On Jul 12, 10:36 am, stevendaryl3...@yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: > harald says... > > >Why is correct information relevant? Why are you trying to explain to > >Colp the correct postulates of SRT, if such things are completely > >irrelevant? Why not just dish up stories that you like, as others have > >done to you? > > I think that the phrase "correct information" means something different > to you than it does to me. The theories of classical mechanics, > elecromagnetism, and relativity have developed since the times of > Newton, Maxwell and Einstein. I believe that those subjects are better > understood by physicists today than they were by the people that created > the subjects. You might think that by definition that's impossible; > if people understand something different than Newton did, then what > they are doing is not Newtonian mechanics, it's something different. > Fine. It's something different, that's *derived* from Newton's physics, > and is still generally called "Newtonian physics" in his honor.
It doesn't honor someone to apply his name to a theory that he never believed in.
> > In my view, an argument made by Newton in the 1600s may or may not > be relevant today. Physicists are not prophets, their words are not > holy scripture. We don't need to believe something because Newton > or Einstein believed it. > > It's funny, the various anti-relativity "dissidents" have exactly > the wrong impression. They think that physicists today believe > relativity out of some kind of Einstein worship.
Speaking only for myself, it's not all physicists, and it is the philosophical idea of relativism rather than Einstein & his work.
> Nothing could > be farther from the truth. People believe relativity today because > they've been studying it (and refining our understanding of it) for > 100 years.
Historically that hasn't been the case. Relativity was adopted because it filled a philosophical niche, not because of it's value as a predictive tool.
> Newton's physics has been studied for much longer. We > understand these theories pretty well today, and we understand their > power for describing the universe. > > If there were other beliefs or writings of Newton or Einstein that > get much less attention today, then the chances are great that it's > because they aren't that important, or they are wrong, or they've > been replaced by clearer foundations.
As if attention was solely a function of the scientific merit of a theory. The politicization of science should be manifestly evident in the AGW/ACC debate and the related funding of science by governmental agencies.
> > What I've tried to explain to Colp is the mathematical structure of > Special Relativity as it is understood today. Not necessarily as > it was understood by Einstein. The latter is not particularly interesting > to me. Whether Newton believed in an absolute standard for rest is > not particularly interesting to me. I'm interested in any arguments > by people who *still* believe that there is evidence for the existence > of an absolute standard for rest.
Well, there is the Hafele-Keating experiment, for a start. The HK experiment only validates relativity from a single frame of reference, and thus is better undedtood as confirmation of the preferred frame theory.