🚀 go-pugleaf

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 to 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