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 01:26 "Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message news:k0use5dejstn6pn1d6t6ecl7rdkqcha3av(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 15:10:27 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively(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 <thedraperfamily(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. Wrong >>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. Wrong >>>>You seem to be having a vocabulary problem here. >>>> >>>>It's a little like someone showing you a bushel of styrofoam that >>>>weighs a half a kilogram and a brick of steel that weighs 5 kilogram, >>>>and you fussing that someone told you that there was more steel there >>>>than styrofoam and someone else told you there was more styrofoam than >>>>steel. "There is only one 'bigger' here," you mutter. >>> >>> not a good analogy... >> >>But it is. You think the closing speed and relative speed are both just >>the >>one thing .. speed. And you can't get it into your head that they are >>different concepts. > > Closing speed is nothing other than an escape route for SR. Wrong Three strikes and you're out. You're such a fool, Ralph, Why do you embarrass yourself like this?
From: Inertial on 2 Nov 2009 01:27 "Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message news:j9use5l999tdkbeppdh8bs7kb6d9fj37b1(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 15:27:51 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: > >>"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message >>news:7mmse5h6g8k718qn2v0drfhn8vj078klfj(a)4ax.com... >>> On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 10:56:02 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>>"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message >>>>news:s2tre5hknhdd6573o4qshktpnoemlctam5(a)4ax.com... >>>>> On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 07:35:09 -0800 (PST), kenseto <kenseto(a)erinet.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>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: >>>>> >>>>>>> >> 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. >>>>> >>>>> I assume the object is moving at v wrt the absolute aether. >>>> >>>>There is no absolute aether in SR. What theory is it you are >>>>misunderstanding this time? >>>> >>>>> 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... >>>> >>>>In LET .. yes. Most other aether theories are already refuted >>>> >>>>> The second statement says that 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 .. the sum of c and the object's speed relative to the observer >>>> >>>>> So you have correctly stated the aether theory case. >>>>> >>>>> LET is such a nice theory. What a pity there is no aether. >>>>> >>>>> There IS one thing that worries me. >>>> >>>>Ie you don't understand. I think your estimate of 'one' is a little low >>>> >>>>> S.......................................-v<-O1.............O2->v >>>>> >>>>> Here, source S is at rest in the absolute aether. >>>> >>>>So we are talking about LET rather that SR now? >>> >>> I was all along. I was replying to Seto. >>> >>>>> 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 and their rods and clocks contract by >>>>> the >>>>> same >>>>> amount according to the LTs? >>>> >>>>Due to the compressing of objects and fields and the slowing of all >>>>processes that happens as a result of motion through the aether. That >>>>also >>>>results in clocks the appear synchronised to observers moving with them >>>>actually NOT being synchronised. As with SR .. you need to consider all >>>>three things .. the contraction/compression, the time dilation/slowing, >>>>and >>>>the change in clock synchronization. If you consider only one or two in >>>>isolation you get contradictions .. you need to consider all three as >>>>that >>>>is what both SR and LET require. Gees .. that's pretty basic LET and SR >>>>stuff. >>> >>> I don't think you explained that very well. >> >>Your problems understanding what people post are legendary >> >>> Maybe you meant this: >>> Each observer sets up two separated and presyched clocks with which he >>> intends >>> to measure the OWLS of S's (or any light) light. >> >>How does he sync the clocks? > > WelI didn't like to raise that question because it probably refutes the > whole > theory....and SR. > >>> The clocks are separated by a rod, the length of which is physically >>> contracted >>> by gamma. >> >>Yeup >> >>> The four clocks are also slowed by the same factor gamma and so they >>> get the same value for the speed of light through the aether. >> >>Yeup .. one you take into account the RoS that is implicit in your >>synchronising of the clocks. >> >>> That is OK if there is an aether. >> >>As we were talking about LET, then there is >> >>> The theory is plausible. >>> However, Einstein merely turned that conclusion of LET into a postulate >> >>LET has a 'postulate' that motion thru the aether compresses all object >>and >>all types of fields, and slows all types of processes and as a result also >>puts clocks our of synch. Given that there is no evidence of such an >>aether, there is no good reason to assume motion through it would do that, >>other than it then gives you a constant speed for light. >> >>> and >>> became famous as a result. SR is just LET in another cloak. >> >>Nope. >> >>> It is just as incorrect, too. >> >>Nope. Not that you've ever been able to show .. despite your so-called >>'embarrassing question'. > > I'm sick of this thread. I'm not surprised .. it backfired on your completely > I have proved my point. Yeup .. that you're an embarrassment and don't know understand what SR says.
From: Inertial on 2 Nov 2009 03:16 "Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message news:al3te5tcu0ri4kesat3tmujbl0gioik5vj(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 17:27:30 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote: > >>"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message >>news:j9use5l999tdkbeppdh8bs7kb6d9fj37b1(a)4ax.com... >>> On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 15:27:51 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>>"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message >>>>news:7mmse5h6g8k718qn2v0drfhn8vj078klfj(a)4ax.com... >>>>> On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 10:56:02 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message >>>>>>news:s2tre5hknhdd6573o4qshktpnoemlctam5(a)4ax.com... >>>>>>> On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 07:35:09 -0800 (PST), kenseto >>>>>>> <kenseto(a)erinet.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>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: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >> 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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I assume the object is moving at v wrt the absolute aether. >>>>>> >>>>>>There is no absolute aether in SR. What theory is it you are >>>>>>misunderstanding this time? >>>>>> >>>>>>> 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... >>>>>> >>>>>>In LET .. yes. Most other aether theories are already refuted >>>>>> >>>>>>> The second statement says that 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 .. the sum of c and the object's speed relative to the observer >>>>>> >>>>>>> So you have correctly stated the aether theory case. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> LET is such a nice theory. What a pity there is no aether. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There IS one thing that worries me. >>>>>> >>>>>>Ie you don't understand. I think your estimate of 'one' is a little >>>>>>low >>>>>> >>>>>>> S.......................................-v<-O1.............O2->v >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Here, source S is at rest in the absolute aether. >>>>>> >>>>>>So we are talking about LET rather that SR now? >>>>> >>>>> I was all along. I was replying to Seto. >>>>> >>>>>>> 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 and their rods and clocks contract by >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> same >>>>>>> amount according to the LTs? >>>>>> >>>>>>Due to the compressing of objects and fields and the slowing of all >>>>>>processes that happens as a result of motion through the aether. That >>>>>>also >>>>>>results in clocks the appear synchronised to observers moving with >>>>>>them >>>>>>actually NOT being synchronised. As with SR .. you need to consider >>>>>>all >>>>>>three things .. the contraction/compression, the time >>>>>>dilation/slowing, >>>>>>and >>>>>>the change in clock synchronization. If you consider only one or two >>>>>>in >>>>>>isolation you get contradictions .. you need to consider all three as >>>>>>that >>>>>>is what both SR and LET require. Gees .. that's pretty basic LET and >>>>>>SR >>>>>>stuff. >>>>> >>>>> I don't think you explained that very well. >>>> >>>>Your problems understanding what people post are legendary >>>> >>>>> Maybe you meant this: >>>>> Each observer sets up two separated and presyched clocks with which he >>>>> intends >>>>> to measure the OWLS of S's (or any light) light. >>>> >>>>How does he sync the clocks? >>> >>> WelI didn't like to raise that question because it probably refutes the >>> whole >>> theory....and SR. >>> >>>>> The clocks are separated by a rod, the length of which is physically >>>>> contracted >>>>> by gamma. >>>> >>>>Yeup >>>> >>>>> The four clocks are also slowed by the same factor gamma and so they >>>>> get the same value for the speed of light through the aether. >>>> >>>>Yeup .. one you take into account the RoS that is implicit in your >>>>synchronising of the clocks. >>>> >>>>> That is OK if there is an aether. >>>> >>>>As we were talking about LET, then there is >>>> >>>>> The theory is plausible. >>>>> However, Einstein merely turned that conclusion of LET into a >>>>> postulate >>>> >>>>LET has a 'postulate' that motion thru the aether compresses all object >>>>and >>>>all types of fields, and slows all types of processes and as a result >>>>also >>>>puts clocks our of synch. Given that there is no evidence of such an >>>>aether, there is no good reason to assume motion through it would do >>>>that, >>>>other than it then gives you a constant speed for light. >>>> >>>>> and >>>>> became famous as a result. SR is just LET in another cloak. >>>> >>>>Nope. >>>> >>>>> It is just as incorrect, too. >>>> >>>>Nope. Not that you've ever been able to show .. despite your so-called >>>>'embarrassing question'. >>> >>> I'm sick of this thread. >> >>I'm not surprised .. it backfired on your completely >> >>> I have proved my point. >> >>Yeup .. that you're an embarrassment and don't know understand what SR >>says. > > SR invented an expression that it hoped would extricate it from an > embarrassing > situation. It hasn't worked. And you got it wrong > The closing speed between a source and observer which are MAR is always c. No > SR thinks it can get any value through its concocted definition, which is > nothing more than a useless hoax. You can't weasel the way out of it .. you got it wrong and embarrassed yourself
From: Ilja on 2 Nov 2009 03:21 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.
From: kenseto on 2 Nov 2009 09:32
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. > 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. 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). >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. > What it the aether made of and what is its physucal > properties? Hey idiot it is made of the ether. > How large is the arther? Stupid question. Ken Seto |