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 3 Nov 2009 19:30 "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in message news:147aa123-21a8-44f5-8f32-e5f3199c6efd(a)p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > On Nov 2, 6:14 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "kenseto" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message >> >> news:6d55739c-5050-4ae0-b416-5980b8d2baa5(a)m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Nov 2, 3:21 am, Ilja <ilja.schmel...(a)googlemail.com> wrote: >> >> On 1 Nov., 20:51, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: >> >> >> > On Nov 1, 3:43 am, Ilja <ilja.schmel...(a)googlemail.com> wrote: >> >> > > 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? If the answer is yes then it can not >> >> > give isotropy of the speed of light. >> >> >> They contract only in the direction of absolute motion. In the >> >> directions >> >> orthogonal to absolute motion there is no Lorentz contraction. >> >> >> And it can give isotropy - but of course only if combined with >> >> time dilation and the Einstein synchronization procedure. >> >> > This is wrong....you cannot have isotropy of the speed of light if >> > contraction is only happened in the direction of absolute motion. >> >> You are wrong again >> >> > This >> > means that your assertion that LET says that the speed of light is >> > isotropic in all inertial frame is also wrong. >> >> You are wrong again >> >> > So that means that what >> > I claimed originally that LET says that the speed of light is >> > isotropic only in the rest frame of the ether is correct. >> >> You are wrong again > > Idiot runt of the SRians. You're the one that is wrong.. not me. Calling me an idiot runt doesn't make you any less wrong.
From: Inertial on 3 Nov 2009 19:32 "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. Nope >>> 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. I have no religion. And experiment shows the light speed is source independent. You're living in your own little fantasy world of denial with the fairies.
From: Inertial on 3 Nov 2009 19:52 "Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message news:cqi1f556fhffiot4nbgp350gt6kovijtn9(a)4ax.com... > On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 14:10:31 -0800 (PST), kenseto <kenseto(a)erinet.com> > wrote: > >>On Nov 2, 4:10 pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote: >>> On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 06:54:04 -0800 (PST), kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> >>> wrote: >>> >On Nov 1, 4:07 pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote: > >>> >> >The closing speed between any object and light is c as measured in >>> >> >the >>> >> >object's frame of reference. If an observer sends a light pulse >>> >> >toward >>> >> >an object then the closing speed between that light pulse and the >>> >> >object is c+v or c-v. >>> >>> >> I assume the object is moving at v wrt the absolute aether. >>> >>> >NO the object is moving at v wrt the observer. The observer assumes >>> >that the speed of light in the ether is c. So when the observer sends >>> >a light pulse toward the object the closing speed between the object >>> >and the light pulse is c+v or c-v. >>> >>> Let's see. >>> If the observer is moving at u wrt the aether then the object is moving >>> at u-v >>> wrt Aether. >> >>No the object has its own state of absolute motion in the ether. > > That's what I said > >>>So the closing speed is c-u+v wrt the aether and therefore c+v wrt >>> the observer. >> >>No the observer assumes that the speed of light in the ether is >>c....therefore the closing speed for a light pulse from the observer >>to the object is c+v or c-v. > > That's what I said....but I just said c+v because v can be + or -. > > I can understand why you don't know how to respond when someone agrees > with > you. > >>> Very good Ken. I'm glad you got that correct without mentioning the LTs. >>> >>> >> In that case, you will argue that the object's rods and clocks are >>> >> contracted >>> >> such that they will always MEASURE OWLS to be c...so your first >>> >> statement is >>> >> correct in aether theories... >>> >>> >NO...the speed of light is a ratio in all frames as follows: >>> >Light path length of physical ruler (299,792,458 m)/the absolute time >>> >content for a clock second co-moving with the ruler. >>> >>> That is the same as I said. >>> You assume both the ruler and clock contract by the same factor. >>> You have now introduced the LTs. >> >>No I didn't introduce the LT. I show that the speed of light is a >>constant ratio of light path length of ruler over the absolute time >>content for a clock second co-moving with the ruler in all inertial >>frame. > > Isn't that saying the same thing? > >>> >> The second statement says tha >>> >t the closing speed is independent of source speed >>> >> and so the closing speed is just the sum of c and the object's >>> >> absolute speed >>> >> wrt the aether. >>> >>> >No there is no absolute speed involved. >>> >>> >> So you have correctly stated the aether theory case. >>> >>> >> LET is such a nice theory. What a pity there is no aether. >>> >>> >Assertion is not a valid arguement. >>> >>> >> There IS one thing that worries me. >>> >>> >> S.......................................-v<-O1.............O2->v >>> >>> >> Here, source S is at rest in the absolute aether. O1 and O2 are >>> >> moving at v in >>> >> opposite directions relative to the aether. >>> >>> >OK >>> >>> >> How can they both measure the speed of light from S to be always c >>> >> when its >>> >> closing speeds are c+v and c-v >>> >>> >From S point of view the closing speed to of light to o1 is c+v and to >>> >o2 is c-v. However O1 and O2 will measure the light from S to be c as >>> >follows: >>> >c=(measured frequency)(measured wavelength). >>> >As I pointed out to you earlier this SR arguement is bogus. The speed >>> >of light to O1 and O2 are different as follows: >>> >c'1=(measured higher frequency of approching light source S)(universal >>> >wavelength of the source) >>> >c'2=(measured lower frequency of the receding light source S) >>> >(universal wavelength of the source) >>> >>> I understand what you are saying. >>> >>> Einstein's idea is that every observer carries a 'personal aether' that >>> determines ligh speed in his frame. >> >>No it doesn't have to be that way if the speed of light is a constant >>ratio as I shown above. > > That's what I passed on to inertial and diaper. It's far too hard for them > though. I understand just fine. Ken's theory is self-contradictory. Although it does predict relativity of simultaneity, but Ken doesn't have the brains to actually see WHAT his theory predicts .. he just spouts the same old mantra about light path length of rod without any concerns for its implications.
From: Inertial on 3 Nov 2009 19:57 "Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message news:uuj1f5t4le1847nubu3gg1r824p9v48isu(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 11:30:58 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: > >>"kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in message >>news:147aa123-21a8-44f5-8f32-e5f3199c6efd(a)p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... >>> On Nov 2, 6:14 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >>>> "kenseto" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message >>>> >>>> news:6d55739c-5050-4ae0-b416-5980b8d2baa5(a)m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> > On Nov 2, 3:21 am, Ilja <ilja.schmel...(a)googlemail.com> wrote: >>>> >> On 1 Nov., 20:51, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >> > On Nov 1, 3:43 am, Ilja <ilja.schmel...(a)googlemail.com> wrote: >>>> >> > > 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? If the answer is yes then it can not >>>> >> > give isotropy of the speed of light. >>>> >>>> >> They contract only in the direction of absolute motion. In the >>>> >> directions >>>> >> orthogonal to absolute motion there is no Lorentz contraction. >>>> >>>> >> And it can give isotropy - but of course only if combined with >>>> >> time dilation and the Einstein synchronization procedure. >>>> >>>> > This is wrong....you cannot have isotropy of the speed of light if >>>> > contraction is only happened in the direction of absolute motion. >>>> >>>> You are wrong again >>>> >>>> > This >>>> > means that your assertion that LET says that the speed of light is >>>> > isotropic in all inertial frame is also wrong. >>>> >>>> You are wrong again >>>> >>>> > So that means that what >>>> > I claimed originally that LET says that the speed of light is >>>> > isotropic only in the rest frame of the ether is correct. >>>> >>>> You are wrong again >>> >>> Idiot runt of the SRians. >> >>You're the one that is wrong.. not me. Calling me an idiot runt doesn't >>make you any less wrong. > > Maybe not...but at least he got this one right. Nope. You, he, and Androcles are uneducated buffoons who couldn't understand physics if your life depended on it. But at least you give those of us who DO understand it something to laugh about. This thread has been particularly amusing, watching you trying to weasel out of your mistakes.
From: PD on 4 Nov 2009 09:39
On Nov 3, 6:54 pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote: > On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 14:14:13 -0800 (PST), PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >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? > > Just read the definition of a FoR. OK, what reference do you recommend for this definition, and where will it tell me that relative speed and/or closing speed is frame- independent? |