Paul Stowe, the wannabe,

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 06:45:04 GMT,

Paul Stowe, the idiot with nothing to say:

And with you're demonstrably poor reasoning skills you should have
quit years ago. However, you're still here, spewing forth your Bilge.

My reasoning skills have resulted in articles published in real
physics journals.

Really? Only ones I've seen had five or more author names on
them.

(1) I'm an experimentalist,

(2) You can't count,

(3) How many publications do you have in peer reviewed journals?

(4) What's your point?

What'd you do, beg or pay them to let you tag your name
along? What have you published all by you lonesome?

Envy will get you nowhere.

Nothing I'd guess...

Your misguided opinion is irrelevant.

Then why bother? Actions speak louder than words...

Bilge wrote:

Tom Roberts:

Paul Stowe wrote:

Speed is not a simple single dimension (a length). It is a ratio
of two distinctly different dimensions, length & time.

Over the past decade or so of your participation in this newsgroup you
have willfully chosen to remain ignorant of SR and modern physics, and
everything you write displays your ignorance.

I suppose that if Euclidean geometry were the only type of geometry
possible, then one could imagine your statement being correct (time
being divorced from geometry, as in Newtonian mechanics). But the rest
of us know about Minkowski geometry. In Minkowski geometry relative
velocity is a ROTATION (the rotation can be measured via your ratio,
just as in Euclidean geometry rotations can be measured via slopes of
lines -- this is known as trigonometry).

Time is not divorced from the geometry in newtonian mechanics.
Galilean boosts are translations along the velocity. Galilean
spacetime is a spacetime. The metric is degenerate, but that
doesn't preclude the definition of lightlike vectors and affine
functions of the time which preserve the degenerate metric.

could you explain it using some pictures

or alt least a numerical implementation in any code
or programming language of your choice

Paul Stowe:

On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 17:13:53 GMT, Tom Roberts <tjroberts@lucent.com> wrote:

I suppose that if Euclidean geometry were the only type of geometry
possible, then one could imagine your statement being correct (time
being divorced from geometry, as in Newtonian mechanics). But the rest
of us know about Minkowski geometry. In Minkowski geometry relative
velocity is a ROTATION...

A mental masterbation! Thus my argument that something physical
substantive must alway underlie so-called geometery, even when
Euclidean is utilized.

Well, the question you haven't answered is precisely that one.
How does your ether ``cause'' euclidean geometry? In particular,
what mechanism ``causes'' the transformations:

x_1' = x_1 cos(A) - x_2 sin(A)
x_2' = x_2 cos(A) + x_1 sin(A)

You keep harping on relativity for attributing the these
transforms to geometry,

x_0' = x_0 cosh(A) - x_1 sinh(A)
x_1' = x_1 cosh(A) - x_0 sinh(A),

but you conveniently taken the first set of transformations for granted
(since I know _you_ can't derive them from scratch, much less using some
imaginary ether you can't quantitfy). Before you say anything regarding
four-dimensional spacetime being unphysical, let's see you start with your
ether and then (1) derive euclidean space, (2) derive time, (3) derive the
symplectic structure of mechanics (since without showing that you get the
right syplectic structure, you can't reproduce even basic mechanics,
classical or otherwise). When you do all of this, get back to us.

The only difference between your reliance on geometry and the reliance
of physicists on geometry, is that physcists know what their assumptions
are and they require the physics to follow from the assumptions. You
make the same assumptions, only you don't realize it and then you handwave
your philosophy into it without being able to derive anything at all.

Paul Stowe:

On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 17:13:53 GMT, Tom Roberts <tjroberts@lucent.com> wrote:

[... more attempts to display his ignorance...]

Ironic really, I at least post technical content which can

You have never posted anything that remotely resembles technical
content. In fact, you object to technical content based on your
inability to understand the math required to discuss anything
beyond an analogy to something technical.

be addressed. You have not. The fact is, I do not think
you can dispute what I posted, so you snip & attempt a slur
fot distraction. Perhaps you can answer a few 'direct'
questions then:

1. Why not any arbitrary geometry?
(I claim it's because your so-called geometry is the tail
wagged by the the dog of underlying physical processes.)

2. Does descibing the path(s) (geometry) that objects will
take explain the reason & cause for those paths? In GR
is that not the job of the right side of the equation?

3. Isn't geometry used as a means of mapping the motion and/or
shape of physical objects? Also used as coordinate systems.

4. Do you agree or disagree that a pressure gradieent in a gas
will result in movments of freely moving bodies in the
region that are not linear? Will that behavior in a fashion
consistent with, and mathematically descibed by, its
energy/momentum tensor?

Sad really, that one has to treat you as (in legal terminology)
'a hostile witness'. One would have expected you to stick to,
& address, the technical context. Ya'know deal with the the
physics of & in the post.

I point this out for the others (since, like me, you've been
around here for many years, and you ain't gonna' change your
ways). I want others to see your overt avoidance of specific
technical elements that do not lead to conclusions you like.

Paul Stowe

Paul Stowe

Paul Stowe wrote:

1. Why not any arbitrary geometry?

Nature seems to have selected Minkowski geometry for the local
structure of the world we inhabit. This is of course not guaranteed,
but that is the simplest hypothesis consistent with all observations.
We physicists, of course, must follow Nature's lead....

(I claim it's because your so-called geometry is the tail
wagged by the the dog of underlying physical processes.)

Hmmm. That does not affect its explanatory power one whit.

Physical theories naturally take the mathematical route from
hypotheses to theory, and we then compare predictions of the
theory to experiments. The hypothesis of locally-Minkowski
spacetime has proven to be one of the most fruitful hypotheses
ever made in physics.

2. Does descibing the path(s) (geometry) that objects will
take explain the reason & cause for those paths? In GR
is that not the job of the right side of the equation?

Not alone. It is the "job" of the entire field equation to
determine both the paths of objects AND the underlying geometry
of the manifold in which those paths occur.

Paths are not by themselves geometry....

3. Isn't geometry used as a means of mapping the motion and/or
shape of physical objects? Also used as coordinate systems.

Sure. _ALL_ of physics is a model of the world. <shrug>

4. Do you agree or disagree that a pressure gradient in a gas
will result in movments of freely moving bodies in the
region that are not linear?

It depends on the details of the circumstances. On a windless day
there is such a vertical gradient in the atmosphere, but we don't
notice its effects as you suggest (I suppose there could be effects
too small for casual notice). And muons and neutrinos can certainly
move through such a pressure gradient unaffected by it.

Will that behavior in a fashion consistent with, and mathematically
descibed by, its energy/momentum tensor?

As long as one use the proper equations of motion, I have no reason
to doubt this. But for a gas they are intractible....

But I remark that a "gasseous aether" need not behave like the
ordinary gasses we understand. Perhaps they can serve as a model
for such an aether, but it seems unlikely that the analogy will
withstand scrutiny: electromagnetic forces are ENORMOUSLY stronger
than the inter-molecular forces in ordinary gasses.

I also remark that merely reproducing the observed constancy of
the speed of light in an aether theory is quite necessary but
woefully inadequate -- you really need to reproduce the basic
results of QED. Quantum phenomena in general, and things like
the Lamb shift...

... and the Thomas precession will probably be incredibly difficult
in such a model,

not to mentions e+e- pair production....

Aether theory has not made much progress in the last century,

while standard physics has clearly progressed enormously. I
wonder why that is? Perhaps its because intelligent people who
actually STUDY physics can easily see the limitations of aether
theories, especially compared to the standard theories of physics....
If you would actually STUDY physics you might, too.