Re: "Relativity and Reasonableness Tests"

On Jul 5, 9:18 pm, "Jeckyl" <n...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<bsr3...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:1183684140.901504.112980@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx





On Jul 5, 9:50 am, "Jeckyl" <n...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<bsr3...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:1183642589.670743.251540@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Jul 4, 9:06 pm, "Jeckyl" <n...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<bsr3...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
SR uses math to explain how our measurements are affected by
relative
motion, but it doesn't explain the underlying mechanics of why those
equations work.
The explanation of a 4-d Minkowski spacetime seems to cover SR very
nicely
And what does Minkowski give for a reason why C is a constant? Why
can one ray of light never overtake another? Why the addition of
velocities works the way it does rather than just normal addition?

Because that can't ahppen whne you have lorentz transforms

That doesn't answer the question. The LT applies rather that normal
addition for a reason. What is the reason.

In order to model the real world

seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_special_relativity
LTAT or LET as it is often called around here
provides a possible explaination.
Not a very good one.
Maybe not, but it works. For many that is far better than being told
"That's just the way it is. Science doesn't tell you why."
LTAT, LET doesn't tell you why either
LET says light is a wave in the aether.
SR doesn't even define light

It isn't about the nature of light .. it is independant of the nature of
light. One less comlpication for SR

other than to say it travels at C in all frames.

Yes

From Einstein's 1905 paper, "light is always propagated in empty space
with a definite velocity C which is independent of the state of motion
of the emitting body."

Here he has postulated a magical property for light, unlike anything
else, and no attempt is made to explain how light does this. LET
starts with light traveling at a constant speed only in the aether
frame and shows how it ends up being measured to travel at C in all
frames.

No explaination is given for how it manages to do that, it is just a
given.

We don't need to know how light propogates .. only that there is a maximum
finite speed at which information can be exchanged (including light)

LET explains
how light is measured to travel at C in all frames

SR does as well .. because c is the maximum speed. Minkowski spacetime
makes it that way

Postulating is not explaining.

even though its
closing speed with objects moving in the aether frame is not C.

Same with SR and minkowski spacetime

No, in SR the only time anyone wants to hear about the closing speed
of light being anything but C is when relative simultaniety is
explained. That is one of the things that makes RS so difficult for
many new students. They can see the closing speed is not C and can't
understand how the moving observer could measure it to be C. And if
they refuse to accept it on faith they are either given the same
explaination over and over or have their intelligence questioned.

The math of LET can be more
complicated than SR if you try to include the aether frame in your
calculations, but Lorentz showed how that step could be eliminated.
The math of LET can be simpified into the same math as SR.
Then just use SR and Minkowski .. no need for special ether frames
adding
to
the complication
That is basicly what you end up doing. But when in doubt about how to
apply formulas at least you have a model that allows you to reason out
the result.
SR and Minkowski are the model. You introduce further complexity by
having
a special frame.
What part of "The math ends up the same." do you not understand?

If its the same, use the simpler SR model. One doesn't need the
complication of stipulating light propagation, of having undetectable
absolute frames, or having an ether that is somehow inexplicably able to
contract space and dilate time etc etc .. all the extras that various ether
theories add in.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yes, it is so much easier to accept things on faith.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: "Relativity and Reasonableness Tests"
    ... And what does Minkowski give for a reason why C is a constant? ... no need for special ether frames adding ... a special frame. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Crown design poll, we need YOUR opinion.
    ... I do that a lot on this forum for some reason. ... I am glad it got you to reveal the frame though. ... guarantee you that by the time you run a second weld over a previous ... metalworking industry that a material is "aircraft grade", ...
    (rec.sport.unicycling)
  • Re: Lightspeed exceeded
    ... The choice of Galilean transforms between inertial reference ... >>>frame does not do that for the laws of electrodynamics. ... And to some extent, THAT DOESN'T MATTER. ... but I see no reason to hail him as a genius if he 'got lucky'. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Problem with CSS Horizontal Dropdown Menu
    ... and for this reason: it is the one simple design principle anyone can come up with no matter how inexperienced, ... Frankly I have never seen anyone frame a picture off-center. ... (Indeed, for a presentation at an academic conference in the fall, my coauthor and I will be displaying some screenshots of web pages that we've blurred, flipped about the vertical axis, and otherwise distorted, precisely to encourage users to look at them as wholes rather than visually traversing the various parts.) ...
    (comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets)
  • Re: Nikon will not go to full frame...
    ... High-end users don't have to use ff frame but for quality ... this is the reason that Nikon will have to go to full-frame if they ...
    (rec.photo.digital.slr-systems)