Experts doubt Einstein..... but Einstein Dingleberries still worship him
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Quantum Gravity 398.0: USA Proves Flexagons Related to Probable Causation/Influence (PI)
Next: The Necessity of an experiment (classical electrodynamics) that should have been done 100 years ago
From: Sue... on 9 Jun 2010 23:52 On Jun 9, 11:00 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:a931b166-59a2-453a-8c4d-500e424dc61f(a)31g2000prc.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 9, 5:36 am, "Peter Webb" wrote: > > > "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > So, you don't understand SR after all. > > You don t understand relative simultaneity. You don t understand SR. > There is no point to go on discussing. > > _________________________ > Funny, you are responding only to yourself. It was you who said "So, you > don't understand SR after all". There is in fact nothing I wrote at all left > in the above; having no response you simply snipped every single thing I > said. > > I am of course still waiting for your list of experiments published in peer > reviewed journals showing that SR does not accurately model the physics of > inertial reference frames. Something like the giant list of experiments I > gave you which clearly shows it does. > ===== > Also, I am waiting your explanation of why particle accelerators all over > the world acclerate particles to near light speed and directly measure the > relativistic effects predicted by SR if SR is false. Do you have a link to the paper that documents the dimensions and clocks in the lab as measured in the particle's frame of reference? > And some words on the > observed lifetimes of particles created in cosmic ray collisions. Likewise, Do you have a link to the paper that documents the lifetime of this planet as measured in the particle frame of reference? > And the alternative explanation for why clocks on airplanes age less than > clocks not on airplanes. Amongst other things. Never heard of that one. Wouldn't the clocks need birth and death certificates to make a determination? Hints 3 and 4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_frame_of_reference#Newton.27s_inertial_frame_of_reference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_force Huge hint 5 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory Will you be among the select few that make it to 6 hints? Sue... > > Seems you have a bit of explaining to do.
From: Peter Webb on 10 Jun 2010 00:15 "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:4216d985-fbd5-4a41-8135-10a37f5376d6(a)r27g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... On Jun 9, 11:00 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:a931b166-59a2-453a-8c4d-500e424dc61f(a)31g2000prc.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 9, 5:36 am, "Peter Webb" wrote: > > > "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > So, you don't understand SR after all. > > You don t understand relative simultaneity. You don t understand SR. > There is no point to go on discussing. > > _________________________ > Funny, you are responding only to yourself. It was you who said "So, you > don't understand SR after all". There is in fact nothing I wrote at all > left > in the above; having no response you simply snipped every single thing I > said. > > I am of course still waiting for your list of experiments published in > peer > reviewed journals showing that SR does not accurately model the physics of > inertial reference frames. Something like the giant list of experiments I > gave you which clearly shows it does. > ===== > Also, I am waiting your explanation of why particle accelerators all over > the world acclerate particles to near light speed and directly measure the > relativistic effects predicted by SR if SR is false. Do you have a link to the paper that documents the dimensions and clocks in the lab as measured in the particle's frame of reference? _______________________ No. I doubt that such an experiment could be done directly. But then again, I didn't quote this as experimental verification of SR, so I am having trouble understanding how it is relevant or why I should have the results of such an experiemnt. > And some words on the > observed lifetimes of particles created in cosmic ray collisions. Likewise, Do you have a link to the paper that documents the lifetime of this planet as measured in the particle frame of reference? _________________________ No, for the same reason. And again, I did not quote this as experimental verification for SR, so it appears to be completely irrelevant. > And the alternative explanation for why clocks on airplanes age less than > > clocks not on airplanes. Amongst other things. Never heard of that one. Wouldn't the clocks need birth and death certificates to make a determination? _______________________________ No. Clocks record proper time. No birth and death certificates required. Hints 3 and 4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_frame_of_reference#Newton.27s_inertial_frame_of_reference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_force Huge hint 5 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory Will you be among the select few that make it to 6 hints? _____________________________ If you have some point to make - and I very much doubt you do - you should make that point. Providing a list of links to wikipedia pages really doesn't give is even a hint as to what you are trying to say (assuming that you do have something to say, which is not at all clear to me). Sue... > > Seems you have a bit of explaining to do. Yeah. You do. Like whether you have some point you would like to make, or some contribution relevant to the topic.
From: Koobee Wublee on 10 Jun 2010 00:41 On Jun 9, 8:00 pm, "Peter Webb" wrote: > "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > You don't understand relative simultaneity. You don t understand SR. > > There is no point to go on discussing. > > Funny, you are responding only to yourself. It was you who said "So, you > don't understand SR after all". There is in fact nothing I wrote at all left > in the above; having no response you simply snipped every single thing I > said. That is because you don't understand SR at all. <shrug> > I am of course still waiting for your list of experiments published in peer > reviewed journals showing that SR does not accurately model the physics of > inertial reference frames. Something like the giant list of experiments I > gave you which clearly shows it does. Oh, what relativistic effect? Do you mean the mass increase with speed? All transforms, including the Lorentz transform, that explain the null results of the MMX arrive at the following result through geodesic equations. ** m' = m c^2 sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2) ** m' = m c^2 / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2) Why do you favor one equation over the other? Why do you favor the Lorentz transform over the others? > Also, I am waiting your explanation of why particle accelerators all over > the world acclerate particles to near light speed and directly measure the > relativistic effects predicted by SR if SR is false. If SR is false, the mass increase might still holds because there are an infinite transforms that also manifest the same result. <shrug> > And some words on the > observed lifetimes of particles created in cosmic ray collisions. These experiments only show a possible validity in Larmor's transform which is identical to the Lorentz transform except that Larmor's transform must reference back to the stationary background of the Aether. So, if you don't show how the lifetime of the surrounding relative to these particles also time dilated, you do not prove the Lorentz transform but only Larmor's transform. <shrug> > And the > alternative explanation for why clocks on airplanes age less than clocks not > on airplanes. Amongst other things. DITTO. > Seems you have a bit of explaining to do. Done. <shrug>
From: Peter Webb on 10 Jun 2010 01:36 "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wublee(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:1dd45454-bac1-4e48-9425-4d2f3ccca81d(a)y11g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 9, 8:00 pm, "Peter Webb" wrote: >> "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> > You don't understand relative simultaneity. You don t understand SR. >> > There is no point to go on discussing. >> >> Funny, you are responding only to yourself. It was you who said "So, you >> don't understand SR after all". There is in fact nothing I wrote at all >> left >> in the above; having no response you simply snipped every single thing I >> said. > > That is because you don't understand SR at all. <shrug> > No, that is because you snipped everything I said. >> I am of course still waiting for your list of experiments published in >> peer >> reviewed journals showing that SR does not accurately model the physics >> of >> inertial reference frames. Something like the giant list of experiments I >> gave you which clearly shows it does. > > Oh, what relativistic effect? Do you mean the mass increase with > speed? No, I don't just mean that one. > All transforms, including the Lorentz transform, that explain > the null results of the MMX arrive at the following result through > geodesic equations. > > ** m' = m c^2 sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2) > > ** m' = m c^2 / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2) > > Why do you favor one equation over the other? Why do you favor the > Lorentz transform over the others? > I asked you for experimental evidence that SR is wrong. Why do you change the subject? Ohh, because you area crank, of course, and have no experimental evidence. >> Also, I am waiting your explanation of why particle accelerators all over >> the world acclerate particles to near light speed and directly measure >> the >> relativistic effects predicted by SR if SR is false. > > If SR is false, the mass increase might still holds because there are > an infinite transforms that also manifest the same result. <shrug> > That doesn't answer my question. I did not even mention "mass" in my question. Lets repeat: have you any experimental evidence that SR is wrong? More specifically: we have conducted millions of experiments on particles travelling close to light speed. Have any of these prodiced any evidence that SR is wrong? >> And some words on the >> observed lifetimes of particles created in cosmic ray collisions. > > These experiments only show a possible validity in Larmor's transform > which is identical to the Lorentz transform except that Larmor's > transform must reference back to the stationary background of the > Aether. So, if you don't show how the lifetime of the surrounding > relative to these particles also time dilated, you do not prove the > Lorentz transform but only Larmor's transform. <shrug> > That was not my question. Have you any experimental evidence that SR is wrong? Do the observed effects in particle accelerators differ from those predicted by Relativity? >> And the >> alternative explanation for why clocks on airplanes age less than clocks >> not >> on airplanes. Amongst other things. > > DITTO. Have you any experimental evidence that SR is wrong? > >> Seems you have a bit of explaining to do. > > Done. <shrug> SR has been tested in hundreds of different ways by thousands of people. Are you aware of any experimental evidence at all that SR is wrong?
From: Sue... on 10 Jun 2010 01:42
On Jun 10, 1:36 am, "Peter Webb" [...] > > SR has been tested in hundreds of different ways by thousands of people. Are > you aware of any experimental evidence at all that SR is wrong? << Einstein's relativity principle states that: All inertial frames are totally equivalent for the performance of all physical experiments. In other words, it is impossible to perform a physical experiment which differentiates in any fundamental sense between different inertial frames. By definition, Newton's laws of motion take the same form in all inertial frames. Einstein generalized[1] this result in his special theory of relativity by asserting that all laws of physics take the same form in all inertial frames. >> http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html [1]<< the four-dimensional space-time continuum of the theory of relativity, in its most essential formal properties, shows a pronounced relationship to the three-dimensional continuum of Euclidean geometrical space. In order to give due prominence to this relationship, however, we must replace the usual time co-ordinate t by an imaginary magnitude sqrt(-1) ct proportional to it. Under these conditions, the natural laws satisfying the demands of the (special) theory of relativity assume mathematical forms, in which the time co-ordinate plays exactly the same rôle as the three space co-ordinates. >> http://www.bartleby.com/173/17.html << where epsilon_0 and mu_0 are physical constants which can be evaluated by performing two simple experiments which involve measuring the force of attraction between two fixed charges and two fixed parallel current carrying wires. According to the relativity principle, these experiments must yield the same values for epsilon_0 and mu_0 in all inertial frames. Thus, the speed of light must be the same in all inertial frames. >> http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html Sue... |