Prev: Quantum memory may topple Heisenberg's uncertainty principle
Next: Does a flat observable universe imply an infinite universe?
From: Sam Wormley on 12 Aug 2010 09:46
On 8/12/10 8:06 AM, kenseto wrote:
> In real life no such measurement is possible....only predictions and
> you runts of the SRians keep on perpetuating the myth that predictions
> are measurements to give your theory more credence.

Special relativity would not have survived for this more than a
century now, had it not been confirmed by observation and experiment.

Physics FAQ: What is the experimental basis of special relativity?
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html

One very striking example of special relativity is the observed
kinematics of accelerating particles in particle accelerators. See
"The impact of Einstein's theory of special relativity on particle
accelerators", http://iopscience.iop.org/0953-4075/38/9/020
From: Inertial on 12 Aug 2010 11:17
"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:MK-dnb-BPPS0Zv7RnZ2dnUVZ_uqdnZ2d(a)mchsi.com...
> Special relativity would not have survived for this more than a
> century now, had it not been confirmed by observation and experiment.

Why bother replying to him? You're just feeding the troll

From: Sam Wormley on 12 Aug 2010 12:48
On 8/12/10 10:17 AM, Inertial wrote:
> "Sam Wormley" wrote in message
> news:MK-dnb-BPPS0Zv7RnZ2dnUVZ_uqdnZ2d(a)mchsi.com...
>> Special relativity would not have survived for this more than a
>> century now, had it not been confirmed by observation and experiment.
>
> Why bother replying to him? You're just feeding the troll


Perhaps someone will benefit that reads these newsgroups!


From: Tony M on 12 Aug 2010 23:01
On Aug 4, 1:48 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
> On Aug 4, 11:33 am, Tony M <marc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 4, 9:57 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > So every observer
> > > does not know if the observed clock is running slow or fast compared
> > > to his clock. This means that he must include both possibilities when
> > > predicting the rate of an observed clock as follows:
> > > Observed clcok runs slow:
> > > Delta(t')=gamma*Delta(t)
> > > Observed clock runs fast:
> > > Delta(t')=Delta(t)/gamma
>
> > Ken, why not Delta(t)/gamma <= Delta(t') <= gamma*Delta(t)? Think
> > about it!
>
> No....Delta(t')=gamma*Delta(t) means that the passage of
> Delta(t') on the t' clock is equal to the passage of
> gamma*Delta(t) on the t clock....that means that the t' clock is
> running slower than the t clock.
> Similarly...Delta(t')=Delta(t)/gamma means that the passage of
> Delta(t') on the t' clock is equal to the passage of
> Delta(t)/gamma on the t clock....that means that the t' clock is
> running faster than the t clock.

Ken, I believe that's backwards, but let's try the following exercise.

Let's use 3 observers, A, B and C, with their time intervals tA, tB
and tC, all moving with the same relative velocity v, so we have the
same gamma between each pair of observers. (Yes, that's possible.)

From your theory the below observations should all be true:
Observer A would measure:
(1) tB=tA*gamma or (2) tB=tA/gamma
(3) tC=tA*gamma or (4) tC=tA/gamma
Observer B would measure:
(5) tC=tB*gamma or (6) tC=tB/gamma

Now, if (1) and (3) are true that means tB=tC, which contradicts both
(5) and (6); observers A and B would disagree on their observations.
If we take (1) and (4) as true then tB=tC*gamma^2, which contradicts
both (5) and (6); observers A and B would disagree on their
observations.
The same goes for the other combinations. If we apply your theory to 3
observers none will agree with (all) each-other's observations. At
least in SR they agree to disagree.
From: Inertial on 12 Aug 2010 23:33
"Tony M" wrote in message
news:82a8d94c-94e9-4496-8d3f-9fa338036613(a)x21g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>The same goes for the other combinations. If we apply your theory to 3
>observers none will agree with (all) each-other's observations.

Ken's 'theory' is self-contradictory nonsense. But he's an ignorant troll
and won't admit it even when it is so clearly pointed out (some of it can
'work' for 2 bodies, but put in a third and it falls apart).

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Prev: Quantum memory may topple Heisenberg's uncertainty principle
Next: Does a flat observable universe imply an infinite universe?