New Paradox for the "Principles of Physics".

That's a really good one- <img src=icon_infty.gif border=0 align=middle>-<img src=icon_infty.gif border=0 align=middle> = 42.

Tom,


quote:Posted - 29 Mar 2003 : 23:36:35

---

quote:

---

[Mac]: I'll do the polite thing on this MSB since I am a guest and skip the unqualified reference to "Ignorance".

---

I apologize for that injudicious choice of words. You had said "relativity in any form is still in doubt". I meant to simply complain that claims oblivious to the latest experimental evidence should not be made to appear to be statements of fact rather than opinion. My chosen words came out insulting, which was not my intent.

********************
Ans: Tom, I accept your opology and I understand your frustration. Under these conditions I will continue to try and also make my point.

Thank you.
********************
quote:

---

Clocks do not measure time.

---

Clocks attempt to measure time intervals. How well they succeed depends on how well they are built.

Ans: I agree. But the clocks are still a measure of process and not time perse. It is not the same as measurement of pressure, temperature, etc.


quote:

---

They are a process and process are affected by forces of motion.

---

Actually, that is not true. Atomic clocks are not affected by force or acceleration even up to incredible levels such as 10^19 g, where g = force of gravity at Earth's surface. However, speed and gravitational potential do affect the rates of most clocks. Perhaps that is what you meant to say?

That is also what relativity predicts.


Ans: I agree with this statement. But my point was and remains that mere prediction by Relativity has no preferance over simular alternative explanations for the response. That is it is not an "Exclusive" answer or only answer for the affect on clocks. Some of which may not yet be understood. i.e. - My view of Relavistic mass being a function of energy transfer efficiency produces the same affect but shows no actual mass change occurs.


quote:

---

Your point is mute since Relavistic affects have other equal if not superior interpretations.

---

And I have argued in print, even in mainstream journals, that SR is the wrong physical interpretation, and probably LR is the right one. But my objection was to your exaggerated claim that "relativity in any form is still in doubt". If you had just complained about Einstein's special relativity, we would have been in agreement.

But I apologize again for use of the word "ignorant". -|Tom|-

Ans: Saying they are "in doubt" is not the same as saying they are or can be shown to be invalid. By "In doubt" I mean simply that they should not be considered as the ultimate or only answer. And in that regard they are less impressive as arguements against alternative views. The alternative views must stand on their own merits and should they meet observational and/or experimental results requirement they cannot be challenged just because they disagree with Relativity of any kind.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[Mac]: mere prediction by Relativity has no preferance over simular alternative explanations for the response.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

To my knowledge, all existing explanations for the experimental evidence are based on the relativity principle (essentially that all motion is relative), a principle devised in the late 1800s, popularized by Poincare, and adopted by both Lorentz in 1904 and Einstein in 1905 for their respective theories.

My opinion is therefore that you and I agree that Einstein special relativity may well be dead wrong. However, IMO, all viable alternatives, and Lorentzian relativity in particular (which is based in part on the Lorentz Ether Theory), are still based on the relativity principle, even when they admit a preferred frame in the universe. So I suspect that, when you say "relativity in any form is still in doubt", you meant special relativity is in doubt. I am unaware of any viable theory that still exists that does not depend on the relativity principle and Lorentz transformations. They in fact work very well in explaining and predicting reality, and nothing else currently around does that.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>My view of Relavistic mass being a function of energy transfer efficiency produces the same affect but shows no actual mass change occurs.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Even special relativity finally had to give up its claim that mass changed with relative speed. In the 1980s, The distinction between "rest mass" (which never changes) and "relativistic mass" (which is used only in the expression for momentum) was widely adopted. (It is normal for changes in interpretation of theories, such as this, to be adopted without admitting that the earlier interpretation was wrong.)

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Your point is mute since Relavistic affects have other equal if not superior interpretations.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

My point is neither mute nor moot. All other viable explanations are still based on the relativity principle. The old idea of an absolute space is now dead -- unless one wishes to postulate that Earth really is the center of the universe and the Sun and everything else goes around us.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>they are less impressive as arguements against alternative views. The alternative views must stand on their own merits and should they meet observational and/or experimental results requirement they cannot be challenged just because they disagree with Relativity of any kind.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

We agree about the standards that viable alternatives must meet. Can you name any alternative that meets these requirements but does not respect the relativity principle? If so, how does it explain the Michelson-Morley experiment? -|Tom|-

Tom,

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
We agree about the standards that viable alternatives must meet. Can you name any alternative that meets these requirements but does not respect the relativity principle? If so, how does it explain the Michelson-Morley experiment? -|Tom|-<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Yes and no. I would agree among mainstream theories some form of Relativity exsists. I full well know my own work does not qualify as a theory. It is only a lose concept and I called it UniKEF but when you get down to it it also has relavistic qualities. As stated earlier it gets into the issue of relavitic mass and dimensional contraction as well.

But in both of these cases the concept is not merely mathematical projections, they are derived from a physical view. One that can be seen and understood. The responses (observations) are the same but the basis is different.

But until more is done in that area it is not a competing theory. It does however, fire my view that successful alternatives will be found.

They may still be relavistic in nature but they will have a good physical underpinning which can be understood.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[Mac]: They may still be relavistic in nature but they will have a good physical underpinning which can be understood.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Have you read the Meta Model? One way it differs from all previous models is in bringing good physical underpinnings to all of cosmology, gravitation, and relativity. -|Tom|-

Tom,

No, honestly I haven't read it. Frankly I intended to because I was drawn here since MM has a pushing gravity concept which is the basis for grvity in UniKEF. But having gotten into these discussions and the MM view of infinity has made me less interested.

I do not and cannot adapt your view of the origin of existance. That doesn't mean you are wrong but it does mean I believe you are wrong and you have said nothing that could change my mind on that issue.