any help.{:-)
> | >
> | > I liked your statement above that I read as proper time is any time.
> Nice
> | > level of obscurity and uselessness {:-)
> | >
> | > Perhaps you now realise that its not that I don't study the stuff you
> have
> | > been trained in its just that it is frequently nonsense from my pov,
so
> | just
> | > in case it is not all nonsense I post to this group searching for
> | coherence.
> | >
> | > |
> | > | >
> | > | > | > --
> | > | > | > Significant Zero E-field = Electric field, M-field =Magnetic
> | > field,
> | > | > two
> | > | > | > unbound field effects
> | > | > | > http://home.freeuk.com/paulps/
> | > | > | > Maybe updates. (1-(1/(1/3))^2)/(1 + (1/(1/3))^2) = - 0.08 =
FTL
> | > | ? -p<+p
> | > | > | or
> | > | > | > (m*-v)<(m*+v) or (m*-c^2)<(m*+c^2) =g?
> | > | > | >
> | > | > | >
> | > | > |
> | > | > |
> | > | >
> | > | >
> | > |
> | > |
> | >
> | >
> |
> |
>
>
>


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: How many dimensions are there?
    ... explaining that way of nature through tools like ... you believe that SR and GR is physics! ... SR and GR are only math theories. ... that our reality is a physical ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: How many dimensions are there?
    ... explaining that way of nature through tools like ... When all we have is just the math, we have a lot, ... you believe that SR and GR is physics! ... themselves present to us our physical reality. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Gerald L. OBarr and the At Theory.
    ... Physics has been set back at least a 100 years ... events along with the math. ... Yes, to measure time, we need motion. ... our reality that change is possible and can occur. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: OBarr: SR is a weak theory, it is only math!
    ... >> The math is part of physics. ... > Physics has nothing to do with reality directly. ... SR is a weak science, and being only math, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: OBarr: SR is a weak theory, it is only math!
    ... >>> The math is part of physics. ... >> Physics has nothing to do with reality directly. ... > general, when one has a physical theory, there are ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)