On 28-01-2021 01:03, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 10:44 AM smitra <[email protected]> wrote:
FAPP, therefore not well defined at all. Sticking to FAPP you could
never have discovered Special Relativity, General Relativity, found
the
correct way to resolve Maxwell's Demon paradox, etc. etc.
FAPP is well-defined for all practical purposes. That is all that you
require for special and general relativity, statistical mechanics, and
the rest of physics. You cannot point me to any physical result that
is not FAPP -- we have only limited measurement precision, after all.
And that is good enough for real-world physics.
Lorentz transforms as interpreted by Lorentz himself, i.e. that there is
one good frame defined by the ether that defines "the real time" was
FAPP correct in 1905:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=67&v=Et8-gg6XNDY
You can also replace general relativity by an ugly post-Newtonian
expansion of it and promote that to the FAPP correct theory.
Saibal
Bruce
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLSKqrr0KEg9ZHoOU1z58nsnP%2Bw%3DDFk04apjshzO3Gr7gg%40mail.gmail.com
[1].
Links:
------
[1]
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLSKqrr0KEg9ZHoOU1z58nsnP%2Bw%3DDFk04apjshzO3Gr7gg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e3cb39359d96af1c52e2ec0403ef641d%40zonnet.nl.
