A puzzle for the SRians
in [Physics]
|
Prev: New data suggest a lighter Higgs
Next:  Making Waves
From: eric gisse on 28 Jul 2010 16:13 artful wrote: [...] Pleeeassseee stop responding to seto. He's boring, stupid, and hasn't said anything new in a decade. Let's see what happens when nobody talks to him for once.
From: kenseto on 28 Jul 2010 19:46 On Jul 28, 10:04 am, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 28, 11:42 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 27, 8:52 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 27, 11:50 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 26, 5:57 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jul 26, 4:12 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Einstein's train gedanken is modified as follows: > > > > > > When M and M' are coincide with each other......two lightning strikes > > > > > > hits the ends of the train and the light fronts arrive at M' non- > > > > > > simultaneously. > > > > > > Question for the SRians: does this mean that according to the SR > > > > > > concept of relativity of simultaneity M will see the light fronts > > > > > > arrive at him simultaneously? > > > > > > Not necessarily. It depends on the speed of the train. > > > > > > But for a given pair of lightning strikes, there will be at least ONE > > > > > reference frame with an observer M" for whom the light fronts arrive > > > > > simultaneously. > > > > >But there are infinite nmuber pairs of light fronts that arrive at M > > > >and M' non-simultaneously. > > > > From other sources > > > No idiot....if the strikes happened non-simultaneously > > You said they DID happen simultaneously .. when M' and M coincide. > Make up your mind > > > at the ends of > > the train they will arrive at M' non-simultaneously. > > Maybe. And non-simultaneously in which frame .. the train or the > embankment. Please be specific. > > You're really very poor at framing your questions > > > > > That means that M and M' agree with each > > > >other on all non-simutlaneity events. > > > > No > > > Hey idiot if the strikes happened non-simultaneously they will arrive > > at M and M' non simultaneously. > > Maybe .. you have to be specific. They could be non-simultaneous for > M' and simultaneous for M, or vice versa, or non-simultaneous for > both. > > > > >That seem to violate the basic > > > >*tenet of relativity of simultaneity. > > > > You don't understand the basis > > > You are the one who don't understand the basis. > > Oh .. what a witty retort there .. not. Shame that your posts and > mine show that it is indeed you who have no idea at all of what Sr > says. > > > > >Your assertion that there is one pair of light fronts that will arrive > > > >at M" simutltaneously is irrelevant....why? because M" is not at the > > > >middle of the train. > > > > No .. it *is* at the middle of the train That is specified in the > > > gedanken > > > (which you did not modify) > > > No idiot...if the strikes were generated non-simultaneously M" must at > > different location to see the light fronts arrive at him > > simultaneously. > > What is M" ... isn't there just M and M' ... what is this M" .. I > thought it might have been a typoc, but you've done it twice now. > Hey idiot....it was PD who mentioned M'.....he said that if two light front arrive at M' non-simultaneously there is an M" observer in the train will see those two light fronts arrive at him simultaneously. My answer to him was: M" is not at the middle of the train. > Perhaps you should fully explain your scenario, rather than change it > as you go along. Althoguh, that would be the honest thing to do .. so > you probably won't > > > > >It is true that there is one pair of light fronts out of the infinite > > > >pairs of light fronts that will arrive at M' simultaneously > > > > Only one pair from the lightning bolts we are discussing .. other > > > sources > > > aren't relevant > > > Hey idiot....we are talking about that there are infinite pairs of > > strikes that can cause the light fronts to arrive at M' non- > > simultaneously. > > Sp now you're adding in strikes that weren't mentioned in your post. > Make up your mind. I was telling PD that all pairs of strikes arrive at M' non- simultaneously will arrive at M simultaneously. > > > These pairs of strikes will also cause the light > > fronts to arrive at M non-simultaneously. > > Maybe so, maybe not. You need to specify. Do you understand what the word mean? > > > > > but that > > > >pair of light fronts will also arrive at M simultaneously.... > > > > No .. as M and M; are at two different locations in the line between > > > the > > > fronts. > > > Irrelevant.... > > Wrong > > > the speed of light is independent of the motion of the > > ends of the train. > > Yes it is .. but THAT is not relevant to the fact that there is only > one midpoint of a line. So if M and M' are different points, they > cannot BOTH be at that ONE midpoint. The speed of light has nothing > to do with that fact. This shows me that you don't understand how light propagates...two light rays R1 and R2 from the strikes approach M' and two different light rays R3 and R4 from the strike approach M.....that's why ' and M see the light fronts at different times. - Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Hayek on 29 Jul 2010 05:00 Daryl McCullough wrote: > Hayek says... >> Daryl McCullough wrote: >>> Hayek says... >>> >>>> Imagine a three dimensional space. Just three dimensions. >>>> >>>> Now imagine an object in it. >>>> >>>> Now let this object move , and normalize its speed 1. >>> What does "move" mean, if you don't have a notion of >>> time? >> Just change in position. > > What does it mean to "change" a position? It means > that the position is different at two different times. You could also call it Nows, or positional configuration. Then what is the role of your "times" in all this ? Another name that confuses "past Nows" or "positional configuration" ? >>> I know what *I* mean by saying "the object has moved". >>> It means that the object at one time is at a different >>> location than it was at an earlier time. >> That is a convenience approach for you brain. > > That's what a theory of physics is all about: > a way of organizing information about the world > that is convenient for reasoning. and finding reality. In this case "time" confuses more than it organizes. I will not deny the importance of time in our "body of knowledge", but if we want to know what time really is, we have to see which tricks it is playing on us, as we are participating in this process ourselves, our biological chemistry works with motion. >> You remember the object in a, and it is now in b. > > A memory is just a record of an earlier time. Your > definitions seem completely circular. Not of an earlier time, but from an earlier position. Motion is just change in position. > You keep using time-dependent concepts: > motion is only a change in coordinates. Why should you need time for that ? > memory A configuration of objects. Like molecules on a photograph, bits in a computer, configuration of neurons. > change. two positions required, not time. > What do any of those concepts *mean*, > if you don't already have a concept of time? You can define them without time. If you can do that, then you can describe our observations without time. Not just for fun, but to understand what time is. It emerges from motiion, and not the other way around. If the motion stops, then time stops. In your view, when the motion stops, time still continues to run in the background. >> There is only one object, and it is no longer in a. > > What does "no longer in a" mean? > >> Nature does not do time. It just does motion. > > That doesn't make any sense. Motion is a *derived* concept > that depends on there being different moments of time. It is the other way around, it is motion that creates different nows, which you stubbornly want to see as moments in time. > I don't think that you have really thought this through. > > Now, somebody else, Julian Barbour, has seriously considered > what it means to say there is no time. I just recently finished reading his book, and for some basic points he means the same thing. But it is all very confused, spread out over many pages, he contradicts himself several time on what a clock is, and drags a time- and quantum-scape into the picture, which he calls platonia, which is just the time dimension in disguise. His book should not have "the End of Time" as title, but "the renaming of time as platonia". He tries to save all the existing theories and all their possible controversies. I assume you haven't read it, because then you would not use these arguments against me, and not use such a vacuous authoritative argument. Uwe Hayek. -- We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion : the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history. -- Ayn Rand I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. -- Thomas Jefferson. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. -- Winston Churchill.
From: Daryl McCullough on 29 Jul 2010 07:12 Hayek says... > >Daryl McCullough wrote: >> Hayek says... >>> Daryl McCullough wrote: >>>> Hayek says... >>>> >>>>> Imagine a three dimensional space. Just three dimensions. >>>>> >>>>> Now imagine an object in it. >>>>> >>>>> Now let this object move , and normalize its speed 1. >>>> What does "move" mean, if you don't have a notion of >>>> time? >>> Just change in position. >> >> What does it mean to "change" a position? It means >> that the position is different at two different times. > >You could also call it Nows, or positional configuration. Okay, that's what people normally mean by "time". So you're not defining time in terms of motion, you're using the usual notion of time in terms of a sequence of states of the universe. >Then what is the role of your "times" in all this ? A set of different "Nows" that are ordered (some occurred before others) *is* time. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY
From: Hayek on 29 Jul 2010 15:03
artful wrote: > On Jul 28, 7:02 pm, Hayek <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote: >> artful wrote: >>> On Jul 28, 4:35 am, Hayek <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote: >>>> Daryl McCullough wrote: >>>>> Hayek says... >>>>>> In the latest Now, every object has a velocity, >>>>>> setting direction and speed. >>>>> What does "velocity" mean, if not the derivative of >>>>> position with respect to time? >>>> It is like deprogramming a hare khrishna or something. :-) >>>> Imagine a three dimensional space. Just three dimensions. >>>> Now imagine an object in it. >>>> Now let this object move , and normalize its speed 1. >>>> When a second object covers twice the ground as the >>>> first then say it has speed 2. >>>> The position of the objects is called the Now. >>>> There is no past, no future, just the two objects and >>>> their changing positions. >>>> No need to define time or have a time dimension. >>> How can an object move (or any change occur) if there is no time? >>> ANSWER: It can't. >> Everything moves around you, > > That's no answer .. if there is no time, then nothing can move .. its > frozen. You can freeze something without stopping time, in fact it does not matter if time runs or stops, since it does not exist, it emerges from motion. Does your freezer need a time stopper ? I think of relativistic "time" dilation as inertial increase, which also stops the motion. > You've got it backwards .. you can have time without motion .. but not > vice versa. Then show me how do you have time without motion.. And what does it look like ? Does time "push" the objects ? Why can some objects then decide to stop moving ? > If something doesn't move, that doesn't mean time stops You mean that your time does not stop, because you keep moving. But suppose every molecule in your body stopped moving, then your time would have stopped completely. > there ... but if time stops, nothing can move. Everything moves or stops, and does not care about time. > Really .. you need to think thru your philosophy a little better I have, you are not trying hard enough to break through your time brainwashing. Uwe Hayek. -- We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion : the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history. -- Ayn Rand I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. -- Thomas Jefferson. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. -- Winston Churchill. |