An Embarrassing Question for Relativists
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What's your guys' take on Moving Dimensions Theory? Vs. String Theory / LQG?
Next: Oldest Object In Universe - Massive Star Exploding - Indicates Big Bang Not Its Origin
From: PD on 2 Nov 2009 16:39 On Nov 2, 3:22 pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote: > On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 12:47:53 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >On Nov 2, 2:40 pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote: > > >> Closing speed, as invented and exploited by SR is a eceptive lie. > > >I see. So if you are confused by the term, then it is a deceptive lie? > > It is. Closing speed is just true relative speed. > Why Henri! You've lost another bearing on your principle axle. Please write this event down so that your therapist will have some guidance to adjust the prescription.
From: Inertial on 2 Nov 2009 18:07 "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in message news:88feb880-0d58-4d0a-a48e-63dc1171efe1(a)r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > On Nov 1, 3:33 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "glird" <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote in message >> >> news:f84fcdc0-c756-4908-b6f9-d671a037f14c(a)d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... >> >> > On Nov 1, 4:08 am, "Inertial" wrote: >> >> > < LET says all distances compress, >> > but how is that any different to space contracting .. can space truly >> > be said to be not-compressed when every length IS? Similarly, does it >> > make sense to say time is unaffected when every process is slowed? > >> >> > In STR's LTE, distances don't compress; moving lengths contract in >> > their direction of motion in empty space. >> >> And the distances between thing get shorter. >> >> > As defined by Einstein and >> > as used in str equations, "time" is the indications of the hands of a >> > clock. If clock A runs slower than clock B, its time runs slower >> > accordingly. >> >> And similarly space gets contracted >> >> > < Is there really any difference between the two .. in any tangible >> > measureable sense? > >> >> > In physics, nobody knows nor asks about "reality". >> >> >> Other than the aether notion raising even more unanswered questions. > >> >> > Ask, and I will answer any such question you pose. >> >> How does the aether cause ALL objects to compress, > > It doen't. The physical length of an object remains the same in all > frames of reference. Not in LET. An object only has its physical length in the aether frame. In other frames it has the illusion of having its physical length because the rulers you measure it with are also compressed >> all types of fields to >> compress .. everything to compress. > > Fields are stresses in the ether and stress in the ether is caused by > the absolute motion of an object in the ether. > >>How does the aether cause all types of >> processes to slow down by exactly the same amount? > > It doesn't....nothing is slowdown according to absolute time. It dees in LET. All processes slow down. > The > observed time dilation is due to a clock second contains a different > amount of absolute time in different frames (different states of > absolute motion). Which is because the processes in the clock (no matter what clock) are slowed down. > >>How can the aether >> behave like a perfect solid and yet allow matter to move through it >> totally >> unimpeded by it? > > Matter particles are repulsive to the aether and thus they maintain > their motion without dlowing down. So the aether moves out of the way? In which case how can it have any compression of object or slowing of processes if it doesn't interact with the matter? >> What it the aether made of and what is its physucal >> properties? > > Hey idiot it is made of the ether. So you don't know >> How large is the arther? > > Stupid question. So you don't know There's a lot you don't know and are wrong about Seto ... but we already knew that. But it is nice the you oblige by demonstrating your ignorance.
From: Inertial on 2 Nov 2009 18:12 "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in message news:d05c0126-88e1-4465-81ab-745dc973197e(a)f16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > On Nov 1, 6:47 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "kenseto" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message >> >> news:04a251eb-18ca-4ad9-a9e5-38f15571c6a6(a)p35g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Nov 1, 3:43 am, Ilja <ilja.schmel...(a)googlemail.com> wrote: >> >> On 31 Okt., 19:01, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: >> >> >> > On Oct 30, 4:53 pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote: >> >> > > That is plainly an aether concept. >> >> >> > No....SR claims that EVERY OBSERVER will measure the speed of light >> >> > to >> >> > be istropic. LET claims that only the ether observer will measure >> >> > the >> >> > speed of light to be isotropic. >> >> >> False. LET claims that our rulers and clocks are distorted in such >> >> a way that, despite the fact that true light speed would be >> >> anisotropic, >> >> the light speed as measured with the distorted rulers and clocks >> >> appears isotropic. >> >> > Question: >> > Does the ruler contracts differently when it is not oriented in the >> > direction of absolute motion? >> >> How do you mean differently? The compression is only in the direction of >> absolute motion in LET. There is no compression in the directions >> orthogonal to the motion. > > That's the point: if compression is only in the direction of absolute > motion then how can the speed of light is isotropic in all > directions??? Why do you think compression in the other directions (in which the object does not move relative to the aether) would have ANY effect on the isotropy. All it would change is what that common velocity would be. And, of course, no amount of compression or slowing of clocks will result in isotropy of measured light speed UNLESS there is also RoS, You have previously shown you are totally incapable of understanding the basic math and physics that shows that, so no point showing you again.
From: Inertial on 2 Nov 2009 18:20 "Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message news:dljue5techsn97b6kdsggeniguste1etsj(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 08:05:55 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > OK, by way of clarification, here's another experiment. > > > O1->v............................................................S1->w > O2-u....................................................S2->x > > As usual, speeds are relative to the screen frame. > > Now we know what SR says. > > Its postulate says light from both S1 and S2 'close on' the observers at > c+v > and c+u. Yeup. You finally got something right, assuming 'close on' means closing speed. My god .. does this mean you have finally actually learnt something ... because you didn't seem to know this when you started this thread. [snip nonsense]
From: Inertial on 2 Nov 2009 20:38
"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message news:qasue5llu5tsttp291jn9hq1agal5sungq(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 14:55:50 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >>On Nov 2, 4:26 pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote: >>> On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 13:37:11 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >On Nov 2, 3:13 pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote: > >>> >> >> I ask you, why would anyone have faith in a theory that knowingly >>> >> >> produces a >>> >> >> WRONG answer? >>> >>> >> >What experimental evidence is there that it is wrong? >>> >>> >> The true closing speed is c. >>> >>> >Repeating an error does not make it any closer to being correct. See >>> >the *definition* of closing speed. >>> >>> >> SR can give it any value simply by moving an observer. >>> >>> >Yes, indeed. Closing speed is a frame-dependent quantity, >>> >>> no....only in SR. >> >>No, by *definition*. Really, you should look at the definition. >> >>> Its real name, 'relative speed between two objects' is NOT frame >>> dependent. >>> >>> >like many >>> >other frame-dependent quantities, such as momentum and kinetic energy. >>> >Not a thing wrong with that. >>> >>> Naturally they are frame dependent. They depend on RELATIVE speed. >> >>So is electric field frame-dependent. Hmm.... >> >>So let's see. You say that kinetic energy, which is dependent on >>RELATIVE speed, is naturally frame dependent because of that fact. >> >>But "relative speed between two objects", which is obviously dependent >>on RELATIVE speed, is obviously NOT frame-dependent? > > You really should try to THINK, Diaper. > > The relative speed between any two objects, dx/dt, IS the relative speed > between their two frames. It doesn't involve any other frames and no > physical > quantity can be dependent on itself....although relativists rely on such > circular logic for their entire theory. And that is NOT closing or separation speed, which by definition uses the difference in distance between TWO object between two times as observed in an observers frame. That is also the same as the addition/subtraction of the (relative) speeds of the two objects in that frame. It does NOT use the difference in distance of a single object from the observer between two times in that observers frame, which is what relative speed is. Two very different concepts, that happen to have the same value in theories where Galilean transforms apply > An object's KE and P are directly linked to its speed relative to > whichever > frame the measurement applies....so naturally it IS frame dependent. As is closing speed. > ...can you see the difference, Diaper? You're the one who is confused, not PD. Have you not embarrassed yourself enough in this thread yet? |