Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!proxad.net!feeder1-1.proxad.net!cleanfeed2-b.proxad.net!nnrp2-1.free.fr!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: General Relativity Does Not Rescue Special Relativity.
From: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder)
Reply-To: jjlxa31@xs4all.nl (J. J. Lodder)
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2024 17:59:31 +0100
References: <aecb6e4bd2b86ebc457767da8cc40c02@www.novabbs.com> <gpSdnQefTM3Ae7b6nZ2dnZfqnPGdnZ2d@giganews.com> <72d192a997a3642121277b6802c6a4c5@www.novabbs.com> <73b7ab955759015e7aaf919d11b20a5c@www.novabbs.com>
Organization: De Ster
Mail-Copies-To: nobody
User-Agent: MacSOUP/2.8.5 (ea919cf118) (Mac OS 10.12.6)
Lines: 52
Message-ID: <6734daf3$0$11456$426a74cc@news.free.fr>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 13 Nov 2024 17:59:31 CET
NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.10.137.58
X-Trace: 1731517171 news-3.free.fr 11456 213.10.137.58:62282
X-Complaints-To: abuse@proxad.net
Bytes: 3073

JanPB <film.art@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 6 Nov 2024 22:39:18 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
> 
> > Reasonable defense by a relativist: Dingle refuted the alleged cause of
> > relative motion for time dilation of special relativity. Time dilation
> > is a part of GR, not SR.
> 
> Dingle's mistake was assuming a direct cause. But it may be that
> the two are merely *correlated* by a *common indirect cause*.
> 
> In physics situations like this arose many times. For example,
> Maxwell's theory required equipping EM fields with their own
> momentum and angular momentum (otherwise the conservation laws
> would fail). Nobody knew what the seat of that momentum was.
> This was only modelled much later in quantum electrodynamics.
> 
> It's very likely that time dilation, etc., are similarly conditioned
> phenomena. We still don't have the right model for the underlying
> causes.

This is highly unlikely.
Time dilation seems to be an inherent property
of the space-time we find ourselves in.
It has nothing to do with any kind of physics.
(let alone models of something)
Au contraire,
physical theories must be Lorentz invariant by construction,
to have any chance at all of being viable.

> Same thing happened with thermodynamics when people started to
> (correctly) quantify the amount of heat despite not knowing what
> heat was, or even at one point while having the wrong model of
> heat (the "caloric" or "phlogiston" model).

Likewise. The notions of entropy and absolute temperature
have nothing to do with any physical system in particular.
That's why thermodynamics can be axiomatised.

> So this is a normal (although a bit temporarily uncomfortable)
> position for a physics theory to be in, it's nothing new.

Nothing uncomfortable about it.

> It only seems such a tragedy to amateurs who ONLY know relativity but do
> not actually understand PHYSICS and how science works in particular. One
> standard amateur mistake here is the constant confusion of physics with
> philosophy.

Unfortunately not just amateurs....

Jan