I disagree w/need for relativity

[Batman3]

In electromagnetism light is described by an eq'n:
(1) DEL^2(E)=-1/c^2 (d/dt)^2(E)
That c is therefore a constant in all reference frames and that physics laws do not change between the two moving reference frames immediately supplies all of special relativity.
c need not be a constant but may be replaced by c+v where v is the speed of the light emitter in the direction of light motion. Thus:
(2) DEL^2(E)=-1/(c+v)^2 (d/dt)^2(E)
Since V and C are vectors this new theory is still incomplete and may require that the electric and magnetic "fields" in Maxwell's equations include a dyadic term describing the spacial motion of the fields themselves as well as their typical vector fields.
The linear solutions of (1) are
_______ E=E0______*+cos(wt-lx)____:E=E
(d/dt)___E=E0_w___*-sin(wt-lx)______:(d/dx)E=E0_l__sin(wt-lx)
(d/dt)^2_E=E0_w^2_*-cos(wt-lx)_____:(")^2 E=E0_-l^2*cos(wt-lx)

(3) Thus 1/c^2 * w^2 = l^2 or (w/l)^2=c^2
For my theory, the solutions give
(4) (w/l)^2=(c+v)^2
This distinction is not observable for electromagnets or Michelson-Morley experiments or the maximum speeds observed in particle accelerators, for in all 3 cases, v=0. The Michelson-Morley experiment is just that on which relativity was based.
Wild theories should not be preferred to plain theories until there is evidence to the contrary.

[jinydu]

If by "wild" you mean implausible, I would hardly call Special Relativity. It is backed up by a very large body of experimental evidence; quantum electrodynamics depends on it.

I don't know why you say that v = 0 in particle accelerators. This is clearly not the case; (relative to the experimenters) particles in particle accelerators move at large fractions of the speed of light. Today's particle accelerators rely on Special Relativity on an everyday basis.

Even if you think these experiments are flawed, how about direct tests of time dilation? Have you heard about the experiment where airplanes, with atomic clocks inside them, were flown around the world? It was found that one clock ran slowly compared to the other by the amount that Special Relativity predicted.

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss a theory that has stood for a century, in the face of so many experiments, especially if you're not an expert in the field (which I admit I am not). Although you may not see a need for the "Principle of Constancy" (that the speed of light has the same value in all frames of reference), this conclusion is made necessary by experimental evidence.

[Batman3]

In the totalitarian state of Soviet Russia, Communism was the accepted doctrine for 70 years and it is inconsistent with Christianity. In the Moslem countries, Islam was the accepted doctrine for over a thouasand years. In Christian Europe Christianity was the accepted doctrine for longer. These are inconsistent:a Triune God can not be a Unitarian God or either an atheistic god. Therefore length of time of acceptance is not a criteria for deciding on "wildness".
Relativity is a wild theory to any 5-year-old as is the round earth theory, and the claim that the ground is really moving as the earth rotates. The theory that time and space behave strangely from our ordinary concept of classical space-time is a wild theory at least untill it is explained and understood accurately. Even then it may be rejected by Occam' Razor which says that failing other evidence, one should take the simplest theory. Whatever its form, Relativity is more complicated than Classical theory.
Also Rel. was not accepted by scientists for a long time after it was published, so it was at one time a wild theory even for Grups.

Quantum theory is appearantly inconsistent w/relativity. Statistics is impossible to base a coupling with:it is too simple. It can't therefore impact on our reality, as such. Relativity deals w/communication bet. two observers:QM treats an observer-observed experiment in which the observed is worthlessly considered. If you consider the observed as communicateable to, then it becomes appearant that a "QM proton" and a "QM electron" cannot relate statistically.
v=0 in particle accelerators because the eectromagnetic fields that accelarate perticles are emiited from accelerators which have velocity v=0 w/ reference to the stationary observer. It is true that the particles travel near v=c but they are not pushing each other faster: the accelerator's EM field is doing that. The reason the acc'r can't push them faster than v=c is that the pushing is done by ElectroMagnetic fields traveling at c,speed of light. If the acc'r was moving fast, the EM fields would be moving at v+c so particles in my theory could be moving at >c or even >>c, v referenced from our frame.

I have heard of the fast moving airplane exp't . There are 2 interprations of Sp. Relativity, both attributed stubbornly to Einstein. One I call the twin paradox interpretation and the other the covariance interpretation. The twin p. int'n says that the moving twin comes back to his twin being a different age than his brother. The special relativity covarance int'n is restricted to linear motion towards or away from Earth. In this, both twins see time proceeding at the same rate from each as the other's rate. This is called covariance which is fundamental to Einstein's book(s?) and to the derivation of Einstein's equations of time and space dilation(contraction). Dilation and contraction don't mean the same here as they would seem on first glance. It is rather hard. If you assume distance to be the distance between the observers covariantly, distance is equal for both, (though perhaps with a minus sign). x1=0+vt. x2=0+(-v)t. Relavistically x'=f(x,t,v), t'=g(x,t,v), where " ' " stands for the change of reference from from one observer to the other. Then if you look back to the first reference frame, x is repaced by x' and t by t' and v= by -v'(the motion looks back too), then mathematicaly you just get x''=x, t''=t, v''=v. They look the same to each other. This may sound wrong but that it is what the math says, interpretatable physically or not. Check it out! (If you can). Time flows differently for different speeds between the twins but they flow the same for each other. The g, f functions are the lorentz tranformations. " ' " here does not mean "derivative" but "change of reference frame".
As for 'there and back again' you need General Relativity. Special Relativity is not enough because the beginining, far end turn, and the return deceleration invlove accelerations which Sp. rel. does not address. Whatever the other cases there may be, there is one in which the twins come back the same age. That is where the "moving" twin accelerated at a=g, decelerates, reaccerlerates towards Earth and then decelerates to v=0 at Earth. Meanwhile the Earthly twin stands on the surface of the Earth always experiencing a gravity force, equal and opposite that of his twin. First on the far side, then on the near side, then there again and then on the far side. The situation experientially is symmetrical. And that is where Gen Rel. covariance comes in. It says the laws of physics are the same if the observations of force are the same. Acceleration and Aerth gravity both provide 1 earth gravity force. (Both twins are inside closed rooms so they cannot see stars passing or not passing a bit.) Then the twins come back the same age.
For the twin paradox theory, the numbers are cranked out without consideration for the origins theoretically(math'ly from the axioms) of the lorentz transformations which the t.paradox perports to use.
I cannot explain the airplane exp't within relativity so there are 4 possiblities. The exp's were falseified or flubbed(they after all used QMechanics which is itself inconsistent w/relativity), or Gen. Rel. needs to be used, covariance and Einstein are wrong, or a nonrelativistic "twin paradox kind" of theory would apply, perhaps related to a specially considered reference frame located within the Aerth(an explicitly non-covariant idea) .
I am an expert in the field. I graduated from Canisius college in math and physics, also studying electromgnetism well by the way and quanum mechanics well). At W&J college I did a Sp.Rel. problem in one line which took others half a page to do, went to physics grad. school for 3 years where 90% of the EMagnetism students were completely cheating so I got an honest F, in QMech's the teacher primised at least a C and gave a D, and I got an A in first year relativity, with the high grade in the class, w/ a t-shirt of Einstein to boot, and A in the first half of Gen. Relativity. I must admit I got C in the 2nd half because of a single symbol I failed to get. They are all hard. They did not even give me their Master's degree(since I was/am a Christian, disagreed w/ QMechanics and was Honest). So I am an expert.

[wendy]

The electromagnetic formulae do not survive Newtonian inertial frame changes. This was known in 1867, when Maxwell wrote his paper on Electromagnetism.

At first there was proposed an etherfer frame (ether-carrying, ie the frame where EM rules work), but the failure of the Michelson-Morsley experiment to derermine the proper motion of the earth against this frame lead to finding alternative solutions.

Einstein had a hand at looking through the results and derived a proper theory on par with Newton's unification of terrestial and celestial gravity.

The whole notion of introducing more complex mathematics is not something that one does by habit. One tries to avoid the nasties of the spherical geometry and non-newtonian physics, but if that;s the reality then one has to do these things.

To me, i think that you are more confused with the nature of Minkowskian geometry, and would rather not have it.

[wendy]

Quantum mecahnics is not at all inconsistant with relativity, since some of the speeds that exist in qm are relativistic.

QM is simply that certian things, such as the measure of action, is quantised. Some other things are also quantised by their surroundings, such as standing waves.

The thing with the observer / observed experiment, is that the experiment is so tiny, that the effect of the observer can not be discounted. At the moment, i am having discussions with the good Professor Johnson over the observer relation with the mathematical infinity (ie infinity is not a real number, but a relationship of the observer). There are also relative geometries, where lines are straight in relation to a given point.

To begin with, one does not really start to see relativistic effects until you hit a certian range of speed: eg 0,01 c. A fast-moving aeroplane rarely reaches acoustic velocities (ie 0,00 00 01c),. To this end, it is not really appropriate to look for relativity in fast moving aeroplanes.

In lessons on relativity, the twin-paradox was to me explained. The particular paradox resolves in that the universe matters.

The thing is that if you fail the current theory, and even let something as simple as the twin paradox confuse, then you are indeed hardly an expert.

[jinydu]

Well Batman3, if you really are an expert in Special Relativity and genuinely have something serious to say about it, this isn't really the best place to say it. Instead, you should write up a scientific paper and submit it to a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

[Batman3]

This debate is getting too hot. This issue has a lot of ego to lose for all sides. I'm sorry. My expert claim was improper. But peer review is garbage if the peers are corrupt. We would argue peacably if actually physically present with paper and pencil.
I agree with Wendy that the aeroplane does not reach relativistic speeds. 1/sqr(1-v^2/c^2)=1/sqr(1-10^-6^2)=.5*10^-6 which reuires 1-in-a-million accuracy which is hard to reach. But if the airplane flies for at least an hour, a net time error would be .5*3600 sec.*10^-6 or 1/1000 sec. Since ordinary watches can keep time that well over months or years I suppose there are clocks that would be that precise in one hour. I guess I was wrong on that point of theory. A non-relativistic(twin-paradox-like) theory must therefore apply. I am not confused about the twin paradox, I just don't agree.

[Batman3]

I agree that quantum mechanics says that the states are restricted to discrete energies and that the probabity disribution is like a standing wave, but it is the probabiltistic aspect that I may not accept. The mere fact that we can discuss this honestly implies that in some domain,QM does not apply. I think honesty applies in all places though WE are not honest enough to be honest there. There cannot be a QM superposition state of True and False. The size of such experiments is immaterial to the philosophic issues at hand.

[Batman3]

I agree that Maxwell's equations give c=constant in all reference frames. You get this in Optics class.
DEL X( DEL X E)=DEL X (d/dt B)=d/dt(DEL X B)=d^2/dt^2(-1/c^2 E),
DEL X( DEL X E)=DEL(DEL.E) - d^2/dx^2 E
since DEL.E=p=0 in a vacuum we have here a 2nd order differential equation for light with sine wave solutions in which the speed of light c is constant irrespective of v. So I agree there.
But if in Maxwell's Eq'n in place of c you put C+V, the eqn looks like:DEL X B=-1/(C+V)^2 d/dt E. If you follow the above calculation with this change you should see that my light proceeds at V+C, where C is a constant speed tacked onto the velocity.

Maxwell's eqn's are: DEL.E=p, DEL.B=0, DEL X E = d/dt B, DEL X B =-1/c^2 d/dt E
My equations are: DEL.E=p, DEL.B=0, DEL X E = d/dt B, DEL X B = -1/(C+V)^2 d/dt E

Wendy, does this look right?

What about non-linear velocity of emitter vs.velocity of light emitted?

[jinydu]

Regarding the airplane experiment: The boundary between "relativistic speed" and "non-relativistic speed" is rather arbitrary; it all depends on what amount of error you're willing to tolerate. 10%? 1%? 0.1%? You get the idea. Although the special relativistic effect for the fast moving airplanes was very small, it was definitely well within the accuracy of the atomic clocks.

As for what I said about peer review: Do you really believe that scientists who review papers for major journals really are corrupt? If so, do you have any better ideas for how scientific ideas should be published? And are you aware that dozens of people every year claim to have discovered a revolutionary new Theory of Everything, and then go on to equate themselves with Newton and Einstein? How would you propose to seperate real science from crank science?

Furthermore, why do you still want to change c to c+v? I presume that your desire to do this comes from wanting to preserve the Galilean Addition formula. But why does that formula need to be preserved? As Einstein said, neither space nor time are absolute; instead, it is the speed of light that is absolute.

[Batman3]

The reason I want to substitute c+v for c is that, though the "Maxwell's" equations are slighty more complicated, the theoretical implications are simpler, and also easier to understand accurately to anyone. "Relativity" by that name has caused so much confusion since it's publication from anything from time travel to "everythings's relative".
Wild theories should not be accepted just because they are proposed. If someone were to come to you with a serious look on his face and tell you,"the moon is made of green cheese and I have good impirical evidence and a good PhD name to back it up with", and you have always believed it as made of potatoes, would you believe him? I think most people would in the case of "relativity". But that does ot make it True.
I don't think I am wrong about the corrupt Journals. Have you ever looked at at a Q.Mechanical article? Each has about 50 people claiming to have worked on it, "including those that just walked by." And what they say is nonsence too. And if you even understand what they say, it is a waste of time. Some articles in Natural Scince magazines are, of course good, but they are getting rarer. The scientific establishmets are very exclusive. Otherwise I would havea PhD in Physics, I thnik. The "science" taught in High School Biology is taught as "The Truth" and allows no interfenerence from creationists or even argument-by-design-ists. To say that a theory, (suchas Evolution ) is "The Truth"-and-all=else-is-not isn't science. It is fantasy, however accurate it may happen to turn out to be. The nature of experimental physics requires that a theory be testable and that requires at least one other theory or reality. Evolutionists allow for neither. Therefore much in the Journals that claims to be "science" is not science de facto but only de jure. (True not in fact but only by law).
It may not be possible to determine the truth or falsity of just any statement, whether crank or real, They may of course be fun. At W&J college I did an experiment called he Cavendish balanace measuring G, the gravitational constant. (It worked, even at the scale of a lab!) Separatly we calculated how faat the mirror should oscillate based on the size of the pulling masses.) That is just the point. To do experimental science you have to compare realities(or theories) with each other. If you have no Reality(such as in the fourth dimension) we may only be able to compare and contrast different theories. I have no problem with playing with Relativty as a fantasy. It is just simpler to assume a simpler concept of space such as Galileo's(untill you eat the cheese.)
I don't know if the airplane exp't was honest or not. If it was honest, it contradicts one of the two foundations of theoretical relativiy, namely that the laws of physics are the same in both reference rames of motion. I rather think the idea fun, like geocentrism or Mars-ocentrism, like in Arthur C. Clarke's book "Sands of Mars". Martian political independence, you know.

Do you know a better place than in 4d to discuss this stuff on the internet? A Science site?

[jinydu]

As for the airplane experiment, I can't say that I have looked at it in detail. But what I can say is that the airplanes were not in inertial frames of reference; they were (roughly) travelling around the Earth in a circle, and hence accelerating.

The problem with what you say about evolution is that there is currently no legitimate scientific alternative to evolution. Let's face it, creationism/intelligent design is not a real scientific theory; it is a public lobbying campaign by Christian fundamentalists to push their beliefs on others. Their central arguments (such as irreducible complexity) have been thoroughly discredited (every system that they have claimed as being irreducibly complex has been shown to be made up of smaller systems that often have another function), and their claims about an intelligent designer are vague, untestable and unfalsifiable. Furthermore, their claim that complex effects require complex causes is blatantly false, as anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of mathematics and science knows.

Yes, there are some statements that cannot be determined as true or false; but (real) science does not deal with those statements.

If you really want to disseminate your ideas properly, and you don't like traditional journals, there are several internet-based journals, such as arXIV. But be warned: every day many people claim to have discovered a revolutionary new theory; 99.9% of them have no idea what they're talking about.

[RQ]

As for the airplane experiment, I can't say that I have looked at it in detail. But what I can say is that the airplanes were not in inertial frames of reference; they were (roughly) travelling around the Earth in a circle, and hence accelerating.

The problem with what you say about evolution is that there is currently no legitimate scientific alternative to evolution. Let's face it, creationism/intelligent design is not a real scientific theory; it is a public lobbying campaign by Christian fundamentalists to push their beliefs on others. Their central arguments (such as irreducible complexity) have been thoroughly discredited (every system that they have claimed as being irreducibly complex has been shown to be made up of smaller systems that often have another function), and their claims about an intelligent designer are vague, untestable and unfalsifiable. Furthermore, their claim that complex effects require complex causes is blatantly false, as anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of mathematics and science knows.

Yes, there are some statements that cannot be determined as true or false; but (real) science does not deal with those statements.

If you really want to disseminate your ideas properly, and you don't like traditional journals, there are several internet-based journals, such as arXIV. But be warned: every day many people claim to have discovered a revolutionary new theory; 99.9% of them have no idea what they're talking about.

Jynidu, your neutrality fails me. http://darwinismrefuted.com

and by the way that guy's Muslim. And mathematics is man-made, or at least derived by men, while according to evolution it is an arbitrary random process.

[jinydu]

Evolution is about living organisms. What does that have to do with mathematics?

[thigle]

history of mathematics is co-flowing with the evolution of consciousness on this planet. evolution of consciousness is the essence of evolution of living organisms. mathematics is realization of patterns within this order around. like art. mathematics is applicable to real world, because living organisms - autopoietic systems, are creativelly evolving this ma.thematical techne, thus transforming their being within world. living organisms do math. the world is kind of math.

as for the airplanes experiment, but not quite so, einstein doesn't state impossibility of v>c for whatever. merely states that this "constant" cannot be crossed, according to relative logic. if something is atemporally abiding at states beyond lightspeed, it can "have" speed beyond limits of spacetime, however, it cannot drop under c, cannot cross the limit. at least that's how I always understood it.

[Batman3]

I agree with Jindyu that math says that a simple statement can imply complex ones. But either math is too simple(it has only one attribute and no context in which case there are no consequences) or it is dependent on a context or a hierarchy. If it has one of these last two, there is more than one aspect to any math expression and this is irreducible to the too simple case. Where did this irreducible complexity come from? To say it always existed is the same as to say we cannot grow with respect to it. Or that our growth is blind. Can Jindyu respond to those last two statements? Sorry, Jindyu.
The conclusion is that some being(or Being) created light and then separated the light from the darkness. Perhaps producing a morse code sent into the universe.

[jinydu]

I'm afraid I don't really understand what you're trying to say, Batman3. Could you state it more plainly please?

[Batman3]

Jinydu, what I am saying is that a math axiom can imply theorums but the process you use to get to them is mechanical and not life. There can be no free will or liberty. But even plant life, which has no free will or liberty, has more than mere mechanism. It seems to me that the only way for atheists to have a consistent view of non-God is that nothing exists but math and that math operates mechanically. But that contradicts the evidence of our senses(we see more than one or two colors).
I am perhaps going too deep on this point. I tend to go very deep.
With or without pure math, still I don't think that evolution theory can make sense. If there are 10 billion digits in the human DNA, it would take 10 billion changes to produce a human, each change requiring an extremely unlikely alteration of a gene and then repopulation after that. Already we are talking trillions of years. And each time a digit evolves upward, the poplation has to be almost wiped out. 10 billion times. The odds against such a human evolving are out of this world and not consistent even with one of the bases of evoultion, namely that the destructive forces are overwhelmed by the benefits, on average.

[thigle]

this shows how important is to be aware of context. theory of relativity is clearly ok for some range of what appears, however, there are realms far beyond its reach. like life, for exemple. so it's a matter of which theory of relativity and where(or what of) is one trying to hold. under & over certain range, relativity breaks down.

as far as jin's question: "Evolution is about living organisms. What does that have to do with mathematics?". again: how & why do YOU (=a living organism - part of evolution) do math ? in other words, what influence does your cognition have on your evolution ? what do you think ? less personally, what influence do kinds of grasping [the world by cognizing beings] have on their evolution ?

[jinydu]

Well, Batman3, what do you mean by "mechanical"? If you mean "explainable by natural processes and phenomena", then life is most certainly mechanical. If you think that there is some aspect of life that is not inconsistent with natural laws, it is up to you to name what that is, and show that it really is inconsistent with natural laws. I also don't see what "mechanical" has to do with color vision.

There was a time when some experts believed that living organisms had some kind of mysterious "life force" that was not subject to physical laws. This belief, known as vitalism, is now almost unanimously rejected by all serious biologists, since there is no way to observe or experiment with this "life force" and there are no known phenomena inconsistent with physical laws. Furthermore, such a belief is throughly uninformative, even if it were true. As one scientist put it: "It's like saying that cars are powered by automotive force."

In your next paragraph, you repeat some common misconceptions about evolution. First of all, it is not true that each of the DNA base pairs must be formed independently. What you're thinking of is a "point mutation" (if I remember the term correctly), that is, a change to a single base pair. However, there are many other kinds of mutations. For example, it is possible for an entire section of the genome sequence to be copied; the two copies may then undergo different changes. One of those copies could then retain its current function, while the other goes on to perform a new function. Natural organisms contain many functions that were previously used for different purposes (e.g. feathers were not initially used for flight).

I will admit that Darwin's claim that random mutation is the main source of genetic variation is no longer held by the majority of biologists. As I learned in Life Sciences 1, the consensus now is that most variations arise through a process of "genetic recombination", where chromosomes within a sex cell (or maybe embryo? my memory is not perfect) exchange genetic information with each other. Other mechanisms include genetic drift (some alleles are neutral to survival and reproduction, and may appear in a population and stay, just by chance) and endosymbiosis (one organisms consumes another, and inherits its genetic material; most often found in bacteria).

As for thigle, why do you say that Relativity is inconsistent with life? Relativity states that if, in an inertial reference frame, an object is observed to be travelling with a constant speed v, then any processes on that object will be observed to take more time by a factor of precisely:

1/sqrt(1-(v^2)/(c^2))

I don't see how that is inconsistent with life. There are some physicists who think that relativity may run into problems on very, very small scales (10^-35 meters or so); but so far, no such problems have been observed experimentally.

With thigle's second paragraph, I will say that (appropriate) cognitive abilities may influence evolution by increasing the probability that the organism will survive. My great-great-great...-great grand parents were more intelligent than competing human-like species (such as homo erectus); that's (part of the reason) why I'm alive today.

[thigle]

jin, you cannot see how " 1/sqrt(1-(v^2)/(c^2)) " is inconsistent with life ? that's because it has nothing to do with the question of what life is.

[jinydu]

jin, you cannot see how " 1/sqrt(1-(v^2)/(c^2)) " is inconsistent with life ? that's because it has nothing to do with the question of what life is.

I would say that if one thing is irrelevant to another, then they cannot be inconsistent. The computer I'm typing on is (mostly) grey; it is not raining outside. The two facts are mutually irrevelant; obviously, they don't contradict each other.

The usual definition of "inconsistent" is: two things are shown to be true, when (for one reason or another) they cannot be simultaneously true. In mathematics, this definition is formulated even more precisely: A contradiction is when both a statement and its negation have been proven.

If you want a scientific description of life, you have to look to a different set of scientific ideas than relativity. There has been some debate about the precise line between life and non-life. But the definition given in my Life Sciences 1 class should give you a good idea of what life is:

"self-reproducing chemical systems"

[Batman3]

Jinydu wrote:"life is self-reproducing chemical systems."

I am stting in front of a chemical system we label by the sound, "desk". This system propagates itself forwards in time. Does that mean it is alive? I don't think so. Life has to be more than that. Jinydu's life is mechanical just as the shape of our car's door is mechanical. Without some way of changing your mind and direction of motion, you are inert and subject completely to the laws of galilean or einstein's inertia. Not everyone is inert. Take Jesus as an example(I would hardly suffice). He died and became subject to the laws of inertia for a while and then "repented" and stopped being a mechanism. I might be wrong but that is one of my guesses. Sin tolerates no variation from inertia and tends toward totalitarianism. That does not mean a totalitarian state such as North Korea cannot be indced by a stronger hand to weaken it's state of Sin.
Furthermore, if somone is repenting of sin, he is trying to induce in the world around him and beyond him across the void a kindness towards the other souls, liivng or dead around him. That kindness may have no power except good wishes. But if it can manage good will successfully there would be a kind of "life force" involved. This can be extremely difficult in the context of a totalitarian state but I can testify that I have done it. But one of the human-looking people I was trying to save told me(and perhaps he was), that he was the "Devil". I don't think I could have saved him,though if I were more alive I might have cast him out of that human. At least I moved and spoke on their behalf.

[jinydu]

The desk is not self-reproducing. Obviously, self-reproducing does not mean "propogates itself forwards in time", since that's true for any object that isn't about to be destroyed. "Self-reproducing" means "creates new copies of itself".

In any case, if you're willing to get into Cell Theory, you can get a more precise definition of life (although this definition excludes viruses).

The rest of the post is not about science, and I won't comment.

[Batman3]

Anything that is hard to alter falls within the consideration of science.

[wendy]

One must understand that Maxwell's equations gives the proposition that EM waves travel at the EM velocity constant. Maxwell never claimed anything about relativity etc. He stated that "light travelled *in* the EM ether".

The equations of Maxwell are not newton-relative: that is, one can detect proper motion if one assumes maxwell's equations and newtonian relativity. The failure of the Michelson-Morsey experiment to find the proper motion of the earth to the etherfer leads to a breakdown of newtonian-relativity + maxwell-EM-etherfer.

The resolution came 20 years later, in the form of Einstein's special-relativity theory. Relativity exists, because we don't see certian things that newtonian-relativity + maxwells-equations suggest we ought see: such as a standing light-wave.

We don't make things difficult for that sake, we make things difficult, because that is what nature demands.

[jinydu]

Anything that is hard to alter falls within the consideration of science.

I don't know where you get that from...

(Natural) Science is the systematic study of natural, observable, repeatable phenomena.

[thigle]

i am of knowledge that standing light-waves can be seen. surely not by purely 'physical' sight. that's what my nick on these forum stand for: 'thigle' comes from tibetan, interpreted variously to mean a 'standin-wave light-packet' - 'a point-instant singularity', 'information radiality', 'isotropic', 'hypersphere',...

actually it is radiant awareness of empty luminosity (pristine cognition).
(multiu.pli.city of nterpretations is due to different resolution of different languagues over same range. like Inuits have >6 expressions for the kinds/colors of the snow. tibetans have >16 different expressions just for the basic states of consciousness.

and isn't the 'ether' the zero-point energy-field of subquantum vacuum? infinite information - zero energy ? isn't this where informational quantum coherence takes place ? life in.fomational e-m fields of living organisms are quite possibly, in their most 'schematic' forms shaped like toroidal knots.
5th element, the quintessence, the space-as-such ?

just some wondering in some mis.understanding.

jinydu. on that definition, of "self-reproducing chemical systems" i stated my opinion in the other thread partly overlapping these themes. i am not after descriptions nor definitions that much. definitions give ideas, but those are precisely at the other end of ontological scales-range as the archetypes. definitions make pondering possible, which might lead to actual experience breeding knowledge which might lead to wisdom which might lead to nodual realization. en epistemological transmutation.

batman3, i agree with jinydu in his last inquiry.

wendy, do you mean by "We don't make things difficult for that sake, we make things difficult, because that is what nature demands." that because it is unnecessary, we make it ?

[Batman3]

Wendy, I am not making my EM eq'ns more complicated for complexity's sake but because the conequences are simpler. With my theory of EM, you don't need Lorentz transformations. As for nature, the Michelson-Morley does refute the ether concept. It does not contradict my theory; my theory claims nothing about an ether(Einstein dd not say it existed either.). If my light is emitted in a direction at c+v=c+0=c and at a perpendicular direction again at c+v=c+0=c, there is no way of distinguishing between my theory and Maxwell's as in both the speed of light is emitted at c in both directions.
The alternatives then are (1) the ether theory is true(false) (2)Maxwell's eq'ns are true and therefore Einsteinian Mechanics are true(too complicaed conceptually) or (3) Maxwell's eqn's need to be replaced by something like my eq'ns(more complicated mathematically but simpler conceptually). Take your pick.

Maxwell did not know anything abou Einstein. He just wrote his eq'ns as he saw them, w/out thinking the consequences through. Alright in itself as long as you remember that is what you are doing.

Mawells eqn's>>c=constant
c=constant&covariance>>Einstein's relativty

I would be interested to see other experiments going along with relativity.on the internet, if factual. For example frame dragging by the Aerth's rotation of satelites in earth orbit. The newtonian calculations should be shown as well, considerng the oblateness of the Earth. Does anyone like Fudge?

[Batman3]

Can anyone confirm the following theorum based on my eq'ns?
Since v=0 for both my theory and Einstein's, we would not see a standing wave in my theory either. At least for v=0. v==the speed of the light emitter relative to the emitter. Since we are moving with the emitter, v=0.