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: Inertial on 2 Nov 2009 20:46 "Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message news:thtue5d6mbe1bg75ueilvqlt6ehgq4c8bc(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 14:51:44 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >>On Nov 2, 4:18 pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote: >>> On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 08:05:55 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >On Nov 2, 12:14 am, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote: >>> >> On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 15:10:27 +1100, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> >>> >> wrote: >>> >> >"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message >>> >> >news:56lse5hig53t5v67pbb9960pblr78mc6r3(a)4ax.com... >>> >> >> On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 15:08:48 -0800 (PST), PD >>> >> >> <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> >>> >> >> wrote: >>> >> >>>> >statements have no meaning. >>> >>> >> >>>> Careful. There is only one relative speed involved. >>> >>> >> >>>There's one relative speed and a closing speed. They are different >>> >> >>>things, as they are defined differently. >>> >>> >> >> They are actually the same. >>> >>> >> >Nope. Not in any theory. Because the definitions are different. >>> >>> >> Closing speed doesn't exist in anything but SR. >>> >>> >That's incorrect. But since you haven't read much in either physics or >>> >relativity, it doesn't surprise me that you wouldn't know this. >>> >>> >> >One >>> >> >involves a singe object and an observer, the other involves two >>> >> >objects and >>> >> >an observer. Though they will always have the same value if >>> >> >Galilean >>> >> >transforms apply. That is due to the nature of the transforms, not >>> >> >because >>> >> >the definitions are the same (which clearly they cannot possibly >>> >> >be). >>> >>> >> 'Closing speed' and 'relative speed' are the same thing. >>> >>> >No, they're not, despite your lone insistence. >>> >>> 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. >> >>Actually, the POSTULATE says nothing about closing speed. That's a >>separate thing entirely. The POSTULATE refers to relative speed, not >>closing speed. >> >>But you're right, the closing speeds have the values you indicate, in >>the screen frame. >> >>> >>> The general notion comes directly from P2 >> >>No, it doesn't. It comes from the *definition* of closing speed. > > The closing speeds would be different if light speed was source dependent. Of course they would be different to the case where the speeds are source independent, because the light would have a different speed. But you posed a problem about what SR says .. and in SR the light speed is NOT source dependent. If it WAS source dependent, it wouldn't be SR and it is probably instead a theory where Galilean transforms apply >>> and is based on the Maxwellian theory >>> that light speed everywhere in an observer's frame is determined by his >>> locally >>> measured values of e and mu. This I call Einstein's 'personal aether >>> theory'...... which is a good name for it. >> >>Well, no, I don't think it's a good name for it, for a couple of >>reasons. There is no aether implied at all by SR, though you may want >>to believe otherwise. > > > Ah! but there is....as Seto's accidental revelation pointed out. AETHER > THEORIES, WITHOUT ANY CONTRACTIONS produce the same result as Einy's P2. Nope .. Seto is wrong. He's worse at physics than you .. though not my much. Simple aether (with no LT compression/slowing) gives different speeds of light in each frame (not one single speed for all), and does not give the same speed of light in all directions in other than the ether frame. It does give source speed independence, but that is only part of "Einy's P2". > It is impossible to achieve source independency of light speed without an > absolute reference frame for all light. Nope. SR does it just fine.
From: Inertial on 3 Nov 2009 07:51 "Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message news:qjsve5pf1a25sb02jl3kg6gqjpv8v16bvb(a)4ax.com... > On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 12:38:25 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: > >>"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: > >>>> >>>>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 > > Closing speed is the only true relative speed. Nosense. The speed of A relative to B is and must be the speed that B measure A to have. And that is NOT the definition of closing speed. Closing speed is the rate at which a third observer measures the distance between A and B decreasing. That's not relative speed.. > Any theory that doesn't get c > for the speed of light between a source and observer that are MAR is bogus It *is* c. The speed of light is c for EVERY observer. You're such an idiot Ralph. >>> 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. > > yes, that's the ERROR. Only error is your lack of understanding of physics. Unfortunately all attempt to rectify that have failed. You lose. >>> ...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? Obviously not
From: PD on 3 Nov 2009 11:07 On Nov 3, 3:02 am, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote: > > >Are his lies posted by an automatic reply? > > This is an automatic reply > > I haven't read your posts for years Henri outdoes himself. Remember John Lovett and the compulsive liar character he played on SNL?
From: PD on 3 Nov 2009 17:14 On Nov 3, 4:05 pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote: > On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 07:58:58 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >On Nov 2, 6:13 pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote: > >> On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 14:55:50 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >On Nov 2, 4:26 pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote: > >> >> >> 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. > > >Oh dear, Henri. Has making stuff up worked for you up to this point? > >If not, why do you keep doing it? > > >> 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. > > >But relative speed is not linked to relative speed, and therefore > >relative speed is frame independent. > > >Mphph... mmmhumm....mmMWAHAHAHAHAHAHahahahaha.... heh heh... sorry. > > I think it's time you took a course in basic physics, Diaper. Gladly. What textbook would you recommend I use that supports what you've just said? Or is your suggestion just a boondoggle like EVERY SINGLE THING YOU'VE EVER SAID?
From: Androcles on 3 Nov 2009 17:35
"Henry Wilson DSc ." <HW@..> wrote in message news:a9a1f59klq42s3172hl58461c7epjbnlev(a)4ax.com... > On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 23:51:13 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: > >>"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message >>news:qjsve5pf1a25sb02jl3kg6gqjpv8v16bvb(a)4ax.com... > >>>>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 >>> >>> Closing speed is the only true relative speed. >> >>Nosense. The speed of A relative to B is and must be the speed that B >>measure A to have. And that is NOT the definition of closing speed. >>Closing speed is the rate at which a third observer measures the distance >>between A and B decreasing. That's not relative speed.. > > Any third observer will get the same answer if his experiment is any good. > >>> Any theory that doesn't get c >>> for the speed of light between a source and observer that are MAR is >>> bogus >> >>It *is* c. The speed of light is c for EVERY observer. > > That's just part of the religion you have been victim to. > He's no victim, he's just a dumb bigot. You can't cure psychosis. |