Path: ...!local-1.nntp.ord.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-3.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2024 17:48:34 +0000
Subject: Re: General Relativity Does Not Rescue Special Relativity.
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
References: <aecb6e4bd2b86ebc457767da8cc40c02@www.novabbs.com>
 <gpSdnQefTM3Ae7b6nZ2dnZfqnPGdnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <72d192a997a3642121277b6802c6a4c5@www.novabbs.com>
 <73b7ab955759015e7aaf919d11b20a5c@www.novabbs.com>
From: Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2024 09:48:35 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <73b7ab955759015e7aaf919d11b20a5c@www.novabbs.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <YoadnaMZC7hvCa76nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 64
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-KXp3LKL93Qs1FE8P5SPbaF1SND7fFQwfD74SZAG/dSeRHp6nQzyVkAHX5xaaUWe0ewI63KEQF9juGCT!yuZB2uqfQjQvZG9XSY1kVk/PRpLbOq8/mg7t8nhUlhJ5DOWxIPfiTUjf/8xcmyMuAgVHC4hR5kBq
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
Bytes: 4216

On 11/12/2024 05:02 AM, JanPB 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.
>
> 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).
>
> So this is a normal (although a bit temporarily uncomfortable)
> position for a physics theory to be in, it's nothing new. 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.
>
> --
> Jan

This is perceived a remarkable recent timidity, from what
was earlier your expressed "very SR-ian" opinion.

Reflecting "chaleur and the caloric" with "a-diabatic and
non-a-diabatic", has that Fourier is surely great and all
of analysis sits on its examples, while as well any sort
of difference from the "one-way" model, or for example
any sort difference in the formalism the interpretation
of uniqueness of the Fourier series, does reflect on
that the Laplacian is _partials_ (incomplete).

The "photon" its definition has been so diluted and overloaded
that its relevance to measuring and defining velocity,
has broken the metrics and norms in most all extensions.

Then, it's perceived your more sober assessment is improved,
than before your so-correspondent estimation of "truth",
regards these matters.

The physics and philosophy with regards to theory and metaphysics,
are a combined notion, for a "the theory of truth" and for
as d'Espagnat puts it a very "realist" theory, of a "the physics".

Classical motion itself is under-defined. This "unstated assumptions"
or "hidden implicits" or what make "supplemental variables" when
"hidden variables" were put down as negligeable, these
"zero-eth laws" help show that physics is more than absent philosophy.