A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Ste on 17 Feb 2010 12:51 On 17 Feb, 16:07, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 17, 10:04 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > As we discussed earlier, it may be that we are only AWARE of four > > > dimensions. It may well be that there are more. Then the way to > > > entertain this notion is to ask the question, how would something that > > > is only AWARE of two dimensions become convinced that there is a third > > > dimension? This turns out to be very answerable. > > > I'm afraid that was not my conclusion. As I've said, these > > possibilities only seem credible to those who already hold them to be > > credible. > > Well, how could they seem credible to people who don't hold them > credible? I fear the answer follows naturally from the question: they don't seem credible, to people who don't hold them to be credible. > Or do you think we were born knowing these things? I suspect the material reasons behind axiomatic beliefs are myriad, but I don't discount the possibility that people may indeed be psychologically predisposed to certain beliefs as a form of social specialisation.
From: PD on 17 Feb 2010 12:59 On Feb 17, 10:13 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Feb 16, 2:04 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 16, 12:57 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 16, 1:46 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Picking and choosing your definitions, Ken? > > > > Look at the definitions I highlighted for you. > > > > Look at your freshman physics textbook. Does it tell you that the > > > > electric field is not physical? > > > > In the past you insisted that length contraction in SR is physical and > > > at that time you think that physical means material. > > > No, sir, I *never* said length contraction was material. I said it was > > PHYSICAL. > > > > You even > > > suggested that length contraction can be measured directly by shooting > > > lasers from the ends of a moving ruler to the rest frame of the > > > observer. > > > Yes, it is MEASURABLE. Physical things are measurable. > > Energy is MEASURABLE, it is not material. > > Magnetic fields are MEASURABLE, they are not material. > > Radio waves are MEASURABLE, they are not material. > > > > So you see you think that length contraction in SR is > > > material. > > > No, it is MEASURABLE. It is not material. > > > > Also your SR brother Inertial said in this thread that contraction in > > > SR means that the atoms get closer....this means material contraction.. > > > Ken, rather than desperately trying to gather excuses to support your > > mistaken impression, why don't you just take another look at the > > correct definitions for physical that I've already shown you? Why > > don't you reread your freshman physics text again, and check whether > > it says the electric field is not physical? If you've made a small > > mistake, then CORRECT IT and move on. If you cannot ever correct a > > small mistake, you'll never get out of square one. You'll spend all > > your time searching newsgroups for support for your mistake. > > > PD > > I am tired of arguing with an idiot like you. Then stop arguing. You don't learn anything by arguing. You learn by reading materials, not by visiting a newsgroup. > Some ridiculus assertions made by you and some of your SR brothers are > as follows: > 1. In the pole and the barn scenario: > SR claims that an 80 ft material pole is able to fit into 40 ft > material barn but SR also made the contradictory claim that an 80 ft > material pole is not able to fit into a 40 ft material barn. > Inertial said that the atoms in the moving pole is closer > together......this means material contraction but PD claims that this > does not mean that the pole is materially shorter. > Tom Roberts said that: it depends on what you mean by physical then > follow by saying that "Generally, they would consider a "physical > length contraction" to mean that the object ITSELF gets physically > shorter. This is manifestly not so in SR." TR said in the past that > length contraction in SR is a geometric projection effect ....much > like a longer ladder is able to fit through a narrow door way. I agree > that geometric length contraction is not physical or material > contraction. > PD claims that the pole is physically contracted but not materially > contracted. He seem to have a new meaning for the term "physical > contraction"...a meaning that is in between material length > contraction and geometric projection length contraction effect. > > Notice that I didn't make any claim of my own...I am trying to find > out which of the above assertions is the correct SR interpretation. You have mistaken your confusion for contradictions. There are no contradictions in relativity, although it is plain you are completely confused. You would like somebody to please teach you a consistent statement about relativity on this newsgroup. I've told you over and over and over again to stop trying to get that from a newsgroup and start picking up a book. > > 2. In the Bug and the Rivet Paradox: SR claims that the bug is alive. > SR also made the contradictory claim that the bug is dead. No, SR does NOT make the statement the bug is alive. What happened is that you found a website that says that SR says the bug is alive. That website is WRONG. But because you insist on learning from websites and newsgroups, you get confused by them. If you spend your time trying to learn with stuff you can get for free, you will get garbage along with the real stuff, and you'll never know the difference, and you'll be perpetually confused. Look at yourself, Ken, you've been confused for 15 years. > > 3. In Einstein's train gedanken: SR claims that the speed of light in > the train is isotropic as measured by the observer in the train M'. > However SR also claims that M' is moving wrt the light fronts from the > strikes and thus M' should not be able to measure the speed of light > to be isotropic. No, anisotropic closing speed does NOT mean that the lightspeed should be anisotropic. > > 4. A and B are in relative motion SR claims that A will see B's clock > is running slow by a factor of 1/gamma and at the same time B will see > A's clock is running slow by a factor of 1/gamma. That's not a contradiction either. You just don't see how it's possible. That's something completely different. > > Ken Seto
From: mpalenik on 17 Feb 2010 13:04 On Feb 17, 12:51 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 17 Feb, 16:07, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Feb 17, 10:04 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > As we discussed earlier, it may be that we are only AWARE of four > > > > dimensions. It may well be that there are more. Then the way to > > > > entertain this notion is to ask the question, how would something that > > > > is only AWARE of two dimensions become convinced that there is a third > > > > dimension? This turns out to be very answerable. > > > > I'm afraid that was not my conclusion. As I've said, these > > > possibilities only seem credible to those who already hold them to be > > > credible. > > > Well, how could they seem credible to people who don't hold them > > credible? > > I fear the answer follows naturally from the question: they don't seem > credible, to people who don't hold them to be credible. That is true by definition > > > Or do you think we were born knowing these things? > > I suspect the material reasons behind axiomatic beliefs are myriad, > but I don't discount the possibility that people may indeed be > psychologically predisposed to certain beliefs as a form of social > specialisation. Except for you, right?
From: PD on 17 Feb 2010 13:05 On Feb 17, 11:51 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 17 Feb, 16:07, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Feb 17, 10:04 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > As we discussed earlier, it may be that we are only AWARE of four > > > > dimensions. It may well be that there are more. Then the way to > > > > entertain this notion is to ask the question, how would something that > > > > is only AWARE of two dimensions become convinced that there is a third > > > > dimension? This turns out to be very answerable. > > > > I'm afraid that was not my conclusion. As I've said, these > > > possibilities only seem credible to those who already hold them to be > > > credible. > > > Well, how could they seem credible to people who don't hold them > > credible? > > I fear the answer follows naturally from the question: they don't seem > credible, to people who don't hold them to be credible. > > > Or do you think we were born knowing these things? > > I suspect the material reasons behind axiomatic beliefs are myriad, > but I don't discount the possibility that people may indeed be > psychologically predisposed to certain beliefs as a form of social > specialisation. And the people who are so disposed are less inclined to be scientists. For scientists work very hard to call axiomatic beliefs into question.
From: BURT on 17 Feb 2010 13:12
The constancy of the speed of light is in space. One can move behind and ahead of light. Mitch Raemsch |