Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Thomas Heger Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity Subject: Re: Deep Thought Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2018 11:03:38 +0200 Lines: 162 Message-ID: References: <5B54F677.2732@ix.netcom.com> <2c4e096f-096b-51e5-690c-039b1b01dbbe@PointedEars.de> <6a9f3c5f-3c16-960d-2a9d-a637c2bf7436@PointedEars.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: individual.net O34eHEZzfDz/GX4y0+UwwAH1RQ1LnhPwB8MXVLRDqcQmoz+NF5 Cancel-Lock: sha1:XC1OH8Jond0evelXoI6e+KJOKBM= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1 In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Xref: csiph.com sci.physics.relativity:466808 Am 03.08.2018 um 23:33 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn: > Thomas Heger wrote: >> Am 30.07.2018 um 18:37 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn: >>> Thomas Heger wrote: >>>> Am 28.07.2018 um 14:44 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn: >>>>>> Length contraction is actually only one dimensional (in SRT in 'x' >>>>>> direction). >>>>> >>>>> Length contraction in FLAT spacetime is observed in the direction of >>>>> relative motion, whatever direction that is. Typically (for simplicity) one >>>>> chooses the coordinate system such that the x-axis of the coordinate system >>>>> is parallel to the direction of motion, i.e. that the motion is in the +x or >>>>> −x direction. >>>>> >>>> I have told you recently, that I think SRT is wrong. >>> >>> Then your "Herman" Minkowski is wrong, too, because he assumes that SRT is >>> correct. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. >> The relevant work of Minkowski stems from 1908 and 1909. >> >> SRT is from 1905 > > No, it is not. The work and concept only *started* in 1905, with the two > /annus mirabilis/ papers “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies” and > “Does the Inertia of a Body Depend Upon Its Energy Content?”. This works by Einstein ARE , what he had to say and what was his version of relativity. Minkowski's work was, what he wrote in 1908. So we can actually compare SRT (in the 1905 version, made by Einstein) and Minkowski's work from 1908. There is a discrepancy and Minkowski was right and Einstein was wrong. > >> and Minkowski helped his student Einstein. > > Indirectly, yes. The four-vectors that originate from Minkowski’s idea of > “space-time” (sic!) are easier to handle mathematically than the separate > equations for space and time of the Lorentz transformation. (Which is why > we use them today.) > > They led Einstein to find out (after Minkowski died in 1909) that flat, > Minkowski space(-)time is insufficient to describe our universe properly. > Therefore, general relativity in 1915. See my previous quotation and > citation (which you have ignored). > Well, now you agreed to what you said was wrong. If Einstein has rewritten his theory of relativity in 1915, based on Minkowski's ideas, than he had revoked his on theory from 1905 and replaced it with GR. GR is therefor correct and SRT is not. That was, what I had written and what you rejected. >> Most likely he agreed, but that is not really relevant. > > But it *is* relevant. You keep on claiming that Minkowski somehow said > something else than Einstein. He did not. He was an early supporter of > SRT, and just formulated the same thing differently mathematically. > No, he used a different concept about space and time, which could hardly be called being just mathematically convenient. >> Relevant are Minkowski's late publications. > > Which you have no clue about, otherwise you would not claim your nonsense. > >> This a copy of the German version: >> >> https://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Raum_und_Zeit_(Minkowski) >> >> and here is an English version: >> >> https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Space_and_Time_(Saha) > > And you have not read comprehensively either one, otherwise you would not > claim your nonsense. > >>>>>> Since the world is not one dimensional, we could try a 3d version of >>>>>> relativistic shrinking. >>>>>> >>>>>> The reason for deformation is a Lorentz transform, >>>>> No, the underlying reason is the observed constancy of the speed of light. >>>>> The Lorentz transformation (as we understand it NOW) describes the >>>>> CONSEQUENCES of that MATHEMATICALLY. >>>> You cannot proof physics mathematically. >>> But you can. >> >> No. > > Yes. > >> If nature uses mathematical methods, then we need to find out, what >> these methods are. > > It does not matter if Nature "uses mathematical methods" as long as our > mathematical models correctly predict how she behaves. And the good models, > the ones that survived the test of experiment and observation, do. So we > keep using them. > Well, depends on what you want. I take weather as an example of a natural phenomenon and weather forecast as a model, which aims to predict that natural phenomenon. You say: as long as the predictions are good, we don't mind how weather actually functions. I say: I do not mind the forecast, but want to understand the 'mechanics' of nature. If nature utilizes principles, that are somehow mathematical, than is would be essential to find out, what these methods are, even if it is in principle impossible to use the same methods in a predictive model. The main reason is, that nature operates in ways, we never can: with (almost) infinite amounts of time and computational power, organized in parallel operation. The usual computers operate very fast, but mainly in a serial fashion. >> But we cannot tell nature how to operate. > > True, but we can predict it. We can observe how she behaves, formulate > hypotheses how she is going to behave – that includes writing equations > that relate physical quantities to each other –, and test those hypotheses > against observation. > Well, depends on what you want. If prediction is your desire, then maybe it is not necessary to understand the functionality of the system, that you want to predict. > This is the approach known as the scientific method, and it has worked quite > well for about 400 years now. The devices that you use to post nonsense, > and to read could not have been designed and built without it, and they > would not work with applying working scientific concepts. It is only you > who *in your mind* is still living in the early Middle Ages. And yet you > claim to understand physics. Can you see how incredibly ridiculous your > claim is? > 'Scientific method' is a term defined by Karl Popper in a very different way than you want to use the term. You also confuse science and engineering. Machines are, what engineers build, including computers. 'Science' is mainly about nature. .. TH