🚀 go-pugleaf

GSS wrote:
>On Jun 20, 2:58 pm, John Kennaugh <J...@notworking.freeserve.co.uk>
>wrote:
>> GSS wrote:
>>>On Jun 12, 6:31 pm, jem <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
>>>> John Kennaugh wrote:
>>>.........
>>>>> How a mathematical abstraction (a FoR) can posses the same physical
>>>>> properties as the aether and force light to propagate every which way at
>>>>> c when it defines physical space which those same relativists are
>>>>> adamant contains nothing physical - no aether - is absurd.
>>
>>>>> I have Tom Roberts in effect saying "never mind the physical, jump in
>>>>> the maths is luverly." The maths works provided you have complete
>>>>> freedom to redefine anything which prevents it from working and you
>>>>> accept the modern view that physical interpretation is not only
>>>>> unnecessary but a singularly bad idea.
>>
>>>> The math of *every* physical theory has a direct link to measurement,
>>>> and that link /is/ the "physical interpretation".
>>
>>>Do you consider GR to be a physical theory?
>>>If so then where is the direct link of *space curvature* to
>>>measurement?
>>
>>>In reality you can neither physically measure the space curvature nor
>>>describe a technical procedure for measurement of space curvature even
>>>in principle. You cannot even define the space curvature in physical
>>>terms (other than the usual mathematical definition in GR).
>>
>>>I hope you can atleast mentally visualize the space curvature! Can
>>>you??
>>
>>>>> If it doesn't work on a physical level - it doesn't work. If there is
>>>>> nothing to cause a physical effect then there cannot be a physical
>>>>> effect. Nothing happens because the maths says so. Things happen because
>>>>> of real physical processes and it is a legitimate aim of physics to try
>>>>> and understand nature not merely to mathematically model it.
>>
>>>> What do you think cause-and-effect relationships /are/, Kennaugh,
>>>> other than logical connections between certain behavior of Nature and
>>>> other behavior?  And what do you think physical theories /are/, other
>>>> than devices for inferring certain behavior of Nature from other
>>>> behavior*?
>>
>>>Causality denotes a necessary relationship between one event (called
>>>cause) and another event (called effect) which is the direct
>>>consequence (result) of the first. If a certain sequence of events is
>>>not causally connected, that set of events will be referred as random
>>>events.
>>
>> Surely random events are ones where the cause is far too complex to
>> analyse or predict rather than one not having a cause.
>>
>>>If a sequence of events is causally connected, we may
>>>attribute such causal connection between events to certain physical
>>>law of nature. If appropriate logical explanation is available for the
>>>causal connection between events then such  causal connection plus the
>>>appropriate logical explanation is called a physical theory of the
>>>associated phenomenon.
>>
>> If only! Modern physics allows itself liberties whereby a theory can be
>> accepted with totally absurd causality. Take SR and Doppler shift.
>> Suppose you are stationary w.r.t a source 1 light year away. According
>> to SR light travelling w.r.t. you travels at c having separated from the
>> source at a speed of separation c. If you now change your speed so that
>> you are travelling away from the source at v the frequency of the light
>> you observe will be lower due to Doppler shift but according to SR the
>> light still travels at c w.r.t you. If c hasn't changed and the
>> frequency has, then the wavelength must have changed. What the maths is
>> saying is that in your new frame of reference the wavelength has changed
>> because the light is now separating from the source at c+v generating
>> longer wavelengths than previous. The problem with this is that your
>> change of speed has apparently caused a change in what is happening at
>> the source 1 light year away with no possible causal mechanism. What is
>> even more absurd is that the change has to be backdated to 1 light year
>> ago as there is no 1 year delay in the frequency changing. When I point
>> this out to a relativist I am told I am being silly and that one has
>> changed from a FoR where the light separates from the source at c - and
>> always did - to one where it separates from the source at c+v - and
>> always did. That is simply a description of the mathematics not of what
>> is physically happening. Physically one has to assume that when you
>> change speed you change from a universe where light separates from the
>> source at c to a parallel universe where it separates from the source at
>> c+v and always has done.
>>
>> Physical interpretation of SR is not allowed. Relativity is a principle
>> theory (a posh name for a mathematical model) and as such makes no
>> attempt to address physical questions. The fact is that a FoR is a
>> mathematical abstraction which cannot impose physical restrictions on
>> light photons. The problem is that the physical space which the FoR maps
>> out is claimed not to contain anything which can possibly impose
>> physical restrictions on light photons either.
>>
>> The only causal mechanisms that I am aware of is my parallel universe
>> explanation and that put forward by Lorentz involving Lorenz's aether.
>> --
>> John Kennaugh
>> "The nature of the physicists' default was their failure to insist 
>>sufficiently
>> strongly on the physical reality of the physical world."  Dr Scott Murray
>
>In whichever physical theory causality and logic are sacrificed
>through ad-hoc postulates, that theory must be either incomplete or
>wrong!!

Physicists write their own rules. They changed the rules. Your statement 
(which I agree with - but then I am not a physicist) shows that you are 
out of touch with modern physics.

The aether was removed from physics not as the result of experiment nor 
through some theoretical wizardry but by simply deciding that physical 
interpretation is no longer a requirement in physics. The mathematics of 
Maxwell's theory are now considered a complete physics theory without 
the necessity of making any judgement as to whether the waves the wave 
equations describe actually exist and if they do what might be their 
physical nature. The modern excuse is that as we cannot get an exact 
understanding of the physical nature it is better not to try and to 
stick to the mathematical description.

One can see it as cause and effect. Einstein had been hailed as a genius 
and his theory accepted without proper scrutiny. Closer inspection shows 
that without an alternative theoretical structure it could not in all 
honesty be described as a different theory to that of Lorentz and 
Lorentz's theory, having a theoretical structure is the more complete of 
the two. To justify their acceptance of SR physicists changed the rules. 
By the new rules Einstein's theory is a better theory in that it does 
not attempt to explain itself in terms of silly physical models and is a 
mathematical theory in keeping with the new thinking.

Put simply if you get into a mess, then change the rules such that what 
was a mess is now considered a virtue. This was the first of many. Like 
the one which says "if a theory doesn't work - invent a new particle." 
"If when viewed against theory it all looks silly assume that it is 
nature which is weird not that theory is wrong" and so on.

I say photons have mass because they are attracted by gravity, have 
momentum as they produce a force when they impact on a surface. If you 
if you assume they have mass the maths works. Physicists say that 
photons do not have mass because if they did it would mean SR is wrong. 
Why should SR be right? It is based upon the assumption that Maxwell's 
wave in aether theory is impeccable when no one now believes in the 
aether and it had been shown (and totally ignored in the formulation of 
SR) that not only is light emitted in quantized lumps (Planck) that it 
remains in those same quantized lumps (photo electric effect) and that 
at no point in between do the waves of Maxwell exist.

Of course my argument is ruled out on the grounds that it is based on 
physical interpretation which is no longer a part of modern physics. The 
only rule in modern physics is that accepted theory cannot be wrong. If 
it doesn't work it is not because it is wrong but because it is 
incomplete. Having decided that nature is weird (rather than physics 
which is off the rails) it is not difficult to patch up any accepted 
theory. One cannot reject a 'fix' on the grounds that "Nature may be 
weird but it cannot be THAT weird".

-- 
John Kennaugh