On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 9:50:36 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 4/19/22 8:00 PM, Ricardo Jimenez wrote:
> > On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 12:11:35 -0500, Tom Roberts
> > <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> >>>> This is not an additional "assumption", it is a direct
> >>>> consequence of Einstein's first postulate that a) a clock's
> >>>> proper tick rate is independent of its rest frame, and b) a
> >>>> ruler's proper length is also independent of its rest frame.
> >>>> That is, the (local) laws of physics that determine such things
> >>>> are the same when referenced to any inertial frame.
> >
> > My guess is that what you are saying is that the first Einstein
> > postulate says that if two inertial observers send a light pulse to
> > each other at each tick of their respective rest clocks, the
> > multiplicative Doppler factor determined by both will be the same.
> > To make that true, I think you have to add that each rest clock is
> > set to tick at at a rate equal to the same number of vibrations of
> > Cesium atoms.
> [Hmmm. Your last sentence is unneeded, because the second
> is defined in terms of Cs-133 oscillations, and clock ticks
> are denoted in seconds.]
>
> You should READ what I wrote, and ask about parts you don't understand,
> rather than trying to guess. For instance, I said nothing at all about
> Doppler for light pulses sent between frames -- I have no idea where you
> got that or why you think it is relevant.
>
> What I said (with context):
> a) the first postulate of SR says that the laws of physics are
> the same when referenced to any inertial frame
Tom Roberts, this is contention of yours and Einstein's about the first postulate is clearly false when one considers Kepler's third law of planetary motion from the rest frame of the solar system vs. any other inertial frame.
> b) so in SR, all units defined in terms of physical constants
> or processes are the same when referenced to any inertial
> frame, because the physical laws that determine them are the
> same
> c) I gave examples of (b) for time and length, but (b) actually
> applies to all units that we use
>
> Tom Roberts

On Wednesday, 20 April 2022 at 06:50:36 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:

> [Hmmm. Your last sentence is unneeded, because the second
> is defined in terms of Cs-133 oscillations, and clock ticks
> are denoted in seconds.]

And communism was defined as the best political system in the
world; but this definition didn't save it in the long run. So things
with your Shit are.

patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 9:50:36 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
>> On 4/19/22 8:00 PM, Ricardo Jimenez wrote:
>>> On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 12:11:35 -0500, Tom Roberts
>>> <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> This is not an additional "assumption", it is a direct
>>>>>> consequence of Einstein's first postulate that a) a clock's
>>>>>> proper tick rate is independent of its rest frame, and b) a
>>>>>> ruler's proper length is also independent of its rest frame.
>>>>>> That is, the (local) laws of physics that determine such things
>>>>>> are the same when referenced to any inertial frame.
>>>
>>> My guess is that what you are saying is that the first Einstein
>>> postulate says that if two inertial observers send a light pulse to
>>> each other at each tick of their respective rest clocks, the
>>> multiplicative Doppler factor determined by both will be the same.
>>> To make that true, I think you have to add that each rest clock is
>>> set to tick at at a rate equal to the same number of vibrations of
>>> Cesium atoms.
>> [Hmmm. Your last sentence is unneeded, because the second
>> is defined in terms of Cs-133 oscillations, and clock ticks
>> are denoted in seconds.]
>>
>> You should READ what I wrote, and ask about parts you don't understand,
>> rather than trying to guess. For instance, I said nothing at all about
>> Doppler for light pulses sent between frames -- I have no idea where you
>> got that or why you think it is relevant.
>>
>> What I said (with context):
>> a) the first postulate of SR says that the laws of physics are
>> the same when referenced to any inertial frame
> Tom Roberts, this is contention of yours and Einstein's about the first
> postulate is clearly false when one considers Kepler's third law of
> planetary motion from the rest frame of the solar system vs. any other inertial frame.

For the dozenth time, Kepler’s third law is an approximation. It is not a
physical law of the sort described by the first postulate. Neither is
Newton’s law of gravity. How many times do you want to trot out this wee
idiocy?

>> b) so in SR, all units defined in terms of physical constants
>> or processes are the same when referenced to any inertial
>> frame, because the physical laws that determine them are the
>> same
>> c) I gave examples of (b) for time and length, but (b) actually
>> applies to all units that we use
>>
>> Tom Roberts
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On 4/20/22 12:20 AM, patdolan wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 9:50:36 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
>> a) the first postulate of SR says that the laws of physics are the
>> same when referenced to any inertial frame
> Tom Roberts, this is contention of yours and Einstein's about the
> first postulate is clearly false when one considers Kepler's third
> law of planetary motion from the rest frame of the solar system vs.
> any other inertial frame.

Despite its name, Kepler's third law is not a law of physics in the
sense that Einstein used the phrase.

Today we have two laws of physics: the standard model (of particle
physics), and General Relativity. Despite major efforts to combine them,
they remain separate; fortunately they are valid in disjoint domains, so
in practice their incompatibility is not a problem. Yet.

There are a bunch of other theories that are various approximations to
these, such as: Newton's laws of motion, fluid dynamics, thermodynamics
and statistical mechanics, the ΛCDM model of cosmology, ....

Tom Roberts

On Thursday, 21 April 2022 at 00:24:05 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 4/20/22 12:20 AM, patdolan wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 9:50:36 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> >> a) the first postulate of SR says that the laws of physics are the
> >> same when referenced to any inertial frame
> > Tom Roberts, this is contention of yours and Einstein's about the
> > first postulate is clearly false when one considers Kepler's third
> > law of planetary motion from the rest frame of the solar system vs.
> > any other inertial frame.
> Despite its name, Kepler's third law is not a law of physics in the
> sense that Einstein used the phrase.
>
> Today we have two laws of physics: the standard model (of particle
> physics), and General Relativity. Despite major efforts to combine them,
> they remain separate; fortunately they are valid in disjoint domains, so
> in practice their incompatibility is not a problem. Yet.
>
> There are a bunch of other theories that are various approximations to
> these, such as: Newton's laws of motion, fluid dynamics, thermodynamics
> and statistical mechanics, the ΛCDM model of cosmology, ....

And in the meantime in the real world, forbidden by your
idiotic religion TAI keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious
clocks always did.

Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> On 4/20/22 12:20 AM, patdolan wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 9:50:36 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> >> a) the first postulate of SR says that the laws of physics are the
> >> same when referenced to any inertial frame
> > Tom Roberts, this is contention of yours and Einstein's about the
> > first postulate is clearly false when one considers Kepler's third
> > law of planetary motion from the rest frame of the solar system vs.
> > any other inertial frame.
>
> Despite its name, Kepler's third law is not a law of physics in the
> sense that Einstein used the phrase.

'Law of physics' without context is meaningless.
It can be anything from an empirical fit to data
to a fundamental principle.

> Today we have two laws of physics: the standard model (of particle
> physics), and General Relativity. Despite major efforts to combine them,
> they remain separate; fortunately they are valid in disjoint domains, so
> in practice their incompatibility is not a problem. Yet.

It is getting close. Gravitational time dilatation
(recent record demonstration down to about 0.1 mm)
is approaching the size of quantum mechanical wave functions
in macroscopic quantum states. More fun to be had.

> There are a bunch of other theories that are various approximations to
> these, such as: Newton's laws of motion, fluid dynamics, thermodynamics
> and statistical mechanics, the ?CDM model of cosmology, ....

Some care is needed here.
You cannot derive some of those theories from more fundamental physics
without making fundamental extra assumptions,

Jan

On Thursday, 21 April 2022 at 13:24:29 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > On 4/20/22 12:20 AM, patdolan wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 9:50:36 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote:
> > >> a) the first postulate of SR says that the laws of physics are the
> > >> same when referenced to any inertial frame
> > > Tom Roberts, this is contention of yours and Einstein's about the
> > > first postulate is clearly false when one considers Kepler's third
> > > law of planetary motion from the rest frame of the solar system vs.
> > > any other inertial frame.
> >
> > Despite its name, Kepler's third law is not a law of physics in the
> > sense that Einstein used the phrase.
> 'Law of physics' without context is meaningless.
> It can be anything from an empirical fit to data
> to a fundamental principle.
> > Today we have two laws of physics: the standard model (of particle
> > physics), and General Relativity. Despite major efforts to combine them,
> > they remain separate; fortunately they are valid in disjoint domains, so
> > in practice their incompatibility is not a problem. Yet.
> It is getting close. Gravitational time dilatation

There is no. Anyone can check GPS, real time (as
defined by your idiot guru himself, "what clocks
indicate") is galilean, like it always was.

J. J. Lodder wrote:

> 'Law of physics' without context is meaningless.
> It can be anything from an empirical fit to data to a fundamental
> principle.

that's meaning enough to everybody.

Tom Roberts wrote:

> Today we have two laws of physics: the standard model (of particle
> physics), and General Relativity.

That’s nonsense. Those are (sets of) theories, not laws of physics.

See also <https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/messenger.html>
for what a “law of physics” or “physical law” actually is.

PointedEars
--
Q: Who's on the case when the electricity goes out?
A: Sherlock Ohms.

(from: WolframAlpha)

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> Tom Roberts wrote:
>> Today we have two laws of physics: the standard model (of particle
>> physics), and General Relativity.
>
> That’s nonsense. Those are (sets of) theories, not laws of physics.
>
> See also <https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/messenger.html>
> for what a “law of physics” or “physical law” actually is.

Another example that shows that you are wrong, or, to put it mildly, that
your interpretation does not represent the most common interpretation in
the scientific community:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law#Laws_of_physics>

(The editors of that article include physicists.)

PointedEars
--
A neutron walks into a bar and inquires how much a drink costs.
The bartender replies, "For you? No charge."

(from: WolframAlpha)

On Tuesday, 26 April 2022 at 08:42:37 UTC+2, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>
> > Tom Roberts wrote:
> >> Today we have two laws of physics: the standard model (of particle
> >> physics), and General Relativity.
> >
> > That’s nonsense. Those are (sets of) theories, not laws of physics.
> >
> > See also <https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/messenger.html>
> > for what a “law of physics” or “physical law” actually is.
> Another example that shows that you are wrong, or, to put it mildly, that
> your interpretation does not represent the most common interpretation in
> the scientific community:

You can't expect a bunch of fanatic idiots to have one common
interpretation of their religion.

On 4/26/22 1:42 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Tom Roberts wrote:
>>> Today we have two laws of physics: the standard model (of
>>> particle physics), and General Relativity.
>>
>> That’s nonsense. Those are (sets of) theories, not laws of
>> physics.
> Another example that shows that you are wrong, or, to put it mildly,
> that your interpretation does not represent the most common
> interpretation in the scientific community:
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law#Laws_of_physics> (The
> editors of that article include physicists.)

The basic problem is that attempting to distinguish "theory" from "law"
is trying to establish a distinction without a difference -- it is
PURELY LINGUISTIC. And claiming that Wikipedia represents "the
scientific community" is outrageously wrong.

That Wikipedia article begins:
"Scientific laws or laws of science are statements, based on
repeated experiments or observations, that describe or
predict a range of natural phenomena."

That CERTAINLY applies to both the standard model and General
Relativity. (They would not be accepted if that were not true.)

The Venn diagram just to the right of that statement attempts to
distinguish "Scientific Theory" from "Scientific Law" with criteria
1) Explains why phenomena occur ("Scientific Theory" only)
2) Repeated successful predictions (both)
3) Describes what phenomena happen ("Scientific Law" only)
But it is QUITE CLEAR that both the standard model and General
Relativity do all three of those [@] -- so are they "Scientific
theories" or "Scientific Laws"?? -- I think virtually all physicists
SIMPLY DO NOT CARE, because this is a PURELY LINGUISTIC distinction that
does not affect anything of substance (only discussions among
NON-physicists who mistakenly think it matters).

[@] Explanations, of course, are just one level deep. No
aspect of science can "explain" why the world is as it is.

In the section "Laws of Physics" of that Wikipedia article you
reference, "laws" of classical physics are intermixed willy-nilly with
"laws" of modern physics -- the former, of course, are merely
APPROXIMATIONS. Worse, the first "law" listed is Noether's theorem,
which is not physics at all, it is pure mathematics (it has application
in physics, as do myriad other mathematical theorems).

This illustrates a major misinformation problem with Wikipedia, Google,
and the Internet in general. For technical subjects, non-experts usually
greatly outnumber the experts involved, leading to misleading or
downright incorrect web pages [#]. I'm quite sure that NONE of the many
physicists I have worked with would bother with a discussion attempting
to distinguish "Scientific Laws" from "Scientific Theories" -- certainly
I won't (though I have a policy of replying once to posts replying to a
post of mine).

[#] Another recent example is Ed Lake's insistence that
photons are little packets of E and B fields, because
Google found that in several places on the Internet. Any
textbook on QED shows how wrong-headed this is. Not to
mention all the false claims that "moving clocks run slow".

I close with the observation that among physicists today, the word "law"
has pretty much fallen out of use. Also, "theory" and "model" are now
used interchangeably (because physical theories are models of the world,
and the word "model" more accurately implies limitation to a specified
domain of applicability).

Tom Roberts

On April 25, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> Today we have two laws of physics: the standard model (of particle
>>> physics), and General Relativity.
>
>> That’s nonsense. Those are (sets of) theories, not laws of physics.
>> See also <https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/messenger.html>
>> for what a “law of physics” or “physical law” actually is.
> Another example that shows that you are wrong, or, to put it mildly, that
> your interpretation does not represent the most common interpretation in
> the scientific community:
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law#Laws_of_physics>

That's just semantics, devoid of substance.

More fundamentally, what science does, is data reduction
(compression). All theories/models/explanations are merely
data reduction. I refer you to Kolmogorov information theory.

Not just science, but one of the fundamental properties of
the human brain, when it isn't regulating pulse rate, or running
from lions. We recognize patterns and structure, which is
data compression. Generalization is another form.

Isaac Newton, with his two laws + definition, was the greatest
data compressor of history.

Recent advances in artificial neural networks also provide insight.
The nets filter very large data sets, seeking structures beyond
the capability of human neural nets. The models they construct
is an act of data reduction.

--
Rich

Tom Roberts wrote:

> On 4/26/22 1:42 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> Tom Roberts wrote:
>>>> Today we have two laws of physics: the standard model (of
>>>> particle physics), and General Relativity.
>>>
>>> That’s nonsense. Those are (sets of) theories, not laws of
>>> physics.
>> Another example that shows that you are wrong, or, to put it mildly,
>> that your interpretation does not represent the most common
>> interpretation in the scientific community:
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law#Laws_of_physics> (The
>> editors of that article include physicists.)
>
> The basic problem is that attempting to distinguish "theory" from "law"
> is trying to establish a distinction without a difference -- it is
> PURELY LINGUISTIC. And claiming that Wikipedia represents "the
> scientific community" is outrageously wrong.

Straw man.

PointedEars
--
“Nature uses only the longest threads to weave her patterns
so that each small piece of her fabric reveals the organization
of the entire tapestry.”
—Richard Feynman, theoretical physicist, “Messenger Lecture” 1 (1964)

Tom Roberts wrote:

> On 4/26/22 1:42 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> Tom Roberts wrote:
>>>> Today we have two laws of physics: the standard model (of
>>>> particle physics), and General Relativity.
>>>
>>> That’s nonsense. Those are (sets of) theories, not laws of
>>> physics.
>> Another example that shows that you are wrong, or, to put it mildly,
>> that your interpretation does not represent the most common
>> interpretation in the scientific community:
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law#Laws_of_physics> (The
>> editors of that article include physicists.)
>
> The basic problem is that attempting to distinguish "theory" from "law"
> is trying to establish a distinction without a difference -- it is
> PURELY LINGUISTIC.

No, it is not. It is *conceptual*, and it is a fallacy to reduce that
conceptual difference to semantics. This is easy to see:

A theory/model is already a theory/model *without* confirmation (textbook
example [AFAIK]: string theory). (The only requirement to a theory is that
it is falsifi*able* [string theory might not satisfy that requirement – you
tell me –, and so it might fail on *that* account to be a theory.]. One
might argue that it is not a theory anymore once it has been *falsified*.
However, a) that is a different situation, and b) even the falsification can
turn out to be wrong.

Whereas a physical law is a regularity that has been observed in Nature, a
“pattern” as Feynman put it in his first Messenger Lecture; it is thus a
theory/model that has been *confirmed*, usually many times, independently,
and over an extended period of time (say, 100 years), by observations that
are potentially even based on different methods.

PointedEars
--
Q: What did the nuclear physicist post on the laboratory door
when he went camping?
A: 'Gone fission'.
(from: WolframAlpha)