Prev: Quantum Gravity 357.91: Croatia Shows That Probability of Vacuum Energy Density is More Important than its Vacuum Expectation Value (VEV) of the Hamiltonian Density, in line with Probable Causation/Influence (PI)
Next: Hubble Views Saturn's Northern/Southern Lights
From: Dono. on 4 Mar 2010 00:10
On Mar 3, 8:59 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>
> Well you are going to have problems with that. There is no way to
> *know* that the speed is the same both ways.

Maybe for you. Not for the people that know physics:

http://www.2physics.com/2009/11/testing-foundation-of-special.html
From: spudnik on 4 Mar 2010 00:15
"Time shall henceforth be seen on the same footing as space," and
then,
he died. what a great geometer & numbertheorist, yet
he is primarily known for this silly slogan about phase-space --
what every electronics technician uses in the lab, or
out in the field!

pretty sad, for a teacher of Einstien to be so adumbrated.

> >> Minkowksi space time?

thus:
hey, so did the epicycle for the precession of the equinoxes!

http://quest.nasa.gov/galileo/Galileo-QA/Gravity_Effect/Gravity_Assist.1
> and the Sun passes the planet, a visual effect is created that the
> planet is moving backwards to form an ellipse. There is no
> retrograde motion in the galactic frame and Newton will suffer.

thus:
"bending of time-space" is nonsequiter, and
Latin is a better dead, synthetic langauge than Esperanto!

it is a phase-space, the one that is do-able in quaternions
(a.k.a. vector mechanics), at least insofar as *special* relativity
goes.

> That'd be an excellent point, if gravitational (notice the difference) waves
> were the only prediction of GR.

thus quoth:
Danil Doubochinski emphasizes that argumental oscillations
had already found wide application in the design of particle
accelerators and electron tubes, as well as in investigations of
socalled
Fermi acceleration of cosmic rays, long before the
Doubochinski brothers’ original work in the late 1960s and 1970s.
Argumental oscillations had already appeared, around
1919, in the pioneering work of Barkhausen and Kurz on the
generation of microwaves. They noted that oscillating electrons,
interacting with the high frequency electromagnetic
field in the tubes they had constructed, spontaneously organized
themselves into “bunches,” moving in equal phase with
http://21stcenturysciencetech.com
From: Bruce Richmond on 4 Mar 2010 00:17
On Mar 3, 11:56 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 3, 6:28 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 3, 1:33 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>
> > > So you understand it and think it is correct?
>
> > > What exactly *IS* your position?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > I understand it and think it is correct.
>
> > My position is that far more people would understand it if it was
> > explained differently.
>
> Like all pedagogical strategies, something is best understood if it is
> explained in several different ways. Some readers will "see" it with
> presentation B, rather than A, C, or D. Other readers will need to see
> both A and C but find B incomprehensible. Others still will get it
> after reading A, B, and C, and will only appreciate D after having
> grasped the others.

Agreed, and I would add that there are some cranks here that refuse to
see things even when their nose is rubbed in it as when house breaking
a puppy.

> Again, there is a marked difference between the value of a theory, and
> the value of the different ways to explain the theory.

From: spudnik on 4 Mar 2010 00:25
you mean, Kepler's three orbital constraints?

now, if you must top-post,
don't blame it on some hare-brained proponent
of some God-am nettikett -- "read more," Baby!

> physical model or explanation for gravity.  However there does exist
> such a physical model which, from it Newton equation is derived as the
> >http://www.archive.org/details/historyoftheorie00whitrich

thus:
"Time shall henceforth be seen on the same footing as space," and
then,
he died. what a great geometer & numbertheorist, yet
he is primarily known for this silly slogan about phase-space --
what every electronics technician uses in the lab, or
out in the field, a bit after Minkowski's time, I guess, although
ampere's instruments were simple & widely available ... er,
Dalembert's?

pretty sad, for a teacher of Einstien to be so adumbrated.

> >> Minkowksi space time?

thus:
hey, so did the epicycle for the precession of the equinoxes!

http://quest.nasa.gov/galileo/Galileo-QA/Gravity_Effect/Gravity_Assist.1
> and the Sun passes the planet, a visual effect is created that the
> planet is moving backwards to form an ellipse. There is no
> retrograde motion in the galactic frame and Newton will suffer.

thus:
"bending of time-space" is nonsequiter, and
Latin is a better dead, synthetic langauge than Esperanto!

it is a phase-space, the one that is do-able in quaternions
(a.k.a. vector mechanics), at least insofar as *special* relativity
goes.

> That'd be an excellent point, if gravitational (notice the difference) waves
> were the only prediction of GR.

thus quoth:
Danil Doubochinski emphasizes that argumental oscillations
had already found wide application in the design of particle
accelerators and electron tubes, as well as in investigations of
socalled
Fermi acceleration of cosmic rays, long before the
Doubochinski brothers’ original work in the late 1960s and 1970s.
Argumental oscillations had already appeared, around
1919, in the pioneering work of Barkhausen and Kurz on the
generation of microwaves. They noted that oscillating electrons,
interacting with the high frequency electromagnetic
field in the tubes they had constructed, spontaneously organized
themselves into “bunches,” moving in equal phase with
http://21stcenturysciencetech.com
From: Ste on 4 Mar 2010 02:13
On 3 Mar, 17:21, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 3, 12:15 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 3, 11:04 am, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 3, 11:21 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 2, 8:12 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > It is not a function of finite propagation speeds, this we know,
> > > > > > because we took into account the finite propagation speeds in our
> > > > > > procedure for determining simultaneity/nonsimultaneity. Do you not
> > > > > > remember that?
>
> > > > > I beg to differ.  It is not a "mere" or "simple" function of finite
> > > > > propagation speed, but it *is* a function of it IMO.  RoS only took it
> > > > > into account by allowing us to use different time coordinates in each
> > > > > frame.  If the speed of light was infinite there would be no RoS.
>
> > > > I disagree. All that is needed in relativity of simultaneity is a
> > > > signal speed that can be VERIFIED to be the same from both events by
> > > > either observer. Since the distance from the events to the observer is
> > > > equal, as verifiable at any time by each observer, we learn from this
> > > > that each observer KNOWS the propagation delays from each event to the
> > > > observer are equal. This acknowledges the propagation delays
> > > > completely, but simply allows for verification that they are the same.
> > > > Then the determination of simultaneity or nonsimultaneity of the
> > > > original events is completely unambiguous: If the observer receives
> > > > both signals at the same time, then (because the propagation delays
> > > > are the same) the original events were simultaneous; if the observer
> > > > receives both signals at different times, then (because the
> > > > propagation delays are the same) the original events were
> > > > nonsimultaneous.
>
> > > Ste, there is a very easy thought experiment that I posted a few pages
> > > back that proves this wrong.  Get someone to run through it with you.
> > > I don't have the patience or time.  Even if a moving observer receives
> > > two pulses at the same time while half way between the two sources, he
> > > will conclude that they were not emitted at the same time BECAUSE the
> > > speed of light is the same in every frame.  If the speed of light were
> > > different in the moving observer's frame (like it is with sound), you
> > > would be correct.  But since the speed of light is the same in the
> > > moving observer's frame as in the rest frame, he has no choice but to
> > > conclude that the two pulses were emitted at different times, despite
> > > the fact that he receives them at the same time and he is half way
> > > between the two emitters.
>
> > ???
>
> I'll post it again:
>
> ------x-----
>
>       ^
>
> ------x-----
>
> An object, indicated by the "^" is moving vertically along the
> screen.  The two x's send out light pulses simultaneously in the rest
> frame that both reach the moving ^ when it is exactly half way between
> the two x's.
>
> Because of this, the ^ will recieve both pulses simultaneously in
> every frame--however, in the ^ frame, the observer will say that the
> two x's did not emmit the light pulse simultaneously, even though he
> recieved both pulses simultaneously.
>
> This proves that SR has nothing to do with correcting for propagation
> delays.  I don't have the time or patience to explain this to Ste, but
> I'm sure it's easily comprehensible to everyone else.
>
> (PD: note that since it's the x's moving in the ^ frame, and since the
> light is emitted when the lower x is closer to the ^ and the upper x
> is farther, the moving ^ must conclude that the light from the upper x
> was emitted first, even though both pulses hit him at the same time.
> This is because the light is moving at speed c in his frame and not c
> +v and c-v.  This probably isn't clear to Ste, but I think you see
> what I'm going for)

Mark, I'm unable to understand the basis your argument, even though I
understand what you are saying. That is, you state your assertions
baldly, and without any explanation.

As far as I'm concerned, the receiver ^ in your example would disagree
about simultaneity because there is no way to conduct a test at a
single instant in time, and therefore over the course of the
measurement process he will in fact have moved closer to one event
while moving away from the other (and, for example, the asymmetry
would be manifest in the Doppler shifting of both sources).
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173
Prev: Quantum Gravity 357.91: Croatia Shows That Probability of Vacuum Energy Density is More Important than its Vacuum Expectation Value (VEV) of the Hamiltonian Density, in line with Probable Causation/Influence (PI)
Next: Hubble Views Saturn's Northern/Southern Lights