Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #422962 > unrolled thread

Valid and Invalid Arguments in Special Relativity

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Valid and Invalid Arguments in Special Relativity Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2017-06-19 03:57 -0700
    Re: Valid and Invalid Arguments in Special Relativity Rhett Doucet <ttdh@etoe.ee> - 2017-06-19 13:30 +0000
    Re: Valid and Invalid Arguments in Special Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-06-19 06:35 -0700
    Re: Valid and Invalid Arguments in Special Relativity Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2017-06-19 07:47 -0700
      Re: Valid and Invalid Arguments in Special Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-06-19 09:19 -0700
    Re: Valid and Invalid Arguments in Special Relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-19 22:51 -0500
      Re: Valid and Invalid Arguments in Special Relativity Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-06-20 02:36 -0500
        Re: Valid and Invalid Arguments in Special Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-06-20 04:06 -0700
          Re: Valid and Invalid Arguments in Special Relativity Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-06-20 06:51 -0500
            Re: Valid and Invalid Arguments in Special Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-20 08:26 -0500
              Re: Valid and Invalid Arguments in Special Relativity Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-06-20 09:09 -0500
                Re: Valid and Invalid Arguments in Special Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-21 11:12 -0500
                Re: Valid and Invalid Arguments in Special Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-21 16:56 +0000
            Re: Valid and Invalid Arguments in Special Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-06-20 07:07 -0700
              Re: Valid and Invalid Arguments in Special Relativity Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-06-20 10:38 -0500
                Re: Valid and Invalid Arguments in Special Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-06-20 09:53 -0700
                  Re: Valid and Invalid Arguments in Special Relativity Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-06-20 19:50 -0500
                    Re: Valid and Invalid Arguments in Special Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-06-20 19:45 -0700
                      Re: Valid and Invalid Arguments in Special Relativity Lipek Mniak <iluka@sskwpiw.pp> - 2017-06-21 12:18 +0000
                Re: Valid and Invalid Arguments in Special Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-21 11:12 -0500
              Re: Valid and Invalid Arguments in Special Relativity Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> - 2017-06-21 13:22 -0700
                Re: Valid and Invalid Arguments in Special Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-06-21 18:08 -0700
                  Re: Valid and Invalid Arguments in Special Relativity Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> - 2017-06-22 02:10 -0700
                    Re: Valid and Invalid Arguments in Special Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-22 02:52 -0700
                      Re: Valid and Invalid Arguments in Special Relativity Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> - 2017-06-22 03:47 -0700
                        Re: Valid and Invalid Arguments in Special Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-22 04:16 -0700
                    Re: Valid and Invalid Arguments in Special Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-06-22 06:17 -0700
                      Re: Valid and Invalid Arguments in Special Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-22 06:40 -0700
                      Re: Valid and Invalid Arguments in Special Relativity Nicolaas Vroom <nicolaas.vroom@pandora.be> - 2017-06-23 02:30 -0700
                        Re: Valid and Invalid Arguments in Special Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-23 03:49 -0700
                        Re: Valid and Invalid Arguments in Special Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-23 07:32 -0500
                          Re: Valid and Invalid Arguments in Special Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-23 05:53 -0700
                        Re: Valid and Invalid Arguments in Special Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-06-23 06:38 -0700
                          Re: Valid and Invalid Arguments in Special Relativity Valok Planek <lkupuu@kwklewan.oo> - 2017-06-24 10:27 +0000
                Re: Valid and Invalid Arguments in Special Relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-23 09:43 -0500
        Re: Valid and Invalid Arguments in Special Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-20 11:20 +0000
          Re: Valid and Invalid Arguments in Special Relativity Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-06-20 06:54 -0500
            Re: Valid and Invalid Arguments in Special Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-20 08:29 -0500
              Re: Valid and Invalid Arguments in Special Relativity Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-06-20 09:17 -0500
                Re: Valid and Invalid Arguments in Special Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-21 11:12 -0500
                Re: Valid and Invalid Arguments in Special Relativity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-21 17:11 +0000
        Re: Valid and Invalid Arguments in Special Relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-20 09:03 -0500
          Re: Valid and Invalid Arguments in Special Relativity Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-06-20 10:24 -0500
            Re: Valid and Invalid Arguments in Special Relativity Eshiki Orakut <usa@iwikuh.ki> - 2017-06-20 16:54 +0000
            Re: Valid and Invalid Arguments in Special Relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-20 20:05 -0500
      Re: Valid and Invalid Arguments in Special Relativity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-20 18:56 +0200
        Re: Valid and Invalid Arguments in Special Relativity Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-20 20:17 -0500
          Re: Valid and Invalid Arguments in Special Relativity Eshiki Orakut <usa@iwikuh.ki> - 2017-06-21 09:38 +0000
    Re: Valid and Invalid Arguments in Special Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-06-20 02:48 -0700
      Re: Valid and Invalid Arguments in Special Relativity Eshiki Orakut <usa@iwikuh.ki> - 2017-06-20 13:05 +0000

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#423202

Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> wrote:
> The Slow Bot, ala Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> Ned Latham wrote:
>>> The Slow Bot, aka Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> Ned Latham wrote:
>>>>> Tom Roberts wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> There are no valid ARGUMENTS against Special Relativity, as it is
>>>>>> a PHYSICAL THEORY.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Except that it doesn't have anything to say about how a waveform can
>>>>> travel in vaccuum.
>>>> 
>>>> But quantum field theories do.
>>> 
>>> Irrelevant. SR and GR predate all of them, and they're inconsistent with
>>> them anyway.
>> 
>> It's not irrelevant.
> 
> Wrong agaon. Skow Bot. SR and GR predate all quantum field theworues. IOW,
> SR is NOT a physical theory.
> 
> ----snip----
> 

What does presaging have to do with anything, other than indicating that
one incremental step toward a better understanding was made before the next
step? 

-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#423111

On 6/20/17 6/20/17   2:36 AM, Ned Latham wrote:
> Tom Roberts wrote:
>> There are no valid ARGUMENTS against Special Relativity, as it is
>> a PHYSICAL THEORY.
> 
> Except that it doesn't have anything to say about how a waveform can
> travel in vaccuum.

If you mean light, that is not within the domain of SR. Moreover, light is not a 
waveform. If you mean anything else, you'll have to explain.

> So it's not a physical theory.

Sure it is! It's just not a theory about waveforms traveling in vacuum. For that 
you need an additional theory, one that is consistent with SR (because SR is so 
solidly established experimentally). For light we have such a theory (QED), but 
we have no such theory for any "waveform".

> QED is an interpretation of QM, which is inconsistent with Einsteinian
> relativity.

Completely wrong! QED is NOT an "interpretation of QM", it is a more fundamental 
theory, which incorporates SR at its foundation. Rather, QM is an appropriate 
limit of QED (in a manner similar to Newtonian mechanics being a limit of SR). 
Yes, both QM and NM are inconsistent with SR; but the underlying theories of 
which they are appropriate limits ARE consistent with SR.

> That's what the kerfuffle over the loss of "String Theory"
> is all about, remember?

Again completely wrong! You are VERY confused.

Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#423134

Tom Roberts wrote:
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > Tom Roberts wrote:
> > >
> > > There are no valid ARGUMENTS against Special Relativity, as it is
> > > a PHYSICAL THEORY.
> > 
> > Except that it doesn't have anything to say about how a waveform can
> > travel in vaccuum.
>
> If you mean light, that is not within the domain of SR.

Vullshit.

> Moreover, light is not a waveform.

So Einstein never postulated a "wave pacjet:?

----snio----

> > QED is an interpretation of QM, which is inconsistent with Einsteinian
> > relativity.
>
> Completely wrong! QED is NOT an "interpretation of QM", it is a more
> fundamental theory,

Quit the bullshitting. QM isn't a physical theory: it's a mathematical
treatment of some subatomic phenomena. 

----snip----

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#423150

W dniu wtorek, 20 czerwca 2017 15:23:43 UTC+2 użytkownik Ned Latham
napisał:

> Quit the bullshitting. QM isn't a physical theory: it's a mathematical
> treatment of some subatomic phenomena.

And theories in physics are not treating phenomena mathematically.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#423166

On 6/20/17 6/20/17   10:24 AM, Ned Latham wrote:
> Tom Roberts wrote:
>> Ned Latham wrote:
>>> Tom Roberts wrote:
>>>>
>>>> There are no valid ARGUMENTS against Special Relativity, as it is
>>>> a PHYSICAL THEORY.
>>>
>>> Except that it doesn't have anything to say about how a waveform can
>>> travel in vaccuum.
>>
>> If you mean light, that is not within the domain of SR.
> 
> Vullshit.

Nope. To me, and to many/most physicists, SR today does not include 
electrodynamics, as Einstein intermixed them in 1905. SR is easily separable as 
the (local) geometry of the world, while electrodynamics describes 
electromagnetic interactions (classically, or quantum mechanically in QED). In 
particular, modern derivations of SR do not use Einstein's second postulate (or 
any other reference to light), they are purely geometrical. SR is part of the 
foundations of both classical electrodynamics and QED, which do describe light.

>> Moreover, light is not a waveform.
> 
> So Einstein never postulated a "wave pacjet:?

	["packet"]

He postulated and described MANY things throughout his long and illustrious 
career. But this is NOT about what Einstein might or might not have said, it is 
about the structure of light. Today the best description of light is BY FAR that 
of QED, in which light is not any sort of wave (or waveform). In particular, no 
wave (or waveform) model can describe the many observed quantum aspects of 
light; QED does.

	Of course QED accurately models experiments that display
	waveLIKE behavior. Light can be extremely good at MIMICKING
	a wave, but at base is NOT one.

>>> QED is an interpretation of QM, which is inconsistent with Einsteinian
>>> relativity.
>> Completely wrong! QED is NOT an "interpretation of QM", it is a more
>> fundamental theory,
> 
> Quit the bullshitting.

No "bullshitting". Fact. As I said, QM is a suitable limit of QED, and QED has a 
much larger domain than QM, so QED cannot possibly be merely an interpretation 
of QM. And SR is part of the foundations of QED, which is fully consistent with SR.

You should LEARN something about the subject before spouting off nonsense like that.

> QM isn't a physical theory: it's a mathematical
> treatment of some subatomic phenomena.

ALL physical theories are mathematical treatments of phenomena in the world -- 
that's what the words MEAN. We have several layered PHYSICAL THEORIES of 
subatomic phenomena; loosely from largest to narrowest:
  * the standard model
  * QCD
  * electro-weak theory
  * QED
  * QM (the low-energy, slow-speed limit of QED)
  * classical electrodynamics (the non-quantum limit of QED)

Apparently you have only a passing acquaintance with the last (narrowest) of 
these, as it is the only one that could possibly called a "wave theory" (and 
even that is  a stretch).

Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#423151

Tom Roberts wrote:

> On 6/19/17 6/19/17   5:57 AM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>> [...]
> 
> There are no valid ARGUMENTS against Special Relativity, as it is a
> PHYSICAL THEORY.  The only VALID way to refute it is by experiment, 

IBTD.  Even a physical theory has to be internally consistent first.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#423167

On 6/20/17 6/20/17   11:56 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Tom Roberts wrote:
>> There are no valid ARGUMENTS against Special Relativity, as it is a
>> PHYSICAL THEORY.  The only VALID way to refute it is by experiment,
> 
> IBTD.  Even a physical theory has to be internally consistent first.

OK. But the math underlying SR has been proven to be as consistent as is 
Euclidean geometry, and as is real analysis. Proofs of mathematical consistency 
don't get any better than that.

So any "argument" against the consistency of SR must take on the consistency of 
the entire body of modern mathematics. Hopeless. Especially by the idiots around 
here who doggedly cling to the notion that SR is inconsistent (such as Valev, 
who started this thread).

Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#423170

W dniu wtorek, 20 czerwca 2017 15:23:43 UTC+2 użytkownik Tom Roberts
napisał:

>> IBTD.  Even a physical theory has to be internally consistent first.
> 
> OK. But the math underlying SR has been proven to be as consistent as is
> Euclidean geometry, and as is real analysis. Proofs of mathematical
> consistency don't get any better than that.

Conversing with that local village idiot of 'pointedhead', makes you look 
bad, mister Tom. Leads you into evil saying 'math proven to be 
consistent'. What am I crazy, Math HAS TO be always inherently 100% 
consistent.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#423067

On Monday, June 19, 2017 at 12:57:10 PM UTC+2, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> In 1905 Einstein derived, from his two postulates, the conclusion
> 
> "the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B": 
> 
> Albert Einstein, On the electrodynamics of moving bodies, 1905: "From this there ensues the following peculiar consequence. 

You've posted this dozens of times (probably hundreds if one starts counting
around 1995). It was answered the corresponding number of times. What do you
think are accomplishing by this sort of mindless repetition?

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#423091

JanPB wrote:

> On Monday, June 19, 2017 at 12:57:10 PM UTC+2, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>> In 1905 Einstein derived, from his two postulates, the conclusion
>> "the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained
>> at B": 
>> Albert Einstein, On the electrodynamics of moving bodies, 1905: "From
>> this there ensues the following peculiar consequence.
> 
> You've posted this dozens of times (probably hundreds if one starts
> counting around 1995). It was answered the corresponding number of
> times. What do you think are accomplishing by this sort of mindless
> repetition?

In physics, repetition will never make things right and true.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web