Post by Paul StowePost by Wizard-Of-OzPost by Paul StowePost by Wizard-Of-OzPost by Paul StowePost by Sam WormleyPost by Paul StoweThe big one is trying sell perception as 'reality'. In our
actual physical universe one can always determine if they are
actually moving or
not. In that sense principle of relativity has been thoroughly
falsified. It's call the Cosmic Microwave Background.
Post by Sam WormleyAll one can say is that an observer is moving *with respect
to*> the CMB. Nothing more.
Post by Paul StoweHowever, the crucial assumption of Einstein's theory is not
that there are no special frames, but that there are no
special frames where the laws of physics are different. There
clearly is a frame where the CMB is at rest, and so this is,
in some sense, the rest frame of the Universe. But for doing
any physics experiment, any other frame is as good as this
one. So the only difference is that in the CMB rest frame you
measure no velocity with respect to the CMB photons, but that
does not imply any fundamental difference in the laws of
physics. --
http://www.astro.ubc.ca/people/scott/faq_basic.html
First the assumption that the laws of physics don't change IS NOT! Einstein's/
It doesn't matter whose it is. Its something we have to assume to
'do' science.
Post by Paul StoweSecond any assumption that physics does not change with speed is
also experimentally falsified by relativity itself!
Wrong. There is no evidecne that physics changes with speed.
That makes no sense. Physics is science.
Actually there is...
Nope. Physics is physics.
And the "Law is the Law..."
That's how it seems
Post by Paul StoweThere are unique attributes associated
with the global rest frame (which can be identified by the CMB).
But not different physics
There are unique attributes to your current rest frame (that you are at
rest in it). That doesn't make it any more or less important than any
other frame or give it special rules
Your argument has no validity
Post by Paul StowePost by Wizard-Of-OzPost by Paul StoweThe issue is, can one ascertain it.
The issue is that you have no idea what you're babbling about
Iggnorance and arrogance is not a good combination, especially for
want-a-be scientist.
Just what I was thinking of you.
Post by Paul StoweJust because you are ignorant of them does not
mean they don't exist.
I'm not ignorant
Post by Paul StoweThe most obivious one is the NEED for the
Lorentz transform rather than the simpler Galilean.
So that fuck what?
Post by Paul StoweBut there are
other more profound ones.
Nope
Post by Paul StowePost by Wizard-Of-OzPost by Paul StowePost by Wizard-Of-OzThe laws of nature that physics discoverse do not change.
However, what we think is a law at low speeds ends up being a
special case of a more general law. What changes as we learn more
is our understanding of those laws.
It is indeed all about what one 'thinks'...
Its about learning and thinking. You should try it
and so should you...
I have ... only unlike you I learnt things
Post by Paul StoweBut, I've enountered your mentality many
times before and I am attempting to teach a pig to sing...
I can also sing better than you
Post by Paul StowePost by Wizard-Of-OzPost by Paul StowePost by Wizard-Of-OzPost by Paul StoweThere simply would be
no need for the Lorentz transform if so.
The Lorentz transforms don't change with speed. That the lorentz
transform works exactly proves you wrong.
Then use the Galilean Transfor
They are wrong. They are not correct physics, just approximations.
Yes, they are indeed 'wrong'.
So why are you promoting that they should be used. That's just stupid
Post by Paul StoweThe reason they are wrong is
because something physically important changes with speed wrt
the background.
No. Nothing changes. Its always the same as the lorentz transforms
show. Those transforms are the same transforms at all speeds. There is
no change in physics
Post by Paul StoweIOW there exist actual physical differences
when moving a different speed which makes them wrong.
Nope. They were just incorrect to start with, the amount of error is
more obvious at higher relative speeds.
You have no valid argument here.
Post by Paul StowePost by Wizard-Of-OzPost by Paul Stowewhy do you need the complication of Lorentz???
Its not all that complicated at all.
You need it because that is how reality works (GR is closer).
Ah, the "because it just is" argument, how superficial of you.
That you inore how realtiy ehaves indicates how stupid a crackpot you
are. Crackpots always wnat the universe to work the waytheir pet theory
says, and ignore the facts when it doesn't
We don't tell reality how to behave. That you have the arrogance to do
so shows that you will never be a scientist
Post by Paul StowePost by Wizard-Of-OzPhysics' job is to model what reality does, not tell reality how to
behave.
And here I thought physics job was to understand reality as much
'as possible.
Through models
Post by Paul StoweI guess we have different definitons...
You don't know what science is or how it works. Speaking from ignorance
as you do is always easy. Science though has an authority to answer to,
which is nature.
Post by Paul StowePost by Wizard-Of-OzPost by Paul StoweThe answer, physical length contraction with speed...
Things may or may not contract with a change in speed. It depends on
who measures them and how the thing changes its speed.
No, actually it does not depend upon who measures them.
Yes it does
Post by Paul StoweBut the
value of measurements depends upon the physical devices used.
Irrelevant
Post by Paul StoweThere
is a difference.
And you can't see it
Post by Paul StowePost by Wizard-Of-OzThey will 'try' to maintain their intrinisic length in their own
frame of reference (depending on the physical properties)
Perception is not physical reality no matter how much one
wishes it to be.
I didn't mention perception. Like most cracpots you can't read and
pretend people say things that they don't. That explains your ignorance
Post by Paul StowePost by Wizard-Of-OzThat doesn't mean, as you incorrectly assert, that physics changes
with speed. It doesn't.
Then one would not need the Lorentz transform, the Galilean would suffice
Lorentz transform is that same at all speeds. It doesn't change. It is
correct at all speeds.
Galilean is simple wrong.
Its not that the physics changes AT ALL. Galillean transforms are
simply NOT corect models for what the physics is,
Post by Paul StowePost by Wizard-Of-OzIts only if you have the wrong model (like galillean transforms) that
you find the model doesn't work at (say) higher relative speeds.
That model is telling you someting important...
That the physics is the same at all speeds and doesn't change. So it is
a better model of the physics
Post by Paul StowePost by Wizard-Of-OzPost by Paul StowePost by Wizard-Of-OzPost by Paul StoweThird and most important, in the quote you provided above you'll
find the tacit acknowledgement that either Bob or Sally can
easily determine which one is moving and thus falsifies the
statement that one cannot, by any physical experiment, do so!
Wrong. All you can determine is relative motion, and only by
comparison with other objects (ie you cannot determine motion with
nothing for comparison .. that's what the PoR of galillean fame is
all about), or change in motion.
Not necessary,
Yes .. necessary
The CMB is global, not local
As far as we know. And that's irrelevant if it is or is not
Post by Paul Stoweas such is the necessary background
It is no necessary .. its just there
Post by Paul StoweTO provide all observers in our universe the ability to accurately
define absolute motion
There is no absolute motion. There is motion realtive to the CMB
'rest' frame, but that doesn't make it absolute. It is not different to
motion relative to any other frame.
Post by Paul Stoweof all object embedded within. It is unique.
So is your current rest frame. And mine. All unique. And all the same
as far as physics is concerned.
Post by Paul StowePost by Wizard-Of-OzPost by Paul Stowethe global CMB and the Doppler (think RADAR) can tell
Bob or Sally who is moving and at what speed within our
U-N-I-V-E-R-S-E.
No .. only the speed relative to the CMB. If they can detect it. As
I said, its only by comparison with external things that you can
determine relative motion).
Post by Paul StoweThey can also of course determine speed relative to
each other (as long as they can 'see' each other...
Yes ... and none of that supports your claim.
The claim of physics is that, using only local experiments and
information, one cannot determine if one is in motion of not. Ie
there is no absolute motion .. no frame where physics is different.
In a closed lab I could run experiments that would tell me how
fast I am moving wrt the CMB without every having to look outside
the comfines of the room.
You are referring to non-local things (ie the CMB).
Its like saying that I can tell my motion in a train because I can look
out the window see if it is moving or not.
The point is if you take purley local measurements, you cannot determine
you motion.
If you take measuremnets that depend on something non-local (like CMB),
then you can determine motion relative to them.
You really just don't get the whole principle of relativity.
Post by Paul StowePhysical properties change with speed
and knowing which one to look at is important.
The things in your lab have the same properties regardles.
Post by Paul StowePost by Wizard-Of-OzPerhaps you misunderstood the claim. Or misunderstood physics
Ditto...
Nope. .I understand. You show clear areas of decided lack
Post by Paul StowePost by Wizard-Of-OzPost by Paul StowePost by Wizard-Of-OzPost by Paul StoweThe logic is inescapable ...
Logic dictates that you are a moron.
If you say so...
Logic says so,
Then no-one should trust your logic...
Noone should trust you as you show clearly that you have no idea about
what you post