"Peter Kinane" <pkinane@iol.ie> wrote in message
news:d8097fcc.0412131636.13dc7cd0@posting.google.com...

Sorry about threadlet.

"Peter Kinane" <pkinane@iol.ie> wrote in message

news:d8097fcc.0412130716.39924179@posting.google.com...

Google unable to retrieve your message.

"Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
news:s44vd.70410$K7.59168@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

"Peter Kinane" <pkinane@iol.ie> wrote in message
news:d8097fcc.0412121135.4c41999d@posting.google.com...

First of all, thanks to those who attempted to help me in my effort
to conceptualise Special Relativity Physics.



Some comments, although I don't subscribe to models that feature-
-employ various frames of reference:

To say that the speed of light is constant (c) across frames of
reference, but that time (and matter) ( - time through which, in
part, c arises - ) changes, is a hazy way of saying that c changes
across frames of reference

[ -across conditions.]

So it is hazy for a thery to be in accord with experiment?

I already told you what I think of your "accord with experiment".
(Theory: If the Earth is flat the Sun should rise and set. Expt.: It
does).

Emphasising: In perceiving- -inferring that time- -matter contracts
or expresses different electromagnetic force- -form in perceived-
-inferred different conditions, and that consequently transformations
of time- -matter data across conditions is necessary, it would seem
that thereby c is not constant but in effect varies, and necessarily
is in effect being transformed in accordance with such inference.

Rather than vague semantics do you actually have any suggested
experiments that can separate your views from SR?

It is more a case of clearing the haze from SR, thereby to show more
coherent connotations to the featuring concepts - and so to make the
science and philosophy of cosmological navigation more intuitive, to
some of the people in this group. Some others will still simply recite
the math.

This would seem to make Einstein's postulate (apparently informed-
-burdened by the philosophy that value is relative) look very clumsy:
"The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are
not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or
the other of two systems of co-ordinates in uniform translatory motion".

This is known as the POR - it is true, and a founding postulate of modern
treatments of, classical mechanics as well. Do you wish to doubt

that also?

Re "also": What are you implying that I "also doubt", or is this just
a particular personality trait breaking through?

Re "doubt":
If you take another look at what I wrote perhaps you will understand
that I said that describing the speed of light as contractory or
changeable over conditions rather than constant "make[s] Einstein's
postulate [] look very clumsy [or hazy]".

It would also seem clearer, more coherent and intuitive to talk of
extrapolation of data across conditions, employing the concepts of
standard event speed (SES) and of matter contraction rather than of
transformations of data across different frames of reference,
employing c and space-time.

It would seem clearer, more coherent, and intuitive to talk about specifics
that have experimental consequences than vague musings with no content.

No, I would regard that as robotic recitation with no coherent,
intuitive philosophical understanding. I believe there is an interest
in the group in smartening-up the philosophy and in clearing the haze.

Coherence, coherence coherence ...

Bill

See Teccs, as the basic concept for same:

If one projects- -extends the frame of reference outwards or
extrapolates, to co-ordinates, to, for example, an inertial rocket
travelling at a different speed then the measuring process there
(aboard same) will be different (co-ordinates and gamma factors) and
the data will have to be transformed when transferred back to the
immediate FoR. Also, the duration of the transference process should
also be computed.

Let me get this straight. We have an inertial frame which usually are
considered global ie they are conceptually extended to infinity. Are you
saying they can somehow be extended further so they become part of another
inertial frame traveling a a velocity v wrt to the first frame? If you do
then I would like to know the stuff you are taking - sounds far out man -
real far out.

Thereby, the concept of multiple observers is dispensed with, as is
the concept "space-time", constant (c), and "time". Necessarily too,
the concept of "relativity" - all the better to clear the way for
"relational value" and "Effectuationism"; [effectuation of Eden :)].

As I said man - far out real far out.

To Bill, Your reply to the post above essentially just substitutes the
assertion "irrelevant semantics" for argumentation, so I'll make just
this point: C is essentially the principles "conservation of momentum"

The conservation of momentum is a consequence of Noethers theorem, the
sentries on an inertial frame, and the PLA - nothing to do with the speed

and "physical laws are the same for all observers", and this: in so
far - which, I believe, is not far - as "classical mechanics"
expresses the philosophy of the relativity of value it is hazy.

The relativity of value????????. I think you have miscalculated the value
of the stuff you are taking. It is one thing to imagine extending inertial
frames causing them to somehow transmute - it is another to equate laws of
physics with value.