Re: Are *observed* SR effects real?

On Jul 7, 9:58 am, Shubee <e.Shu...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 7, 8:59 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Jul 7, 8:40 am, Shubee <e.Shu...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jul 7, 8:06 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jul 5, 8:18 am, Shubee <e.Shu...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
So then insisting that length be frame-independent
in some underlying reality is to either
a) say that the underlying reality is
unmeasurable,

That would be my preference.

And this is scientifically valueless.

Understanding all the ways that reality might be is not scientifically
valueless.

It is if that reality is not confirmable by measurement. That becomes
metaphysics, not physics.

Then Einstein's first postulate is metaphysics because there is no
experiment that proves the nonexistence of an absolute yet
undetectable frame of reference.

The absence of an absolute and undetectable frame of reference is not
one of Einstein's postulates. Do you need the postulates reiterated
for you? Be sure you don't confuse a postulate from what you consider
an implication of a postulate; that would be the equivalent to
confusing an axiom with a theorem.


Metaphysics is not valueless, it's just *scientifically* valueless.

I wouldn't say that Einstein's first postulate is *scientifically*
valueless. Let's just say that it's overrated and not provable.http://www..everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf

As Niels Bohr once said to Einstein, "Einstein, stop
telling God what to do."

And in response, Einstein proposed the experiment that proved him
wrong about quantum mechanics.

Einstein's narrow-mindedness on the probabilistic nature of reality is
so widely acknowledged, there is no need to debate it.

The context of Bohr's reply to Einstein is Einstein's famous platitude
that "God doesn't play dice" with the universe. Bohr's reply,
"Einstein, stop telling God what to do" sometimes includes "...with
his dice."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niels_Bohr

Shubee

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Why TWLS=OWLS=c in any ONE Frame.
    ... Henri Wilson wrote: ... It is just a direct consequence of the unproven second popstulate. ... I think the first postulate is some kind of teenage joke. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Download a new book on quantum mechanics and relativity.
    ... > first postulate with B, and A becomes a theorem (i.e. the same theory ... >> Mathematicians demand that a postulate, by definition, is so primitive ... > once it was realized that intuition isn't always a reliable guide (e.g. ... I don't assume the Lorentz Transformation. ...
    (sci.physics.particle)
  • Re: Download a new book on quantum mechanics and relativity.
    ... > first postulate with B, and A becomes a theorem (i.e. the same theory ... >> Mathematicians demand that a postulate, by definition, is so primitive ... > once it was realized that intuition isn't always a reliable guide (e.g. ... I don't assume the Lorentz Transformation. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Download a new book on quantum mechanics and relativity.
    ... > first postulate with B, and A becomes a theorem (i.e. the same theory ... >> Mathematicians demand that a postulate, by definition, is so primitive ... > once it was realized that intuition isn't always a reliable guide (e.g. ... I don't assume the Lorentz Transformation. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Conversation with Edwin Taylor (Spacetime Physics)
    ... I don't think so, and yes, I think he did postulate it directly. ... reduced to defining inertial frames as the frames in which the speed ... You can't apply the first postulate to establish the speed of light ... as an invariant using the speed of light to define the invariant which ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)