Re: A little challenge for relativists.


<surrealistic-dream@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1133882934.099122.58780@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> John Kennaugh wrote:
>
> ...
>>
>> It does not contradict that claim at all. Relativity is a 'principle
>> theory' a mathematical model which makes no attempt to provide physical
>> explanations for example whether there is or there isn't an ether.
>
> What's your point? Both 1905 SR and LET have a lot of things that
> neither of them talk about. SR doesn't need ether. LET doesn't need
> kryptonite. But should LET have to explain why there is or isn't
> kryptonite? A theory needs whatever it needs to be successful, and
> nothing else. All theories explain their theorems in terms of their
> postulates. Period.

What does that have to do with physics? Nothing. Period. Go talk
to the math groups. Period.

>> My logic started with an assumption of no ether and concluded that no
>> ether means source dependency.
>
> Then you are reasoning from an arbitrary formal point of view, from
> which you justify your conclusions. But nature can do whatever the hell
> it wants to do.

Yep.

> If nature wants us to measure a fixed number c for the
> speed of light in a vacuum in an inertial frame, nature can force that
> on us. That is the Light Principle. It just is.

Wrong. And you saying doesn't make it right, either. Period.


> In any theory of light,
> it appears as either an axiom or a theorem. Take your choice.

Bull***. Period.
Sagnac in the laboratory, variable stars in astronomy. Period.
You are wrong. Period.

>> If you cannot demonstrate where I went
>> wrong it means that the mathematical model called SR must be describing
>> a physical process involving an ether - which as far as I am concerned
>> it clearly does.
>
> Of course. It's one's personal "theory" that tells (interprets for) one
> what one observes. We are all prejudiced by our formal points of view.

Thank you for admitting that. Period.
So your "In ANY theory of light" is bull***. Period.


> ...
>
>>
>> Whether SR is the same or a different theory to LET has nothing to do
>> with real-world observations either.
>
> Ontologically speaking, they are very different theories.

Who cares? They are both crap. Period.


>> Neither has the demonstrable fact
>> that both SR and LET owe their existence to a belief in the ether
>
> In the same way that astronomy owes its existence to astrology?

No it doesn't. Period. Astrology owes its existence to astronomy. Period.
There will always be gullible phuckwits, waiting to have there money
separated from them, and charlatans eager to do it. Period.


Or in
> the same way that thermodynamics owes its existence to caloric? Well,
> okay, yeah they're a part of the evolution of physics. But SR also owes
> it existence to Einstein's desire to formulate a field theory of
> electrodynamics that contained a minimal number of independent
> ontological basic (irreducible) parts:

Load of crap. Period. Eistein was one the charlatans, an astrologer. Peroid.
You are one of the gullible. Period.
>
>
> <BEGIN QUOTE>
>
> Now a question arose: Since the field exists even in a vacuum,

Yes, TV tubes have fields in them. Period.


> should
> one conceive of the field as a state of a "carrier," or should it
> rather be endowed with an independent existence not reducible to
> anything else?

M-fields reduce to E-fields. E-fields reduce to M-fields. Period.



> In other words, is there an "ether" which carries the
> field;

No. Period.

the ether being considered in the undulatory state, for example,
> when it carries light waves?

No. Period. The light wave is two waves. One E, one M. They play leapfrog.
No aether needed. No SR needed either, both stay put in a transformer.
The insulated copper wire conrains the E-field, the soft iron core contains
the M-field. Period.


> The question has a natural answer: Because one cannot dispense with the
> field concept, it is preferable not to introduce in addition a carrier
> with hypothetical properties. However, the pathfinders who first
> recognized the indispensability of the field concept were still too
> strongly imbued with the mechanistic tradition of thought to accept
> unhesitatingly this simple point of view. But in the course of the
> following decades this view imperceptibly took hold.
>
> The introduction of the field as an elementary concept gave rise to an
> inconsistency of the theory as a whole. Maxwell's theory, although
> adequately describing the behavior of electrically charged particles in
> their interaction with one another, does not explain the behavior of
> electrical densities, i.e., it does not provide a theory of the
> particles themselves. They must therefore be treated as mass points on
> the basis of the old theory....
>
> <END QUOTE>
>
> From: On the Generalized Theory of Gravitation, Ideas and Opinions,
> p.345 )

The question has a natural answer. Point masses are point fields. Period.

> By "old theory" Einstein meant the mechanics of Newton. So, what
> Einstein wanted to start with was a minimal ontology of basic building
> blocks to begin his new theory of electrodynamcis (1905).

Newton didn't get into electrodynamics. Period.
The basic building block is the field. Period.

> Today, you look at a graduate catalogue of physics courses and you see
> electrodynamics as just one of a bunch of classes to take.

All by the same phuckwit, Einstein. Period.


> But in 1905,
> electrdynamics was considered to be the foundation, or basis, of
> physics generally.

Nonsense. Period.


> So to Einstein, getting this basis minimalized was
> absolutely crucial.

So minimalize it. The basic building block is the field. Period.


> This was part of his formal point of view.

Einstein was a formal phuckwit. Period.

> If he
> had thought that he could have minimized this basis and kept ether to
> do so, he might have kept ether. But it just didn't happen that way.
> But if you love a luminiferous mechanical ether, keep it! It's yours.

Idiot.
"My logic started with an assumption of no ether and concluded that no
ether means source dependency." -- John Kennaugh.
That makes you a fuckin' STOOOPID idiot.

If you love one speed of light, if you do not understand c+v <> c-v, keep
it.
It's yours. Period.

"In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity
2AB/(t'A-tA) = c,
to be a universal constant--the velocity of light in empty space." --
Einstein.

In agreement with experience and without further assumption
x = AB
-x = BA,
x + (-x) = 0.
Hence c = 0 throughout SR. Period.

[quote]
we establish by definition that the "time" required by a turtle to travel
from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A.
[end quote]
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

Einstein can prove nothing can go faster than a turtle.

Oops!... Did I say 'a turtle'? Sorry...'light'. Period.

Androcles can prove your brain cannot go faster than a turtle's. Period.

>> while
>> most modern physicists don't believe in the ether. Whether or not it
>> affects real world observations one should try and get it right. I
>> personally do not accept that a mathematical model is a complete physics
>> theory and that one should try and understand the physics, the physical
>> processes the maths are describing as well as the maths.
>
> What exactly do you mean by "understand the physics"? Don't we
> understand via physical theories?

No, you don't. Period. You are one of the gullible suckers taken in by
the charlatan Einstein. Period.

When asked if New York stops at this train, Galileo replied "Yes".

Einstein said "As has already been shown to the first order
of small quantities (by Galileo, but the secret to creativity
is knowing how to hide your sources so we won't mention him)
the same laws of mechanics will be valid for all frames of reference
for which the equations of electrodynamics and optics hold good.
We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter
be called the "Principle of Relativity" so that it looks as if I
discovered it) to the status of a postulate, because everything
should be as simple as possible but not simpler and imagination
is more important than knowledge and if we knew what it was
we were doing, it would not be called research, would it and
as far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain;
as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality and God
doesn't play craps, poker or roulette and he may be subtle,
but he isn't plain mean and I never think of the future, it comes
soon enough and what really interests me is whether God had any choice
in the creation of the world and if you are out to describe the truth,
leave elegance to the tailor and a table, a chair, a bowl of fruit
and a violin; what else does a man need to be happy and it would be
possible to describe everything scientifically, but it would make no
sense and common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age
eighteen and God does not care about our mathematical difficulties; he
integrates empirically and the whole of science is nothing more
than a refinement of everyday thinking and do not worry about
your difficulties in Mathematics, I can assure you mine are still
greater and two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity;
and I'm not sure about the universe."

Does New York stop as this fuckin' train or not?
If it doesn't the Hudson river will stop at this train.

Androcles. Period.


.

Quantcast