============== G: Whatever one may say about your doubtful taste of drinks, you are certainly not lazy. The amounts you produced on one-ways and things make me feel like a son of toil buried under ton of soil. Lazy myself, I'll make a short digest, if I dare say. Before commenting it, let me say that I'm sorry to see you falling pray to misleading handbooks and "interpretations". I happen to be one of the last Einstein's collaborators and certainly the last who was particularly dealing with ontological foundations of his Second Scientific Revolution. I just wrote an outline thereof in
http://findgeorges.com/ROOT/WRITINGS/ESSAYS/second_enlightenment_S1_S2.html It's certainly not absolutely right - what is - but it could give a sincere and rigorous view of philosophical implications of the concurrent physics. ================ Neil, quoting Einstein: We have not defined a common "time" for A and B, for the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A. G: Did you ask yourself why Einstein puts "time" in quotes? Answer in my above mentioned essay. We should distinguish two cases: 1.A,B are distinct referentials. Then simultaneity gets relative. For some referential C simultaneous; for D, A precedes B; for E, B precedes A. 2.A,B distant points in a single referential. It's trivial and boils down to the ontological principle of isotropy of cosmos, which underlies whole physic. It's not quite honest of Einstein to present it as his additional axiom. ================ Neil: Nothing like proving a Frenchman wrong! G: Pleasure shared with 1 140 000 google village idiots. Of course Descartes only created modern science and epistemology. And infinite C was the only reasonable assumption in the context of axiomatic absolute time and space. But he was Frenchman, one cannot deny that. ================ Neil: Maybe Socratus' 'hidden ether' can turn us to ideas of whatever spins in dark matter? G: I don't know about Socratus, but why not have a look at http://findgeorges.com/ROOT/SECOND_ENLIGHTENMENT/0h_dark_matter.html ================ Neil: I have not found anyone assuming MM not to be a round trip except you. G: I understood by "round trip" your muddling pointer to silly asses who imagined light traveling round the earth, giving its speed as C+-V. If you understand by this term the "go-and-return" travel of the reflected beam, then of course both beams do merry-go-round. I always heard and used "reflection". ================ Neil: In rebutting the claim that measurement of the ratio of electrostatic units to electromagnetic units suffices to ascertain the one-way speed of light, Adolf Grunbaum exhibits still other ways in which prior synchrony conventions are involved. According to Grunbaum, the proponent of that approach . . . begs the question by his failure to see that the simultaneity criterion based on the choice of e = 1/2 is used in the very definitions of the physical quantities that enter into Maxwell's equations and that these equations would be different for a different choice of C, since then the various physical quantities would, in general, have different relationships to one another. Thus, for example, the first partial derivative of the electric field strength with respect to one of the space coordinates represents a space variation of simultaneous values of the quantity E .... In this way, the simultaneity criterion e = 1/2 is presupposed in the very equations which are used to define the electromagnetic and electrostatic units of charge as well as in the experimental determination of their ratios G: The first Maxwell equation says: div(E) = ro / eps where E - electric field ro - charge density eps - permittivity of free space I don't see any e equal 1/2, or whatever else. And Maxwell made no "choice of C", but deduced C from his equations as function of empiric constants: C = 1/sqrt(mu * eps) where eps - permittivity of free space mu - permeability of free space His three epochal achievements are: 1.Combining electricity and magnetism in a unique construct - the electro-magnetic field capable of propagating by itself, without any support, the electric and magnetic components generating mutually one another. 2.Determining C by deduction from his equations. 3.Postulating light to be EM field, in view of near identity of his deduced C and the speed of light measured empirically. In their light I consider him as one of three greatest physicists, ex equo with Newton and Einstein. ================ Neil, quoting some Vasco de Gumboil: possible non-invariance of the one-way speed of light and compatibility between the Lorentz–Poincaré and Einstein–Minkowski philosophies. G: Nice piece of bullshit to finish. One-, Two-, Thirty five-way speed of light stays invariant as long as you don't falsify the totality of concurrent physics. Einstein–Minkowski SR model and Lorentz–Poincaré Aether model are as compatible as my left foot with the ass of Brigitte Bardot. ================ Have a look at my Second Enlightenment and join me in drinking something drinkable. I drink your health with Islay Single Malt Bowmore. Bob's your uncle Georges. ================ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
