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: glird on 1 Nov 2009 10:34 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. 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. < 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. glird
From: kenseto on 1 Nov 2009 10:51 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? If the answer is yes then it can not give isotropy of the speed of light.
From: rotchm on 1 Nov 2009 11:32 Lest try the simple Boolean logic problem to see if you grasp the basics: Premise: If frame X ( observer X) measures the speed of Light, he will get c. If O2 measures the speed of Light, O2 will get ?? If O1 measures the speed of Light, ?? will get c I hope you got those two. A hint? Answer in my previous reply. Now a tricky one: If O1 measures the closing speed of ... What does the premise imply for this beginning of sentence? You said: >'Closing speed', completely misinterpreted by SRians, is none other than good >old fashioned Newtonian 'relative speed'. Yes to the "old fashioned" Newtonian "relative speed". Dont mixup the meaning of "relative speed" here. That is why "SR" has given it another name: closing speed. Closing speed as defined in SR isthe same defintion of the old old fashioned Newtonian relative speed: The speed difference between two "things" as measured by ONE observer. If O1 measures speed of thing one to be c and measures the speed of thing two to be v then (a little exercise in basic algebra for you) what is the difference between these two speeds ( i.e the closing speed) ?
From: Inertial on 1 Nov 2009 15:33 "glird" <glird(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, all types of fields to compress .. everything to compress. How does the aether cause all types of processes to slow down by exactly the same amount? How can the aether behave like a perfect solid and yet allow matter to move through it totally unimpeded by it? What it the aether made of and what is its physucal properties? How large is the arther? If it is finite, what is beyond the aether? There are a LOT of questions raised by aether theories
From: Inertial on 1 Nov 2009 18:44
"kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in message news:8425ca73-62f6-4052-8403-ae7196e38030(a)j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com... > On Oct 31, 3:43 pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote: >> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 07:13:46 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >On Oct 31, 2:26 am, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote: >> >> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:34:04 -0700 (PDT), PD >> >> <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >On Oct 30, 4:29 pm, HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote: >> >> >> >> ...and if two rays have different closing speeds on the same >> >> >> >> object as >> >> >> >> determined by the same observer, then it is bloody obvious they >> >> >> >> don't have the >> >> >> >> same speed at all. >> >> >> >> >And where is that the case? >> >> >> >> You claim that the closing speed of S2 on O2 is not c is the type >> >> >> of fairytale >> >> >> one would expect to hear in a madhouse or a mosque....or, of >> >> >> course, in the >> >> >> home of an aetherist.. >> >> >> >Nonsense. In the frame drawn, light is traveling from right to left >> >> >at >> >> >c. In the frame drawn, O2 is traveling from right to left at v. >> >> >By *definition* of closing speed (you perhaps should look it up), it >> >> >is c-v. >> >> >> >Closing speed is DEFINED as the numerical difference between the >> >> >speeds of two objects, as seen by an observer that is neither of >> >> >those >> >> >objects. >> >> >> Funny! that sounds just like Netonian definition of speed. >> >> >That's how it's defined. Now, you will notice that this closing speed >> >does not correspond to a *measurable* quantity. The *measured* >> >relative speed between those two bodies is the measurement done by one >> >of the bodies. And in that case you find that the measured value does >> >not match the numerical difference found in the closing speed. This is >> >where the break with Newtonian physics happens. >> >> OK let's get this straight. >> >> We know that the true closing speed of S1's light on O1 is c.... because >> the >> two are MAR. >> There is a theory called SR that says that closing speed is c-v to an >> observer, >> O3, who is moving wrt S1. > > 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. Yeup .. when you're right you're right (doesn't happen often .. enjoy the moment :) |