Mark Martin wrote:
"Mike Helland" <mhelland@techmocracy.net> wrote in message
news:<cg3t8h$405@odak26.prod.google.com>...
I'll explain. If nature is four sets of phenomena, and one of those
sets of phenomena involves the photon, then the behavior of the
photon
defines that set. Because the photon is what mediates the phenomena
of
electromagnetism, the speed of the photon is the speed limit of the
set
of eletromagnetic phenomena.
Now let's think about my defintion.
Nature is defined by four different sets of phenomena with their
own
different defintions.
If there exists a speed limit in the set of electromagnetic
phenomena,
our defintion of nature begs us to ask, does this necessarily imply
that the speed limit is for all of nature?
I don't see any reason why there should be when the sets are
defined
differently and without the photon and its specific
characteristics. Do
you? So the correction interpretation of special relativity should
be
that nothing in the set of electromagnetic phenomena travels faster
than light, instead of asserting that nothing in nature travels
faster
than light.
Unless you can think of an objection or criticism of my suggestion,
which is all I asked for, this refinement of knowledge advances
physics.
SR makes a blanket assertion as to ALL things within pairs of
reference frames.
Pairs connected by signals of light, correct?
And 'nature' isn't known to be broken up into four sets of rules.
You seem to be painting a picture in which nature is a house, split
by
walls into four rooms, with no doors between them. This is a fairly
backwards way of seeing what physics says about the world nowadays.
Actually, in modern theories there indeed 'probably' aren't any
doors,
but only because there probably aren't even any walls-
I like your visual, but I would disagree.
I am painting four different pictures, one with each limb. Each hand is
painting two pictures, and each foot is painting one.
The pictures are all independent of each other, they exist in different
frames, they were created with different limbs, but at the same time,
they all stem from the same place: my imagination.
They are connected in how they were created (the laws of physics in
this case) but they are seperated in how they exist.
You are correct that "nature isn't known to be broken up into four sets
of rules." The purpose of my conjecture is to make it known.
.
